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.
Stragglers:
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
Monday, June 25, 2007
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.
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 ...
Yow!
http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/news/news3.asp
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.
http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/news/news3.asp
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.
Who?
Exactly.
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.
Who?
Exactly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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?)
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Feet of clay
Why can’t an American win in Paris?
Americans don’t play the same tennis that the French do. In the States, kids train on fast, concrete courts, and it’s wham, bam, up yours, ma’am. The recent crop proves this, with Andy Roddick, the Williamses, Lindsay Davenport, and James Blake taking that flight for untold years to Paris, only to come home empty-handed. This year is no exception. All the men, including Roddick and Blake, who completed a match on Tuesday went down in flames, making Mardy Fish's decision to kick a field goal that waylaid his trip to Paris the best move on clay made by an American.
Coincidence? Neither Pete Sampras, Jimmy Connors, nor John McEnroe, all American tennis legends, ever won the French Open. The Americans have patented a kick-ass brand of tennis that is definitely effective, but it’s not exactly the approach of the Europeans.
Growing up, Europeans play on red clay. It mutes the speed of a ball, and limits the effect of a power game. The clay makes tennis more like a chess match, a game of strategy. At the French Open, rallies can go on for 20 strokes, and the spoils do not go to the strong. They go to those who use their brain, those who can move their opponents around like rooks, and strike when they have the chance.
Not that the Americans are stupid. It's just that like all American kids, the only clay they know is Play-Doh. Who the hell plays tennis on Play-Doh?
Americans don’t play the same tennis that the French do. In the States, kids train on fast, concrete courts, and it’s wham, bam, up yours, ma’am. The recent crop proves this, with Andy Roddick, the Williamses, Lindsay Davenport, and James Blake taking that flight for untold years to Paris, only to come home empty-handed. This year is no exception. All the men, including Roddick and Blake, who completed a match on Tuesday went down in flames, making Mardy Fish's decision to kick a field goal that waylaid his trip to Paris the best move on clay made by an American.
Coincidence? Neither Pete Sampras, Jimmy Connors, nor John McEnroe, all American tennis legends, ever won the French Open. The Americans have patented a kick-ass brand of tennis that is definitely effective, but it’s not exactly the approach of the Europeans.
Growing up, Europeans play on red clay. It mutes the speed of a ball, and limits the effect of a power game. The clay makes tennis more like a chess match, a game of strategy. At the French Open, rallies can go on for 20 strokes, and the spoils do not go to the strong. They go to those who use their brain, those who can move their opponents around like rooks, and strike when they have the chance.
Not that the Americans are stupid. It's just that like all American kids, the only clay they know is Play-Doh. Who the hell plays tennis on Play-Doh?
Monday, May 28, 2007
French Open women's preview
Part deux:
Women
1. Justine Henin: She looks good for a win here, but I won't be picking her. Keep the Rolaids fully stocked, guys.
2. Maria Sharapova: A shoulder injury has limited her play since the Australian, and since then, she's racked up losses to folks like Serena Williams (that loss in the Australian final has got to be the stuff nightmares are made of), Vera Zvonareva and Aravane Rezai. This is a grueling two weeks of tennis, and she doesn't do well here anyway. However, it's hard to imagine her screwing up this cupcake draw, even on clay.
3. Svetlana Kuznetsova: After struggling since the U.S. Open, she's had a really strong year so far, except for one small thing: Four finals this season, and no trophies. She's the in-form player in her half, more solid than Ana Ivanovic, Mauresmo, and Sharapova.
4. Jelena Jankovic: Much has been made about Jankovic's turnaround after the beginning of 2006, and for good reason. She comes here knowing she can beat just about all her peers. Just about. Three times since the U.S. Open, she's played Henin and found herself with the chance to win. Three times, she's come away with a big "L".
So the good news for her is that she's not in the same quarter with Henin. The bad news is that she's in the same half. She can take care of Venus in round 3, Dementieva in round 4 and Vaidisova in the quarters. But beating Henin on clay at her favorite tournament?
5. Amelie Mauresmo: Most people, facing the idea of playing in their own Slam would say, "Home, sweet home." Mauresmo would probably say, "Oh, can't I play at Wimbledon instead?" She's never done well at the French, and don't expect that to change. She struggled through her entire clay warmup period, and with the possibility of meeting Lucie Safarova (who beat her in Australia) in round three, a tough opponent in Anna Chakvetadze and Sharapova floating in her quarter, it's not looking great.
6. Nicole Vaidisova: Roland Garros was the site of her big breakthrough last year at a Grand Slam, but she, too, is coming back from injury. If she's healthy, the quarterfinal between she and Jankovic could be really good.
7. Ana Ivanovic: Not bad being a 7 seed at a Grand Slam, but in terms of her young-gun contemporaries, she's an underachiever. Beating Kuznetsova last week is a nice start, but she needs success on a big stage. It's hard to think that she can beat Kuznetsova again if they meet in the quarters, though.
8. Serena Williams: The big-match Serena's back. One would say that after playing only 3 clay-court events, and withdrawing from Fed Cup with injury, Serena doesn't have much of a chance. She's already proven that those things matter little to her. But what she hasn't proven is her ability to play clay-court tennis -- with patience and placement over lacing the ball. She also has been unable to prove her ability to beat Henin at the French. And let's just own the fact that we look forward to that quarterfinal, just to see what new lows Henin can achieve in gamesmanship.
9. Anna Chakvetadze: A dangerous floater. She's doing better every year, but the only thing she's lacking is a big win against a good player. You couldn't ask for a better chance than Amelie Mauresmo at the French Open quarterfinals.
10. Dinara Safina: I sense in the quarterfinals against Williams, there'll be a racquet-breaking party. BYOR.
The stragglers
Anastasia Myskina: The company line is injury for her. The real deal is probably that you can only get so far by being a non-aggressive backboard.
Venus Williams: Venus is practically out of the conversation when it comes to women's tennis. If this were Wimbledon, you'd give her a free pass to the quarters, regardless of her draw. If this were five years ago, you'd give her a free pass to the quarters for the French. Even though she is returning from another injury, it's a little disturbing that she can't take out any top 10 players anymore. Oh, well. I sure hope she has something to fall back on in case tennis doesn't work out for her.
Elena Dementieva: Poor serving aside, she's got the kind of groundstrokes that could do some damage at the French. What she doesn't have is the ability to beat Jankovic in the fourth round.
Nadia Petrova: Last year, she was the in-form player coming into the French. She lost in the first round. She could give Vaidisova some problems in the fourth round.
The way it'll go down
Quarters: Henin v. Williams, Jankovic v. Vaidisova, Ivanovic v. Kuznetsova, Chakvetadze v. Sharapova
Semis: Henin v. Jankovic, Kuznetsova v. Sharapova
Final: Henin v. Kuznetsova
Winner: Dammit!
Women
1. Justine Henin: She looks good for a win here, but I won't be picking her. Keep the Rolaids fully stocked, guys.
2. Maria Sharapova: A shoulder injury has limited her play since the Australian, and since then, she's racked up losses to folks like Serena Williams (that loss in the Australian final has got to be the stuff nightmares are made of), Vera Zvonareva and Aravane Rezai. This is a grueling two weeks of tennis, and she doesn't do well here anyway. However, it's hard to imagine her screwing up this cupcake draw, even on clay.
3. Svetlana Kuznetsova: After struggling since the U.S. Open, she's had a really strong year so far, except for one small thing: Four finals this season, and no trophies. She's the in-form player in her half, more solid than Ana Ivanovic, Mauresmo, and Sharapova.
4. Jelena Jankovic: Much has been made about Jankovic's turnaround after the beginning of 2006, and for good reason. She comes here knowing she can beat just about all her peers. Just about. Three times since the U.S. Open, she's played Henin and found herself with the chance to win. Three times, she's come away with a big "L".
So the good news for her is that she's not in the same quarter with Henin. The bad news is that she's in the same half. She can take care of Venus in round 3, Dementieva in round 4 and Vaidisova in the quarters. But beating Henin on clay at her favorite tournament?
5. Amelie Mauresmo: Most people, facing the idea of playing in their own Slam would say, "Home, sweet home." Mauresmo would probably say, "Oh, can't I play at Wimbledon instead?" She's never done well at the French, and don't expect that to change. She struggled through her entire clay warmup period, and with the possibility of meeting Lucie Safarova (who beat her in Australia) in round three, a tough opponent in Anna Chakvetadze and Sharapova floating in her quarter, it's not looking great.
6. Nicole Vaidisova: Roland Garros was the site of her big breakthrough last year at a Grand Slam, but she, too, is coming back from injury. If she's healthy, the quarterfinal between she and Jankovic could be really good.
7. Ana Ivanovic: Not bad being a 7 seed at a Grand Slam, but in terms of her young-gun contemporaries, she's an underachiever. Beating Kuznetsova last week is a nice start, but she needs success on a big stage. It's hard to think that she can beat Kuznetsova again if they meet in the quarters, though.
8. Serena Williams: The big-match Serena's back. One would say that after playing only 3 clay-court events, and withdrawing from Fed Cup with injury, Serena doesn't have much of a chance. She's already proven that those things matter little to her. But what she hasn't proven is her ability to play clay-court tennis -- with patience and placement over lacing the ball. She also has been unable to prove her ability to beat Henin at the French. And let's just own the fact that we look forward to that quarterfinal, just to see what new lows Henin can achieve in gamesmanship.
9. Anna Chakvetadze: A dangerous floater. She's doing better every year, but the only thing she's lacking is a big win against a good player. You couldn't ask for a better chance than Amelie Mauresmo at the French Open quarterfinals.
10. Dinara Safina: I sense in the quarterfinals against Williams, there'll be a racquet-breaking party. BYOR.
The stragglers
Anastasia Myskina: The company line is injury for her. The real deal is probably that you can only get so far by being a non-aggressive backboard.
Venus Williams: Venus is practically out of the conversation when it comes to women's tennis. If this were Wimbledon, you'd give her a free pass to the quarters, regardless of her draw. If this were five years ago, you'd give her a free pass to the quarters for the French. Even though she is returning from another injury, it's a little disturbing that she can't take out any top 10 players anymore. Oh, well. I sure hope she has something to fall back on in case tennis doesn't work out for her.
Elena Dementieva: Poor serving aside, she's got the kind of groundstrokes that could do some damage at the French. What she doesn't have is the ability to beat Jankovic in the fourth round.
Nadia Petrova: Last year, she was the in-form player coming into the French. She lost in the first round. She could give Vaidisova some problems in the fourth round.
The way it'll go down
Quarters: Henin v. Williams, Jankovic v. Vaidisova, Ivanovic v. Kuznetsova, Chakvetadze v. Sharapova
Semis: Henin v. Jankovic, Kuznetsova v. Sharapova
Final: Henin v. Kuznetsova
Winner: Dammit!
Sunday, May 27, 2007
French Open preview
Roland Garros, the person the French Open is named after, was not a tennis player. He was a fighter pilot in World War I. He's best known for creating a method that made it easier for pilots to fly and shoot at the enemy at the same time by attaching a machine gun to the front. He was shot down and killed just before the end of the war, in 1918.
Another war angle for the hardest tennis major to win: The clay is also called terre battue, which translates into "battleground."
"You said it. And I'm losing," says Andy Roddick.
"Damn right," says Justine Henin.
"I don't think it's so bad, no?" says Rafa Nadal.
"This red crap is all over my shoes," says Maria Sharapova.
All right, kids, pipe down. Time to break out the Ouija board.
Men
1. Roger Federer: You. Meet me at number 2.
2. Rafael Nadal: It's hard to believe that Nadal, twice a French Open champ, loses to Federer on clay by a third-set score of 6-0. I'm not saying he rolled over. Because even rolling over gets you a game. Never mind that, I guess. Nadal comes back to the French Open with the pressures of a defending champion, but minus the pressure of adding to some ridiculous 81-match winning streak. Perhaps Nadal had that in mind in tank -- er, losing to Federer in Hamburg. It's likely that he'll start another streak, and get it to at least 6, which is where the world number 1 likely comes in.
Federer's had some tough matches on clay this season, and obviously, some good wins, but as good as he's becoming on clay, it's always going to be hard for him to play someone in Paris who likely had to have red clay wiped off their ass at birth. The atmosphere, and importance, of a 3-set Hamburg final versus a 5-set Grand Slam final played on heavy legs and an anxious mind is totally different. Federer always has a shot, more than a shot. In the final, you always have that. These two have a near-concrete date for June 10.
3. Andy Roddick: Hey, did anyone see the cover of Mens Fitness this month, where they altered Roddick's picture to make his arms look more buff? If they're into fiction, maybe he can hire those guys to get a picture of him and Photoshop the French Open trophy on it. He's got a cushy draw, but I nominate him for "Most Likely to Lose to Someone You've Never Heard Of."
4. Nikolay Davydenko: Not a strong clay-courter, but he's had a decent season on the battleground so far, the most impressive result a hard-fought three-set loss against Nadal. He could see Monfils or Nalbandian in the third round.
5. Fernando Gonzalez: He showed something in Australia that you don't see from Gonzalez a lot: control. It's barely been seen since, with hit-or-miss results since January. And worse, he's in a really tricky section of the draw, with names like Monaco (who won a warmup in Austria), Canas, Nalbandian and Davydenko.
6. Novak Djokovic: Ah, the mouth from the south of Serbia. What a difference a year makes, from yapping about having Nadal under control (while down two sets) in the quarters in Paris last year to actually beating the guy in Miami. Djokovic is obviously a rising talent, and a guy to watch, if only for the entertainment value. Thanks to a high ranking, he could have a nice tournament, and it's not hard to think that if he does get Roddick in the quarters, Djokovic would come out on top.
7. Ivan Ljubicic: Last year, he lost to Nadal in the semis, and he's not been the same since. His results have been spotty, especially on clay. If he makes it past Robredo in round four, he could draw Federer in the quarters. Have a nice trip home next weekend.
8. James Blake: Can he be the last American male standing again, like last year? Sure. He gets Ivo Karlovic in the first round, whose serve will likely be muted by the clay. Then he gets Old Man Bjorkman. In round four lurks Carlos Moya, who just beat Blake in Hamburg, or Tomas Berdych, who also recently beat him on clay in Davis Cup. I know! You and Ivan can split a cab on the way to the airport!
9. Tommy Robredo: He usually doesn't play above his seeding, so the ride will likely stop for him in the quarterfinals against Roger.
10. Tomas Berdych: Not quite sure how he gets such a high seed, but it's good enough to get him in a section of the draw with a former French winner near the end of his career (Moya) and an American (Blake). If he feels like getting his act together on clay, his reward could be Nadal in the quarterfinals. Congratulations.
The stragglers:
Anyone whose home country is Spain, Argentina, Chile and other clay-speaking countries.
Guillermo Canas (19): Apparently, a two-year ban from the game gave this guy the itch. He's beaten Federer twice since his return, and as mentioned, is from one of those countries.
David Nalbandian (15): Why, David? Why not use your powers for good, instead of for self-destruction? What he needs is a good therapist, like Stuart Smalley, of Saturday Night Live fame. He could hold a mirror up for David to look into and have him repeat, "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, I did choke here last year against Federer, but I'm not going to beat myself up about it." Then take a deep recovery breath.
Gael Monfils: Including Amelie Mauresmo, the French person most likely to win the French Open in the next few years. There's a lot of game in that Gumby-esque frame, but is he ready?
Marcos Baghdatis (16): His game hasn't exactly crashed since his breakthrough season last year, but don't expect much from him here. By "much," I mean him getting out of the first round. Sebastien Grosjean in a tough one.
Carlos Moya (23): He'd better do well here, since it'll probably be his last tournament until after grass season. I sense a, oh, let's see, a low ankle sprain right after the French.
The way it's going down
Quarterfinals: Djokovic v. Grosjean, Blake v. Nadal, Federer v. Ljubicic, Monfils v. Gonzales
Semis: Djokovic v. Nadal, Federer v. Gonzales
Final: Nadal v. Federer
Winner: Gotta go Nadal. He's got his lucky pirate pants, and he might as well be playing in his backyard.
If I Only Had a Brain
And a TWA shout-out to Mardy Fish, who made a move so dumb I had to create a category just for him. Fish was all set to play the French (or as set as an American can be) until he visited the NFL Europa team while he was in Germany playing the World Team Cup tournament. He tried to kick a field goal, and injured his foot, and is now sitting out the French. If this were anyone else who had a legit chance at a run, I'd feel sorry for them, but it's hard to believe that the thought that he could injure himself didn't occur to him once.
The ladies preview, as well as the TWA premiere of the doubles preview is upcoming. I need a nap.
Another war angle for the hardest tennis major to win: The clay is also called terre battue, which translates into "battleground."
"You said it. And I'm losing," says Andy Roddick.
"Damn right," says Justine Henin.
"I don't think it's so bad, no?" says Rafa Nadal.
"This red crap is all over my shoes," says Maria Sharapova.
All right, kids, pipe down. Time to break out the Ouija board.
Men
1. Roger Federer: You. Meet me at number 2.
2. Rafael Nadal: It's hard to believe that Nadal, twice a French Open champ, loses to Federer on clay by a third-set score of 6-0. I'm not saying he rolled over. Because even rolling over gets you a game. Never mind that, I guess. Nadal comes back to the French Open with the pressures of a defending champion, but minus the pressure of adding to some ridiculous 81-match winning streak. Perhaps Nadal had that in mind in tank -- er, losing to Federer in Hamburg. It's likely that he'll start another streak, and get it to at least 6, which is where the world number 1 likely comes in.
Federer's had some tough matches on clay this season, and obviously, some good wins, but as good as he's becoming on clay, it's always going to be hard for him to play someone in Paris who likely had to have red clay wiped off their ass at birth. The atmosphere, and importance, of a 3-set Hamburg final versus a 5-set Grand Slam final played on heavy legs and an anxious mind is totally different. Federer always has a shot, more than a shot. In the final, you always have that. These two have a near-concrete date for June 10.
3. Andy Roddick: Hey, did anyone see the cover of Mens Fitness this month, where they altered Roddick's picture to make his arms look more buff? If they're into fiction, maybe he can hire those guys to get a picture of him and Photoshop the French Open trophy on it. He's got a cushy draw, but I nominate him for "Most Likely to Lose to Someone You've Never Heard Of."
4. Nikolay Davydenko: Not a strong clay-courter, but he's had a decent season on the battleground so far, the most impressive result a hard-fought three-set loss against Nadal. He could see Monfils or Nalbandian in the third round.
5. Fernando Gonzalez: He showed something in Australia that you don't see from Gonzalez a lot: control. It's barely been seen since, with hit-or-miss results since January. And worse, he's in a really tricky section of the draw, with names like Monaco (who won a warmup in Austria), Canas, Nalbandian and Davydenko.
6. Novak Djokovic: Ah, the mouth from the south of Serbia. What a difference a year makes, from yapping about having Nadal under control (while down two sets) in the quarters in Paris last year to actually beating the guy in Miami. Djokovic is obviously a rising talent, and a guy to watch, if only for the entertainment value. Thanks to a high ranking, he could have a nice tournament, and it's not hard to think that if he does get Roddick in the quarters, Djokovic would come out on top.
7. Ivan Ljubicic: Last year, he lost to Nadal in the semis, and he's not been the same since. His results have been spotty, especially on clay. If he makes it past Robredo in round four, he could draw Federer in the quarters. Have a nice trip home next weekend.
8. James Blake: Can he be the last American male standing again, like last year? Sure. He gets Ivo Karlovic in the first round, whose serve will likely be muted by the clay. Then he gets Old Man Bjorkman. In round four lurks Carlos Moya, who just beat Blake in Hamburg, or Tomas Berdych, who also recently beat him on clay in Davis Cup. I know! You and Ivan can split a cab on the way to the airport!
9. Tommy Robredo: He usually doesn't play above his seeding, so the ride will likely stop for him in the quarterfinals against Roger.
10. Tomas Berdych: Not quite sure how he gets such a high seed, but it's good enough to get him in a section of the draw with a former French winner near the end of his career (Moya) and an American (Blake). If he feels like getting his act together on clay, his reward could be Nadal in the quarterfinals. Congratulations.
The stragglers:
Anyone whose home country is Spain, Argentina, Chile and other clay-speaking countries.
Guillermo Canas (19): Apparently, a two-year ban from the game gave this guy the itch. He's beaten Federer twice since his return, and as mentioned, is from one of those countries.
David Nalbandian (15): Why, David? Why not use your powers for good, instead of for self-destruction? What he needs is a good therapist, like Stuart Smalley, of Saturday Night Live fame. He could hold a mirror up for David to look into and have him repeat, "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, I did choke here last year against Federer, but I'm not going to beat myself up about it." Then take a deep recovery breath.
Gael Monfils: Including Amelie Mauresmo, the French person most likely to win the French Open in the next few years. There's a lot of game in that Gumby-esque frame, but is he ready?
Marcos Baghdatis (16): His game hasn't exactly crashed since his breakthrough season last year, but don't expect much from him here. By "much," I mean him getting out of the first round. Sebastien Grosjean in a tough one.
Carlos Moya (23): He'd better do well here, since it'll probably be his last tournament until after grass season. I sense a, oh, let's see, a low ankle sprain right after the French.
The way it's going down
Quarterfinals: Djokovic v. Grosjean, Blake v. Nadal, Federer v. Ljubicic, Monfils v. Gonzales
Semis: Djokovic v. Nadal, Federer v. Gonzales
Final: Nadal v. Federer
Winner: Gotta go Nadal. He's got his lucky pirate pants, and he might as well be playing in his backyard.
If I Only Had a Brain
And a TWA shout-out to Mardy Fish, who made a move so dumb I had to create a category just for him. Fish was all set to play the French (or as set as an American can be) until he visited the NFL Europa team while he was in Germany playing the World Team Cup tournament. He tried to kick a field goal, and injured his foot, and is now sitting out the French. If this were anyone else who had a legit chance at a run, I'd feel sorry for them, but it's hard to believe that the thought that he could injure himself didn't occur to him once.
The ladies preview, as well as the TWA premiere of the doubles preview is upcoming. I need a nap.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The Great Pale Hope?
From the wires:
The Lawn Tennis Association completed the sale of the Queen's Club to members for 35 million pounds ($69 million), with the money being used to help develop a first British Grand Slam champion in 30 years. The deal comes about five months after members agreed to buy the 121-year-old venue in west London to avert a court battle over whether the governing body had the right to sell.
Wow. $69 million. That might even be enough to throw in some braces.
The Lawn Tennis Association completed the sale of the Queen's Club to members for 35 million pounds ($69 million), with the money being used to help develop a first British Grand Slam champion in 30 years. The deal comes about five months after members agreed to buy the 121-year-old venue in west London to avert a court battle over whether the governing body had the right to sell.
Wow. $69 million. That might even be enough to throw in some braces.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
League Watch 2007: A season on the brink
My husband, by trade, is a coach. He has likely coached hundreds of children in basketball, and in taking me on as a tennis student, he calls me his "most uncoachable." I don't listen to him, he says, which is not true, but I'm a visual learner. I need to see it to get it.
Then he tells me that I don't look at him when he's showing me something. That is not altogether false. He likes making fun of my shots, and likes to say, "This is how you hit the ball," then offers an exaggerated imitation. So, I don't like looking at that.
Anyway, his biggest qualm is how long it takes me to understand certain things, like the value of good footwork, and how to hit topspin (that only took 2 years). I have to admit he's right on this count. Last Saturday morning, on my drive to our league match in the South Hills, the real problem with my game finally dawned on me.
"You think playing your game is going for broke on every shot and that playing safe is for wimps," I thought to myself. "You can play smart, keeping balls deep and refraining from net skimmers, and still be aggressive when you get the opportunity. That's not playing like an old lady."
I took my new game plan on the court, and shockingly, came off with a win. This is big, folks. I haven't won a league match at the 3.5 level since June 18, 2005, and that was in doubles. I shocked myself in the patience I showed in waiting for my chance to finish at the net, and more surprised that I didn't botch my volleys and overheads. I'm still pretty jacked up about it, I have to say. I feel like I might have picked up another level in my game. But, of course, now the pressure of "Can I do this again?" is probably going to mess with me for a bit. Especially because my next match probably won't be for two weeks.
Now, whenever I have these "revelations," I tell Coach about it, and he sighs, with nearly tangible pain. "How many times have I told you that?"
"What?" I usually respond absently, thinking that my fingernails need to be painted.
(P.S.: The Season on the Brink refers to my team overall, which lost the tie Saturday. We are now 0-4.)
Then he tells me that I don't look at him when he's showing me something. That is not altogether false. He likes making fun of my shots, and likes to say, "This is how you hit the ball," then offers an exaggerated imitation. So, I don't like looking at that.
Anyway, his biggest qualm is how long it takes me to understand certain things, like the value of good footwork, and how to hit topspin (that only took 2 years). I have to admit he's right on this count. Last Saturday morning, on my drive to our league match in the South Hills, the real problem with my game finally dawned on me.
"You think playing your game is going for broke on every shot and that playing safe is for wimps," I thought to myself. "You can play smart, keeping balls deep and refraining from net skimmers, and still be aggressive when you get the opportunity. That's not playing like an old lady."
I took my new game plan on the court, and shockingly, came off with a win. This is big, folks. I haven't won a league match at the 3.5 level since June 18, 2005, and that was in doubles. I shocked myself in the patience I showed in waiting for my chance to finish at the net, and more surprised that I didn't botch my volleys and overheads. I'm still pretty jacked up about it, I have to say. I feel like I might have picked up another level in my game. But, of course, now the pressure of "Can I do this again?" is probably going to mess with me for a bit. Especially because my next match probably won't be for two weeks.
Now, whenever I have these "revelations," I tell Coach about it, and he sighs, with nearly tangible pain. "How many times have I told you that?"
"What?" I usually respond absently, thinking that my fingernails need to be painted.
(P.S.: The Season on the Brink refers to my team overall, which lost the tie Saturday. We are now 0-4.)
Let the healing begin
The French Open withdrawals begin in earnest today. The biggest hit is Andy Murray, finally confirming he won't play because of a bad right wrist. This after decidedly mixed signals from he and coach Brad "Talk with the Hand" Gilbert. Murray said over the weekend that he still needed to see a specialist, while Gilbert was saying on his Web site that his boy was O-U-T. Good to see everyone on the same (Web) page with that.
Tommy Haas has a bad shoulder and Vera Zvonareva apparently is all cried out (and happens to have a bad wrist), so they're out. Spaniard Alberto Martin has an ailing elbow. But the strangest withdrawal was Xavier Malisse, who cites, in part, a wrist injury. The other part? Here's the press release (or so I had heard:)
I have a sore wrist, which isn't terrible, but my coach points out that the distance from Belgium to Roland Garros is a long way to go to play one match, or two, if I'm lucky.
Sometimes, I guess, you gotta know your limits.
Tommy Haas has a bad shoulder and Vera Zvonareva apparently is all cried out (and happens to have a bad wrist), so they're out. Spaniard Alberto Martin has an ailing elbow. But the strangest withdrawal was Xavier Malisse, who cites, in part, a wrist injury. The other part? Here's the press release (or so I had heard:)
I have a sore wrist, which isn't terrible, but my coach points out that the distance from Belgium to Roland Garros is a long way to go to play one match, or two, if I'm lucky.
Sometimes, I guess, you gotta know your limits.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
League Watch 2007: %#@*!^~@*#&!
So, my first couple weeks of USTA haven't gone very well. Not exactly the start I'd envisioned. Last year, I managed to win not a single match all season, and now I'm 0-2.
Week 1: The Upper St. Clair team, on their home courts. My opponent: a woman who's hitting floaters. I'm moving in well, trying to take them out of the air, looking for put-away volleys. They find the net. I go down swinging, though (into the bottom of the net) 6-2,6-2.
Here's the best part: We shake hands, and she immediately launches into why I lost. And this is what I love about USTA. Why on earth would you need a coach when every week, you get a different one? Anyway, she goes on about how I made too many mistakes (really?) and how I went for too many "pretty shots" -- which is what I tend to call "topspin," but whatever. She tells me that she just tries to get them over, and then starts bragging about how solid her backhand is. My basic response to that was "Well, I had plenty of opportunities with it." That pretty much, mercifully, ended that coaching session.
I have no problem owning that I'm a sore loser. I'm not a bitch about it, but I'm usually not thrilled about it, especially since I feel like I'm a better player now than I was. And if I ever do win a match, I don't think I'd tell my opponent why they lost. I would assume they don't want to hear it.
Anyway, on to the "grudge" match: Even if there were no sister-in-law thing, I have a real gag reflex when it comes to the country-club types, the ones who wear makeup while they play. And I really hate losing to those fuckers. Apparently, I don't hate it enough. Our home match against Lakevue ended up a whitewash, a 5-0 team loss. I had the #1 singles line, and I admit to making the mistake of checking out their #1 singles player. All her wins so far this year included at least one 6-0 set, and I was no different. I started the first set down 2-0, and managed to get it to 3-4 by holding serve in a game that went to at least ten deuces, and I felt pretty good about myself, and hopeful I could break. It was the last game I won. 6-3,6-0. And who shows up to watch the last game of my collapse, but my sister-in-law? Yep, this loss left a pretty nasty taste in my mouth.
I'm at a real crossroads here. The real battle I begin to fight within myself is "Do I want to win so bad that I'm safer with my shots, playing an old lady game? Or do I want to play my game, win or lose, even if I lose to an old lady who couldn't swing at a ball if it swung first?" Honestly, I want to swing out. And I think that if I did, it would be more than enough to win, but I'm too worried about losing. So I start out playing my game, and I make a mistake. Then I start check-swinging, to an extent. And this is the part of the game that really sucks, when you've improved your physical game so much, but then you realize that the real problem's between your ears. The only way to get past that, in all likelihood, is to lose until you're tired of it. I thought I was. Maybe I've got more losing to do before I start swinging like I swing against my husband, nice and loose.
Alas, next week, my team's on the road, against the team I was on last year. I'm on #2 singles. At 9 a.m. Maybe I won't be alert enough to choke.
Week 1: The Upper St. Clair team, on their home courts. My opponent: a woman who's hitting floaters. I'm moving in well, trying to take them out of the air, looking for put-away volleys. They find the net. I go down swinging, though (into the bottom of the net) 6-2,6-2.
Here's the best part: We shake hands, and she immediately launches into why I lost. And this is what I love about USTA. Why on earth would you need a coach when every week, you get a different one? Anyway, she goes on about how I made too many mistakes (really?) and how I went for too many "pretty shots" -- which is what I tend to call "topspin," but whatever. She tells me that she just tries to get them over, and then starts bragging about how solid her backhand is. My basic response to that was "Well, I had plenty of opportunities with it." That pretty much, mercifully, ended that coaching session.
I have no problem owning that I'm a sore loser. I'm not a bitch about it, but I'm usually not thrilled about it, especially since I feel like I'm a better player now than I was. And if I ever do win a match, I don't think I'd tell my opponent why they lost. I would assume they don't want to hear it.
Anyway, on to the "grudge" match: Even if there were no sister-in-law thing, I have a real gag reflex when it comes to the country-club types, the ones who wear makeup while they play. And I really hate losing to those fuckers. Apparently, I don't hate it enough. Our home match against Lakevue ended up a whitewash, a 5-0 team loss. I had the #1 singles line, and I admit to making the mistake of checking out their #1 singles player. All her wins so far this year included at least one 6-0 set, and I was no different. I started the first set down 2-0, and managed to get it to 3-4 by holding serve in a game that went to at least ten deuces, and I felt pretty good about myself, and hopeful I could break. It was the last game I won. 6-3,6-0. And who shows up to watch the last game of my collapse, but my sister-in-law? Yep, this loss left a pretty nasty taste in my mouth.
I'm at a real crossroads here. The real battle I begin to fight within myself is "Do I want to win so bad that I'm safer with my shots, playing an old lady game? Or do I want to play my game, win or lose, even if I lose to an old lady who couldn't swing at a ball if it swung first?" Honestly, I want to swing out. And I think that if I did, it would be more than enough to win, but I'm too worried about losing. So I start out playing my game, and I make a mistake. Then I start check-swinging, to an extent. And this is the part of the game that really sucks, when you've improved your physical game so much, but then you realize that the real problem's between your ears. The only way to get past that, in all likelihood, is to lose until you're tired of it. I thought I was. Maybe I've got more losing to do before I start swinging like I swing against my husband, nice and loose.
Alas, next week, my team's on the road, against the team I was on last year. I'm on #2 singles. At 9 a.m. Maybe I won't be alert enough to choke.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Cat Scratch Fever
Hot off the presses:
NBC’s new dating reality show 'Age of Love' premieres Monday, June 18. NBC’s previously been quite mysterious about the show's premise, promising only that it would present "a new twist on the reality dating show format." Finally, more details have been revealed about the concept of the show, as well as the identity of “one of the world's most eligible bachelors.”The “twist” of the show is that the women are divided into two groups, the “Kittens,” women in their twenties, and the “Cougars,” in their forties. The two groups of women will not know about each other at the beginning of the show. Both groups, plus the man whose heart they’re hoping to win, will live in a Los Angeles high-rise leased by NBC for the series. As in The Bachelor, at least one woman will be sent home each week. Age of Love’s bachelor is Mark “Scud” Philippoussis, a 31-year-old professional tennis player from Melbourne, Australia, who currently lives in Las Vegas.
Move over, Marat Safin. I cannot wait to see Philippoussis' friends box at Wimbledon this year.
NBC’s new dating reality show 'Age of Love' premieres Monday, June 18. NBC’s previously been quite mysterious about the show's premise, promising only that it would present "a new twist on the reality dating show format." Finally, more details have been revealed about the concept of the show, as well as the identity of “one of the world's most eligible bachelors.”The “twist” of the show is that the women are divided into two groups, the “Kittens,” women in their twenties, and the “Cougars,” in their forties. The two groups of women will not know about each other at the beginning of the show. Both groups, plus the man whose heart they’re hoping to win, will live in a Los Angeles high-rise leased by NBC for the series. As in The Bachelor, at least one woman will be sent home each week. Age of Love’s bachelor is Mark “Scud” Philippoussis, a 31-year-old professional tennis player from Melbourne, Australia, who currently lives in Las Vegas.
Move over, Marat Safin. I cannot wait to see Philippoussis' friends box at Wimbledon this year.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
There's just no wrong way to retire ... unless you're Greg Rusedski
A fond farewell to Belgian Kim Clijsters, who announced her immediate retirement today. She'll be missed on the WTA tour, without doubt, but she has already been missed for some time. Clijsters is so good, and had so much fun on the court that I'd label her career's end premature. I'd go a step further and label her injuries as a direct result of the busy tour calendar. Now, the powers that be have finally decided to address it, but the writing, the damages, are already on the wall. About five years ago, it seemed the womens tour could go nowhere but up, with deep draws and personalities and rivalries. Now, we have players at home, alternately icing and heating an inflamed knee.
As bad as it'll be to see Kim go, it's a lot better than her withdrawing from events. I say, if you're going to go, just go. And to her credit, she did it right. At least she didn't go the route of Greg Rusedski, waiting about ten years until he could win a match to retire. Dude, I could've sworn you were already retired. And unlike Kim, who'll retire with many honors (former world #1, former doubles #1, Grand Slam winner) we'll remember Greg as the guy who always put his foot in his mouth.
As bad as it'll be to see Kim go, it's a lot better than her withdrawing from events. I say, if you're going to go, just go. And to her credit, she did it right. At least she didn't go the route of Greg Rusedski, waiting about ten years until he could win a match to retire. Dude, I could've sworn you were already retired. And unlike Kim, who'll retire with many honors (former world #1, former doubles #1, Grand Slam winner) we'll remember Greg as the guy who always put his foot in his mouth.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Oh, yeah. It's game time, baby! (Plus, a poll question!)
Now that I've returned from my Florida vacation burned to a crisp, it's time to concentrate on the important things.
It's league season here in the Allegheny Mountain region. And for those of us who will never see the grand stage of the U.S. Open, this is war. I participated in a similar war last year, and suffice it to say that I was ... defeated. I managed to lose every match I played. But, alas, that is the past. This year, my tennis bag is full of new weapons, including a tire iron (in case I'm losing). The first battle takes place on Sunday, and I'm pretty psyched.
But it's the match next Saturday, one I'm not even sure I'm playing in, which is the big test for me. A little picture-association game for ya: What do you think of when you hear the word 'Lakevue'? Yeah, man. If it ends in 'vue' instead of 'view,' that's classy as hell. Anyway, I think of my sister-in-law, who apparently is still nursing a grudge against my husband and I because she was hit (accidentally!) with a tennis ball 2 YEARS AGO!!! My husband hit her in the hand with an overhead (come on people, if you or your partner hit a short ball in dubs, you have to get away from the net! Or at least turn around!) but I defended him, which is why we're on the outs. The last two years, I've been getting all geeked up to kick her team's ass, just to prove that I can, and I end up playing the worst match of my entire season. Not this year, dammit. I've got the tire iron, and if I win one match this season, this has to be it.
What's also interesting about the ball-hitting incident:
1. I was playing on the same team with my sister-in-law that day, (twas girls against boys) and she hit me in my back with the hardest serve she's probably ever tried to hit. I did not stop talking to her, but I'm now considering a lawsuit.
2. Some women hear this story, and their responses suggest that they WOULD ALSO BE MAD! Sorry. Yelling is totally rude, I know. But folks, getting hit with a tennis ball is a rule of engagement. It happens to all of us at some time, and unless it's part of my tennis bag for this league season, it's not going to cause any real damage. So, to the masses, (or the four people who read this blog) I unveil the first-ever TWA poll question:
In playing mixed doubles, is it all right to hit a hard ball to a woman at the net?
I, of course, say yes. If you can't hang, don't hang at the net. Others? Well others are wrong. But tell me what you think anyway.
And if you're in a league, swing away, folks. Have a great season, everyone, and have a good time.
Oh, yeah, and apparently the pros are getting ready for some Grand Slam in May. More on that later, I guess, if I can find the time after training.
It's league season here in the Allegheny Mountain region. And for those of us who will never see the grand stage of the U.S. Open, this is war. I participated in a similar war last year, and suffice it to say that I was ... defeated. I managed to lose every match I played. But, alas, that is the past. This year, my tennis bag is full of new weapons, including a tire iron (in case I'm losing). The first battle takes place on Sunday, and I'm pretty psyched.
But it's the match next Saturday, one I'm not even sure I'm playing in, which is the big test for me. A little picture-association game for ya: What do you think of when you hear the word 'Lakevue'? Yeah, man. If it ends in 'vue' instead of 'view,' that's classy as hell. Anyway, I think of my sister-in-law, who apparently is still nursing a grudge against my husband and I because she was hit (accidentally!) with a tennis ball 2 YEARS AGO!!! My husband hit her in the hand with an overhead (come on people, if you or your partner hit a short ball in dubs, you have to get away from the net! Or at least turn around!) but I defended him, which is why we're on the outs. The last two years, I've been getting all geeked up to kick her team's ass, just to prove that I can, and I end up playing the worst match of my entire season. Not this year, dammit. I've got the tire iron, and if I win one match this season, this has to be it.
What's also interesting about the ball-hitting incident:
1. I was playing on the same team with my sister-in-law that day, (twas girls against boys) and she hit me in my back with the hardest serve she's probably ever tried to hit. I did not stop talking to her, but I'm now considering a lawsuit.
2. Some women hear this story, and their responses suggest that they WOULD ALSO BE MAD! Sorry. Yelling is totally rude, I know. But folks, getting hit with a tennis ball is a rule of engagement. It happens to all of us at some time, and unless it's part of my tennis bag for this league season, it's not going to cause any real damage. So, to the masses, (or the four people who read this blog) I unveil the first-ever TWA poll question:
In playing mixed doubles, is it all right to hit a hard ball to a woman at the net?
I, of course, say yes. If you can't hang, don't hang at the net. Others? Well others are wrong. But tell me what you think anyway.
And if you're in a league, swing away, folks. Have a great season, everyone, and have a good time.
Oh, yeah, and apparently the pros are getting ready for some Grand Slam in May. More on that later, I guess, if I can find the time after training.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
What day was that, anyway?
From a Reuters Davis Cup story:
A sold-out crowd of 15,000 cheered their hero from the start at the venue where Blake made his Davis Cup debut against India just weeks after the September 9, 2001 attacks on the U.S.
Yep. This person can't get 9/11 right (which, incidentally, is why it's called 9/11) and I'm supposed to trust anything else he says? As an aside, the story was posted at 4:43 in the afternoon ... and never corrected.
A sold-out crowd of 15,000 cheered their hero from the start at the venue where Blake made his Davis Cup debut against India just weeks after the September 9, 2001 attacks on the U.S.
Yep. This person can't get 9/11 right (which, incidentally, is why it's called 9/11) and I'm supposed to trust anything else he says? As an aside, the story was posted at 4:43 in the afternoon ... and never corrected.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Retirement watch -- er, glimpse
It's Kim Clijster's last year on the pro women's circuit, and she seems to want every appearance to count. That's because she won't be playing a whole lot this year. From the wires:
"Plagued by injuries in recent years, Clijsters plans to marry American basketball player Brian Lynch on July 14 in her hometown of Bree, Belgium. She'll skip the French Open to prepare for the wedding, and she said this week she may miss the U.S. Open because of the honeymoon."
I'll say it again: Skipping the Slams in your final year is a little suspicious. The one Grand Slam you win is only a "maybe" on your calendar? The other, that you've come painfully close to winning is a "maybe never year?"
Besides the idea that she may return next year is the other option: Kim Clijsters hates being a tennis player. It's possible to be quite good at something, and hope you never have to do it again. I can draw on my own experience here. Being a five-foot-three fashion model totally drained me. Finally, at the age of 28, I decided to become a copy editor, get hitched and start a tennis blog. But you know what? I don't miss a minute of 'the life.'
"Plagued by injuries in recent years, Clijsters plans to marry American basketball player Brian Lynch on July 14 in her hometown of Bree, Belgium. She'll skip the French Open to prepare for the wedding, and she said this week she may miss the U.S. Open because of the honeymoon."
I'll say it again: Skipping the Slams in your final year is a little suspicious. The one Grand Slam you win is only a "maybe" on your calendar? The other, that you've come painfully close to winning is a "maybe never year?"
Besides the idea that she may return next year is the other option: Kim Clijsters hates being a tennis player. It's possible to be quite good at something, and hope you never have to do it again. I can draw on my own experience here. Being a five-foot-three fashion model totally drained me. Finally, at the age of 28, I decided to become a copy editor, get hitched and start a tennis blog. But you know what? I don't miss a minute of 'the life.'
How to make tennis 'cool'
From the supergeniuses who brought you round-robin ATP events:
"Inside a stark white building in downtown Miami, models strut outfits that glow under the black lights, a DJ spins club classics and tennis players blast backhand shots across the darkened court.
In an effort to attract a younger crowd to a sport known for its formality, Sony Ericsson -- which sponsors the WTA tour and this week's tournament on Key Biscayne -- has created a series of events simply called Night Tennis, combining fashion, club culture and the ball-and-racquet sport. Organizers said more than 10,000 people requested tickets. The event in Miami is being held in a space typically used for photo shoots and music videos. Fluorescent black lights illuminate players' white shirts and neon tape along the rackets' edges. Spectators see flashes of neon orange and green when rackets are swung and the ball sails. It's so dark, a player's face is only detectable when he smiles. Players knock underhand serves from a backcourt marked in neon orange lines. To keep serving, a server must win the next point. Matches consist of three, three-minute games that are broken up with fashion shows and followed by a party into the early hours of the morning."
So, were those free tickets, by any chance?
No, seriously, club tennis is cool. I mean, Cool! Instead of the Bryan brothers bumping each other when they win, they can jump into the crowd, mosh pit-style. Not only can Venus Williams introduce her new line of tennis year in her next match, she can play in three-inch heels. And what will make this really cool (COOL!) are those strobe lights, which will make it really easy to track a ball comin' right at ya.
It's true: Tennis is waning in popularity, and has been for some time. What makes this latest attempt of popularizing tennis so sad is that tennis officials seem to think that showing people less tennis is the answer. The fact is that the sport of tennis doesn't need to be changed, but the way it's organized does. Only tennis wouldn't take full advantage of larger-than-life stars like Maria Sharapova, Andy Roddick, the Williamses, and Rafael Nadal. Roger Federer is potentially the best player ever, and playing right now, and there are sports fans who don't know who he is. Hell, even womens' soccer got some mileage from Brandi Chastain taking off her shirt.
Officials seemed to think at first that flooding the schedule with tournaments was a good call. When they realized that players were getting injured, or imposing their own vacations, they decided on stupid changes like on-court coaching, round-robin tournaments that they can't even understand, and now, club tennis. The worst part about these changes is that officials are taking the unique things about tennis and eliminating them, in order to make tennis like other sports.
To the powers that be: If you're not interested in drawing attention to tennis, the sport, here's an idea. Changeover bumps! That's right. Just allow two players to bump during a changeover, and if a brawl breaks out, that's all right, too. Hell, that's even better!
Club tennis. Good lord.
"Inside a stark white building in downtown Miami, models strut outfits that glow under the black lights, a DJ spins club classics and tennis players blast backhand shots across the darkened court.
In an effort to attract a younger crowd to a sport known for its formality, Sony Ericsson -- which sponsors the WTA tour and this week's tournament on Key Biscayne -- has created a series of events simply called Night Tennis, combining fashion, club culture and the ball-and-racquet sport. Organizers said more than 10,000 people requested tickets. The event in Miami is being held in a space typically used for photo shoots and music videos. Fluorescent black lights illuminate players' white shirts and neon tape along the rackets' edges. Spectators see flashes of neon orange and green when rackets are swung and the ball sails. It's so dark, a player's face is only detectable when he smiles. Players knock underhand serves from a backcourt marked in neon orange lines. To keep serving, a server must win the next point. Matches consist of three, three-minute games that are broken up with fashion shows and followed by a party into the early hours of the morning."
So, were those free tickets, by any chance?
No, seriously, club tennis is cool. I mean, Cool! Instead of the Bryan brothers bumping each other when they win, they can jump into the crowd, mosh pit-style. Not only can Venus Williams introduce her new line of tennis year in her next match, she can play in three-inch heels. And what will make this really cool (COOL!) are those strobe lights, which will make it really easy to track a ball comin' right at ya.
It's true: Tennis is waning in popularity, and has been for some time. What makes this latest attempt of popularizing tennis so sad is that tennis officials seem to think that showing people less tennis is the answer. The fact is that the sport of tennis doesn't need to be changed, but the way it's organized does. Only tennis wouldn't take full advantage of larger-than-life stars like Maria Sharapova, Andy Roddick, the Williamses, and Rafael Nadal. Roger Federer is potentially the best player ever, and playing right now, and there are sports fans who don't know who he is. Hell, even womens' soccer got some mileage from Brandi Chastain taking off her shirt.
Officials seemed to think at first that flooding the schedule with tournaments was a good call. When they realized that players were getting injured, or imposing their own vacations, they decided on stupid changes like on-court coaching, round-robin tournaments that they can't even understand, and now, club tennis. The worst part about these changes is that officials are taking the unique things about tennis and eliminating them, in order to make tennis like other sports.
To the powers that be: If you're not interested in drawing attention to tennis, the sport, here's an idea. Changeover bumps! That's right. Just allow two players to bump during a changeover, and if a brawl breaks out, that's all right, too. Hell, that's even better!
Club tennis. Good lord.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Cold feet?
Item: Kim Clijsters, playing her final season before retiring from the women's tennis tour, will miss this year's French Open to prepare for her marriage in July.The 23-year-old Belgian, a two-time runner-up at Roland Garros, had been expected to skip the event to concentrate on Wimbledon, the one Grand Slam in which she never reached the final.
I smell something pungent in the air. Is it ... can't be ... not from her, but that's definitely ... bullshit. Are you really retiring, Kim? Because, in case you hadn't noticed, you're not Lindsay Davenport. You don't hate clay. In fact, you were in the French Open final once -- nay, twice. Not at all curious about whether you can win the French? You're okay with "close enough"?
Or, are you thinking twice about retiring? This is your final year, you say, but you're tossing aside Grand Slams like ... well, like you've won a bunch. You haven't. I hope you're having second thoughts.
Another thing, which is exactly none of my business, but what is your rush with getting married? You're 23 years old. I'm sure young Brian is a worthy mate, but let's not forget the bullet you dodged with Lleyton.
I smell something pungent in the air. Is it ... can't be ... not from her, but that's definitely ... bullshit. Are you really retiring, Kim? Because, in case you hadn't noticed, you're not Lindsay Davenport. You don't hate clay. In fact, you were in the French Open final once -- nay, twice. Not at all curious about whether you can win the French? You're okay with "close enough"?
Or, are you thinking twice about retiring? This is your final year, you say, but you're tossing aside Grand Slams like ... well, like you've won a bunch. You haven't. I hope you're having second thoughts.
Another thing, which is exactly none of my business, but what is your rush with getting married? You're 23 years old. I'm sure young Brian is a worthy mate, but let's not forget the bullet you dodged with Lleyton.
Monday, March 05, 2007
All about the (Mr.) Benjamins, Vol. III
Cheerio!
The kindly gentlemen at the All England Lawn and Tennis Club have finally entered the 21st century (although they are still insisting on white gear. Ah well, it is before Labor Day) and are now matching womens prize money with the men. It's a nice gesture, and done for no other reason, I suspect, than the silence the protests of players, fans and the Martha Burkes of the world. Don't get me wrong, it's about time. Know what else it's about time for? It's about time for the ladies to play five sets.
Tennis fans want tennis, for the hundredth time. And even if you're a Martina Hingis fan, it's really not fun to see her make a quarterfinal run -- if she's been on court for a grand total of 90 minutes through the first week. Naysayers complain that women aren't as fit as the men, that they can't hold up. Truth time: the women's field isn't as deep as it was the last time they were playing best-of-five sets. And as far as fitness goes, the women's top 10 right now aren't exactly couch potatoes. More to the point, the female players are as fit as ever. This seems the perfect time to experiment with best-of-five matches.
Now, on this topic, Billie Jean King scoffs, and says: "Entertainers don't get paid by the hour." Every word true, Billie. Quality has to count for something here. They don't get paid based on their sex either. Por ejemplo, male comedian, female comedian. They tell the same jokes, they get the same laughs. Right? Male tennis player, female tennis player. Women's matches take less time, because they're expected to perform for a shorter time. They get the same money. Think about it.
While women's equality is a fine goal to aspire to, we should seek it fully, warts (and work) and all. Those fans are putting out their hard-earned money, too. Give 'em a show.
The kindly gentlemen at the All England Lawn and Tennis Club have finally entered the 21st century (although they are still insisting on white gear. Ah well, it is before Labor Day) and are now matching womens prize money with the men. It's a nice gesture, and done for no other reason, I suspect, than the silence the protests of players, fans and the Martha Burkes of the world. Don't get me wrong, it's about time. Know what else it's about time for? It's about time for the ladies to play five sets.
Tennis fans want tennis, for the hundredth time. And even if you're a Martina Hingis fan, it's really not fun to see her make a quarterfinal run -- if she's been on court for a grand total of 90 minutes through the first week. Naysayers complain that women aren't as fit as the men, that they can't hold up. Truth time: the women's field isn't as deep as it was the last time they were playing best-of-five sets. And as far as fitness goes, the women's top 10 right now aren't exactly couch potatoes. More to the point, the female players are as fit as ever. This seems the perfect time to experiment with best-of-five matches.
Now, on this topic, Billie Jean King scoffs, and says: "Entertainers don't get paid by the hour." Every word true, Billie. Quality has to count for something here. They don't get paid based on their sex either. Por ejemplo, male comedian, female comedian. They tell the same jokes, they get the same laughs. Right? Male tennis player, female tennis player. Women's matches take less time, because they're expected to perform for a shorter time. They get the same money. Think about it.
While women's equality is a fine goal to aspire to, we should seek it fully, warts (and work) and all. Those fans are putting out their hard-earned money, too. Give 'em a show.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
A ride in the way-back machine
From the news wires:
Former world number one Gustavo Kuerten of Brazil has won his first match in 18 months by defeating Italy's Filippo Volandri 6-3, 6-1 in the first round of the Brazilian Open here.
The three-times French Open winner was sidelined for most of last year as he attempted to recover from a hip operation he underwent in 2004. His last win was for Brazil in a Davis Cup tie against Uruguay in September 2005.
His world ranking has slumped down to 1,076th and he needed a wild card to play in his home ATP tournament, a title he has won twice before in 2002 and 2004.
But he needed just 46 minutes to see off Volandri on the Costa da Sauipe claycourts, serving 13 aces in the process, and he goes on to play against another Italian, Alessio Di Mauro, in the second round.
Here's hoping Guga finds his way back soon. It'd be fun to see him competing again at the top. And it'd be really interesting to see him playing the French Open again, against, oh, I don't know -- how 'bout Rafael Nadal? Hmm. For old times sake, how 'bout Kuerten in five?
(And how about someone finding Guga a fat, juicy steak, once and for all? If he were a girl, everybody'd be crying Karen Carpenter.)
Thursday, February 01, 2007
A little hope for the others?
From the Australian Open:
Q. For the past four years you've probably given 500 press conference. Is there a question that none of us has ever asked you that you'd like to answer?
ROGER FEDERER: I'm sure there's a hundred thousand questions you can still ask me. Those will come for the next five years or so.
Okay, Andy, James, Fernando: If you guys can hang on for more than five years, you will have a shot at a Grand Slam.
Of course, some people wouldn't wait that long for their chance to shine. See HARDING, Tonya.
Q. For the past four years you've probably given 500 press conference. Is there a question that none of us has ever asked you that you'd like to answer?
ROGER FEDERER: I'm sure there's a hundred thousand questions you can still ask me. Those will come for the next five years or so.
Okay, Andy, James, Fernando: If you guys can hang on for more than five years, you will have a shot at a Grand Slam.
Of course, some people wouldn't wait that long for their chance to shine. See HARDING, Tonya.
Tough: Code word for "not tough. Not tough at all."
"I hope I get through in the next match, as well. (Jonas) Bjorkman will be a very experienced player, or (Olivier) Patience, a guy I've never played against. It's going to be interesting." -- Roger Federer, about the potential opponent for his second round match at the Australian Open 2007
"I don't know who I'm playing yet, but it looks like Youzhny. He upset Rafa at the US Open. I've played him several times, know what a great player he is. Got to make sure I get through that one first." -- Federer, on round three
"It's a dangerous match for me, that's for sure." -- Federer, on facing Novak Djokovic in the fourth round
"I was like, Oh, God, this could be a tough one tonight." -- Federer, after beating the crap out of Andy Roddick
"You know, I know the danger playing against him." -- Federer, again, before his final against Fernando Gonzalez
It's a lot to digest, but allow me to translate:
"Ah, for cryin' out loud! Bring me Nadal! or Nalbandian! Someone who can take a match off of me!"
Seriously, there's no doubt that Roger Federer is the best tennis player in the world right now, and maybe forever. I know it, you know it, and believe it or not, Federer knows it. He just doesn't feel the need to anoint himself as such every chance he gets.
Such is the way of Keyshawn Johnson who tells people to throw him the damn ball.
What about Terrell Owens? He's bad-mouthing teammates and sending veteran coaches into retirement. Owens even gets a cuddly nickname for all his charm: T.O.
Such is the way of one Chad Johnson, who keeps a list of
all the players who can and cannot cover him.
For his modesty, Johnson gets featured in all kinds of commercials.
Imagine Roger Federer making a list of all the players who can't beat him. Everyone would chastise him for being pompous. But he'd probably have himself a cuddly nickname, too: R.F.?
Instead, Federer relies on his racquet to do the talking. Imagine that. He loses five matches in two years, and feels no need to stitch it on the back of his shirt. Here's a nutty thought. Maybe some athletes feel they have to tell you they're the best because they can't prove it.
Boy, it sure would be nice to see Roger Federer with a nickname. In some commercials. Leading off SportsCenter even if it's not game day. As it stands now, all he has are 10 Grand Slam titles, millions in prize money and the quiet assurance that he's the best at his craft. He probably isn't too bothered by that. Not that we'd
know it if he was.
"I don't know who I'm playing yet, but it looks like Youzhny. He upset Rafa at the US Open. I've played him several times, know what a great player he is. Got to make sure I get through that one first." -- Federer, on round three
"It's a dangerous match for me, that's for sure." -- Federer, on facing Novak Djokovic in the fourth round
"I was like, Oh, God, this could be a tough one tonight." -- Federer, after beating the crap out of Andy Roddick
"You know, I know the danger playing against him." -- Federer, again, before his final against Fernando Gonzalez
It's a lot to digest, but allow me to translate:
"Ah, for cryin' out loud! Bring me Nadal! or Nalbandian! Someone who can take a match off of me!"
Seriously, there's no doubt that Roger Federer is the best tennis player in the world right now, and maybe forever. I know it, you know it, and believe it or not, Federer knows it. He just doesn't feel the need to anoint himself as such every chance he gets.
Such is the way of Keyshawn Johnson who tells people to throw him the damn ball.
What about Terrell Owens? He's bad-mouthing teammates and sending veteran coaches into retirement. Owens even gets a cuddly nickname for all his charm: T.O.
Such is the way of one Chad Johnson, who keeps a list of
all the players who can and cannot cover him.
For his modesty, Johnson gets featured in all kinds of commercials.
Imagine Roger Federer making a list of all the players who can't beat him. Everyone would chastise him for being pompous. But he'd probably have himself a cuddly nickname, too: R.F.?
Instead, Federer relies on his racquet to do the talking. Imagine that. He loses five matches in two years, and feels no need to stitch it on the back of his shirt. Here's a nutty thought. Maybe some athletes feel they have to tell you they're the best because they can't prove it.
Boy, it sure would be nice to see Roger Federer with a nickname. In some commercials. Leading off SportsCenter even if it's not game day. As it stands now, all he has are 10 Grand Slam titles, millions in prize money and the quiet assurance that he's the best at his craft. He probably isn't too bothered by that. Not that we'd
know it if he was.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Another day, another Slam ...
There's a joke among churchgoers about those who don't show up regularly.
"Oh, her?" they say. "She's a CME."
It's not a denomination. It means they show up on Christmas, Mothers Day and Easter, the big holidays.
Sound like a recent Grand Slam winner to anyone?
Church, let's greet Sister Serena Williams in the name of the Lord. She's a busy woman,
many careers and such, so sometimes, she can't make it to the weekly services held by
the Women's Tennis Association. But when she shows up, she can shine with the most
faithful members.
Some members, the Dementievas, the Schnyders, they're always
there. They know exactly what to do when they're handcuffed by a ball
at the net, or when they're down a set point, or for that matter,
up a set point.
Others, like Sister Williams, may look rusty when they haven't been in those situations
in a long time.
But when she tells herself she probably won't be back on court until the surface turns
orange and slippery, she'll get
warmed up, all right.
Just ask Maria Sharapova, if you want a testimony. Sister Sharapova was something
of a prodigy growing up. She had, and has, loads of talent. Better than any of her
contemporaries, she can hit the high notes in the heat of battle. And for all her hard work,
she recently was promoted to the head of the flock. That was the good news. The bad
news is that when she got to the big stage, the Australian Open final, she got whupped
by a CME tennis player. She got outshouted, outmanuevered and outshone.
All in about an hour's time.
Well, right now, Sharapova's back on the tour, grinding it out with the rest of the regulars.
She's working out the kinks at a tournament in Tokyo. She, of course,
will be back on the big stage, proving why she deserves to be world No. 1. Does she? Eh.
What's Serena doing right now? Maybe a taste of victory will turn her
into a regular on the WTA this year. Maybe she'll show up before the next Grand Slam in May.
Or maybe she'll be kicking up her feet at home in LA, or Florida,
agreeing to be a voice actress for a cartoon. Does she deserve to be
world No. 1? Is Serena, sitting on her couch at home come Sunday morning, of lesser faith, of lesser talent, than the grinders,
the regular worshipers?
Might have to wait until Mother's Day to find out.
"Oh, her?" they say. "She's a CME."
It's not a denomination. It means they show up on Christmas, Mothers Day and Easter, the big holidays.
Sound like a recent Grand Slam winner to anyone?
Church, let's greet Sister Serena Williams in the name of the Lord. She's a busy woman,
many careers and such, so sometimes, she can't make it to the weekly services held by
the Women's Tennis Association. But when she shows up, she can shine with the most
faithful members.
Some members, the Dementievas, the Schnyders, they're always
there. They know exactly what to do when they're handcuffed by a ball
at the net, or when they're down a set point, or for that matter,
up a set point.
Others, like Sister Williams, may look rusty when they haven't been in those situations
in a long time.
But when she tells herself she probably won't be back on court until the surface turns
orange and slippery, she'll get
warmed up, all right.
Just ask Maria Sharapova, if you want a testimony. Sister Sharapova was something
of a prodigy growing up. She had, and has, loads of talent. Better than any of her
contemporaries, she can hit the high notes in the heat of battle. And for all her hard work,
she recently was promoted to the head of the flock. That was the good news. The bad
news is that when she got to the big stage, the Australian Open final, she got whupped
by a CME tennis player. She got outshouted, outmanuevered and outshone.
All in about an hour's time.
Well, right now, Sharapova's back on the tour, grinding it out with the rest of the regulars.
She's working out the kinks at a tournament in Tokyo. She, of course,
will be back on the big stage, proving why she deserves to be world No. 1. Does she? Eh.
What's Serena doing right now? Maybe a taste of victory will turn her
into a regular on the WTA this year. Maybe she'll show up before the next Grand Slam in May.
Or maybe she'll be kicking up her feet at home in LA, or Florida,
agreeing to be a voice actress for a cartoon. Does she deserve to be
world No. 1? Is Serena, sitting on her couch at home come Sunday morning, of lesser faith, of lesser talent, than the grinders,
the regular worshipers?
Might have to wait until Mother's Day to find out.
Friday, January 26, 2007
An Open Letter to Andy Roddick
Dear Andy:
What in the hell is wrong with you?
I know that when you step out on the court, you might be thinking primarily of yourself, about your own desire to win. Especially when you play someone who appears to be head-and-shoulders above the rest of the class.
Well, let me give you a little hint about the rest of us. Some of us like to live life on the edge. Some of us, (and leave Pete Rose out of this, for land's sake!) actually bet on tennis. Some of us put a little faith in strangers, because we're in a trusting mood. Because you (specifically, you, Andy, you little -- whew! Almost lost it there ...) make "some of us" think we can believe, Andy. Some of us want you to win more than you do, trust me. Trust me.
I mean, why, Andy? Why would you retool your game, hire a tennis legend as your coach, tell us that you're the "New Andy," start hitting a backhand, even learning how to volley? Why do you reel us in, then cut us loose? Maybe you feel bad right now, because in spite of your improvements, you got beat again in a Grand Slam by Roger Federer. 6-0, Andy? 6-0?? I could see how painful it could be, feeling like you're closing the gap, only to be dismissed as just another pretender. You've got to be wondering, "What the hell? Is he getting better or am I getting worse?" Might even be feeling like you're trying to run in quicksand, working your ass off, and making no progress. And that sucks.
Andy, you might be thinking that this is the lowest a human being's ever felt. Two words:
What.
Ever.
"Some of us" expect big things, a big payoff, even, by supporting you, and "we" are the ones suffering now. Some of us have lost a paycheck over this match, a mortgage. Worse yet, "some of us" have to pick up a shovel and clean dog shit out of our yard in the biting Pittsburgh cold, sliding on a sloped lawn covered with snow. Ever been so low that you had to shovel dog shit for three weeks straight, have to clean up after a dog that doesn't even like you? (I can tell. I have my ways.) I didn't think so, Andy. Incidentally, when was the last time you've even been in the same room with a shovel?
Bottom line, Andy? There's only one fair solution to this. I feel like I've been hustled, man. You baited me into making a bet, then I get my clock cleaned. Or my yard. Whatever. Anyhow, you should pay off my bet, man. I put my neck on the line for you, dawg. For you. If you cared about your fans, you'd get your Cornhusker behind down here, and clean up my dog shit.
I really hope I don't need to get my lawyer on this, Andy.
Sincerely,
Naf
What in the hell is wrong with you?
I know that when you step out on the court, you might be thinking primarily of yourself, about your own desire to win. Especially when you play someone who appears to be head-and-shoulders above the rest of the class.
Well, let me give you a little hint about the rest of us. Some of us like to live life on the edge. Some of us, (and leave Pete Rose out of this, for land's sake!) actually bet on tennis. Some of us put a little faith in strangers, because we're in a trusting mood. Because you (specifically, you, Andy, you little -- whew! Almost lost it there ...) make "some of us" think we can believe, Andy. Some of us want you to win more than you do, trust me. Trust me.
I mean, why, Andy? Why would you retool your game, hire a tennis legend as your coach, tell us that you're the "New Andy," start hitting a backhand, even learning how to volley? Why do you reel us in, then cut us loose? Maybe you feel bad right now, because in spite of your improvements, you got beat again in a Grand Slam by Roger Federer. 6-0, Andy? 6-0?? I could see how painful it could be, feeling like you're closing the gap, only to be dismissed as just another pretender. You've got to be wondering, "What the hell? Is he getting better or am I getting worse?" Might even be feeling like you're trying to run in quicksand, working your ass off, and making no progress. And that sucks.
Andy, you might be thinking that this is the lowest a human being's ever felt. Two words:
What.
Ever.
"Some of us" expect big things, a big payoff, even, by supporting you, and "we" are the ones suffering now. Some of us have lost a paycheck over this match, a mortgage. Worse yet, "some of us" have to pick up a shovel and clean dog shit out of our yard in the biting Pittsburgh cold, sliding on a sloped lawn covered with snow. Ever been so low that you had to shovel dog shit for three weeks straight, have to clean up after a dog that doesn't even like you? (I can tell. I have my ways.) I didn't think so, Andy. Incidentally, when was the last time you've even been in the same room with a shovel?
Bottom line, Andy? There's only one fair solution to this. I feel like I've been hustled, man. You baited me into making a bet, then I get my clock cleaned. Or my yard. Whatever. Anyhow, you should pay off my bet, man. I put my neck on the line for you, dawg. For you. If you cared about your fans, you'd get your Cornhusker behind down here, and clean up my dog shit.
I really hope I don't need to get my lawyer on this, Andy.
Sincerely,
Naf
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Same dance, different partner
There was a time in Martina Hingis' career when all that stood between her and an Australian Open title was Jennifer Capriati. In 2001 and 2002, Hingis made the final, and lost both times to the American. Particularly memorable was the 2002 final, where both players were barely standing after playing under that famous Australia heat.
Five years later, Capriati is languishing in semi-retirement and Hingis, having had retired herself, has bounced back to the top of the game. For the second year in a row, Hingis has made the quarterfinals. And for the second year in a row, she draws Kim Clijsters.
Clijsters, continuing the familiar retirement theme, is calling it quits at the end of the year. (Ah, to be 23 years old, and be facing the promise of never having to work again ... ) It's her self-imposed last chance to win this championship.
In 2006, she stopped Hingis' comeback train, and this year, she's favored to do it again. In her three years away from the game, Hingis never did come up with a weapon against her own biggest weakness -- the power game.
The other quarterfinal casts top seed Maria Sharapova against Anna Chakvetadze, seeded twelvth. Chakvetadze (say it, don't spray it) is toward the conclusion of her best run at a Grand Slam. On paper, she has a win against Sharapova, by way of walkover in 2006. The bad news is that Sharapova has two very real wins against her fellow Russian, and she'll probably make it three.
The men's quarterfinals will feature world No. 2 Rafael Nadal against Fernando Gonzalez, who did Nadal a solid by doing something Nadal's never been able to do -- beating James Blake in the previous round. Gonzalez has an explosive, high-risk game, and when he's on, it's pretty impressive. When it's not, well, just look away. Nadal is recovering from a rough end to 2006, but looks to be playing himself back into condition. This one could go either way. Break out the popcorn.
The winner, of course, advances to the semifinals, and will face the winner of the Nikolay Davydenko/Tommy Haas match. Haas has been climbing back from injury for the past year or so. He's having his deepest run at a Grand Slam in a long while, but he'll have to be inspired to beat Davydenko, whom he holds a career 0-2 record against.
Five years later, Capriati is languishing in semi-retirement and Hingis, having had retired herself, has bounced back to the top of the game. For the second year in a row, Hingis has made the quarterfinals. And for the second year in a row, she draws Kim Clijsters.
Clijsters, continuing the familiar retirement theme, is calling it quits at the end of the year. (Ah, to be 23 years old, and be facing the promise of never having to work again ... ) It's her self-imposed last chance to win this championship.
In 2006, she stopped Hingis' comeback train, and this year, she's favored to do it again. In her three years away from the game, Hingis never did come up with a weapon against her own biggest weakness -- the power game.
The other quarterfinal casts top seed Maria Sharapova against Anna Chakvetadze, seeded twelvth. Chakvetadze (say it, don't spray it) is toward the conclusion of her best run at a Grand Slam. On paper, she has a win against Sharapova, by way of walkover in 2006. The bad news is that Sharapova has two very real wins against her fellow Russian, and she'll probably make it three.
The men's quarterfinals will feature world No. 2 Rafael Nadal against Fernando Gonzalez, who did Nadal a solid by doing something Nadal's never been able to do -- beating James Blake in the previous round. Gonzalez has an explosive, high-risk game, and when he's on, it's pretty impressive. When it's not, well, just look away. Nadal is recovering from a rough end to 2006, but looks to be playing himself back into condition. This one could go either way. Break out the popcorn.
The winner, of course, advances to the semifinals, and will face the winner of the Nikolay Davydenko/Tommy Haas match. Haas has been climbing back from injury for the past year or so. He's having his deepest run at a Grand Slam in a long while, but he'll have to be inspired to beat Davydenko, whom he holds a career 0-2 record against.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
It was the (insert word here) of times ...
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, pretend they know what the hell is going on with those who can."
My words. I know. They're beautiful. Thank you.
'Bout wraps up my feelings of superiority when it comes to tennis knowledge, too. Really, what effin' moron picked Marat Safin to make the semis, and Jelena Jankovic to win the whole thing? Shouldn't I have known that Andy Roddick was mentally improving at a rate that no one could predict? That although Serena Williams' lack of activity would mount to retirement to most, she could still beat the snot out of top 10 players?
This, in particular, either bothers me, or convinces me that women's tennis is about to get very interesting. Jelena Jankovic, for example, is match-tough. Since January 1, she's won one title and took Kim Clijsters to the limit in another. She's fit. She's smart. She's ranked eleventh in the world.
She just lost in the 4th round of the Australian Open to a woman who played three matches before the Open, and sixteen in all of last year. Serena Williams, who could stand to lose (at least) ten pounds in order to regain some semblance of fitness, is taking down seeds at a major like she's nineteen again. I'm not talking about seeds like Elena Dementieva, either. Her other scalp is Nadia Petrova, only number five in the world.
So. Is women's tennis at a place where the top is comprised of those who avert injury enough to play a full schedule? Or are things about to get very interesting? A bit of both, I think.
Even with two Slams under her belt, all you need to know about Amelie Mauresmo is that you just never know. And Svetlana Kuznetsova, without question, grabbed a Slam when the women's game was in a freefall. She was ranked third in Australia, and lost in the fourth round. Their victors, Shahar Peer and Lucie Safarova, are no slouches, and, by all counts, are legitimate up-and-comers. Especially with Kuznetsova, though, the question of whether a three seed is too high for her at a major has been answered emphatically.
Would the top 10 list look dramatically different if not for the injuries/departures of the Williams sisters, Clijsters, Davenport, Hingis and Capriati? Yes. And if you know the game, I bet you have an idea who just who wouldn't be there.
But are Peer and Safarova tough players? Hell yes. What we're seeing now in the women's game (I hope) is the development of depth. Soon, perhaps, it'll shake out like the men's game, where you have your top echelon, but you have those guys who always make things interesting. What's great about men's tennis is that there may be players you've never heard of, but they've got game. Most men's first-round matches aren't thirty minutes long.
To paraphrase Alexandre Dumas, now we just have to wait and hope. Wait to see if Peer and Safarova are the real deal. Hope that Serena doesn't get bored again, and that Venus, and even Henin-Hardenne come back soon. (I can't believe I wrote that. Now, you see the desperate nature of this situation.) And see what happens if the best of the present and future collide.
My words. I know. They're beautiful. Thank you.
'Bout wraps up my feelings of superiority when it comes to tennis knowledge, too. Really, what effin' moron picked Marat Safin to make the semis, and Jelena Jankovic to win the whole thing? Shouldn't I have known that Andy Roddick was mentally improving at a rate that no one could predict? That although Serena Williams' lack of activity would mount to retirement to most, she could still beat the snot out of top 10 players?
This, in particular, either bothers me, or convinces me that women's tennis is about to get very interesting. Jelena Jankovic, for example, is match-tough. Since January 1, she's won one title and took Kim Clijsters to the limit in another. She's fit. She's smart. She's ranked eleventh in the world.
She just lost in the 4th round of the Australian Open to a woman who played three matches before the Open, and sixteen in all of last year. Serena Williams, who could stand to lose (at least) ten pounds in order to regain some semblance of fitness, is taking down seeds at a major like she's nineteen again. I'm not talking about seeds like Elena Dementieva, either. Her other scalp is Nadia Petrova, only number five in the world.
So. Is women's tennis at a place where the top is comprised of those who avert injury enough to play a full schedule? Or are things about to get very interesting? A bit of both, I think.
Even with two Slams under her belt, all you need to know about Amelie Mauresmo is that you just never know. And Svetlana Kuznetsova, without question, grabbed a Slam when the women's game was in a freefall. She was ranked third in Australia, and lost in the fourth round. Their victors, Shahar Peer and Lucie Safarova, are no slouches, and, by all counts, are legitimate up-and-comers. Especially with Kuznetsova, though, the question of whether a three seed is too high for her at a major has been answered emphatically.
Would the top 10 list look dramatically different if not for the injuries/departures of the Williams sisters, Clijsters, Davenport, Hingis and Capriati? Yes. And if you know the game, I bet you have an idea who just who wouldn't be there.
But are Peer and Safarova tough players? Hell yes. What we're seeing now in the women's game (I hope) is the development of depth. Soon, perhaps, it'll shake out like the men's game, where you have your top echelon, but you have those guys who always make things interesting. What's great about men's tennis is that there may be players you've never heard of, but they've got game. Most men's first-round matches aren't thirty minutes long.
To paraphrase Alexandre Dumas, now we just have to wait and hope. Wait to see if Peer and Safarova are the real deal. Hope that Serena doesn't get bored again, and that Venus, and even Henin-Hardenne come back soon. (I can't believe I wrote that. Now, you see the desperate nature of this situation.) And see what happens if the best of the present and future collide.
Monday, January 15, 2007
The Australian Open pre(?)view
Is it Australian Open time already? Well, very little has changed during the offseason. Injuries have still ravaged the ranks, especially on the women's side. How bad is it? The No. 32 seed is Eleni Daniilidou. Who's that? you may ask. My point exactly, I respond.
Let's get to it.
Men
1. Roger Federer -- So here we go again, with talk that Fed's draw is tough. When it comes to the early rounds, he's practically sleepwalking out there. He'll probably face Novak Djokovic in round four, which could be tough, and Marcos Bagdatis after that, which would be tougher. With Ljubicic relinquishing his quarter, Federer could Safin, Roddick or Ancic in the semis. Yeah, that is tough. But he'll probably win another Australian Open, maybe with one eye open, if even that's necessary. Unless ...
2. Rafael Nadal -- Here's the only guy who can make Federer look downright uncomfortable. The bad news is that since Wimbledon last year, he's had something of a dry spell which includes zero titles and a semifinal loss to Federer in Shanghai. And, truly, Nadal's the one with the tough draw. His first round opponent is Robert Kendrick, who, with a couple more revolutions of the Earth, would have beaten Nadal at the first round in Wimbledon. We'll see how he handles him this time, but as he advances, he'll come upon potential minefields by the names of Andy Murray, Lleyton Hewitt and James Blake. With the added problem of an apparent thigh injury, it's hard to see him even getting to Federer.
3. Nikolay Davydenko -- Good to see him all recovered from his "foot injury." In case you didn't know, the third seed withdrew from the Sydney tournament, and said "I don't think nobody cares about here." So, assuming Davydenko is "healthy," he has a cushy little draw, with a projected meeting with Max Mirnyi in round four. But can he advance out of his quarter, past the likes of Tommy Haas or David Nalbandian? Don't think so.
4. Ivan Ljubicic -- That's a damn lot of money to spend on a plane ticket for one match. What's happened to Ljubicic? He's not been the same player since his clash with Nadal at the French Open.
5. James Blake -- The American belle of this ball has been Andy Roddick, with his newfound attacking game and win over Federer in exhibition. Still, I think James Blake is a better player -- for now. He can be a consistent threat to Federer, and I think the former Harvard student can figure out how to adjust his game faster, although he's obviously prone to mental lapses. His first-round match is a run-back of the Sydney final last week, where he edged Carlos Moya. Although the Spaniard is a tough customer, Blake should be OK through the fourth round. Lurking will be Fernando Gonzalez or Lleyton Hewitt. With a 1-7 record against the Annoying Aussie, I'm sure he'd rather see Gonzalez. If he gets out of that, he could meet Nadal. Having never lost to the world No. 2, and not playing on clay, should make James really happy.
6. Andy Roddick -- So you get a new coach to change your game, train hard in the offseason, beat Roger Federer in an exhibition final to start your season, and what do you get? Marat Safin in round three. This, in my mind, is a real problem for Roddick. Everything Roddick has been learning to do from Jimmy Connors, Safin can do naturally. He's a better volleyer and has incredible groundstrokes. The ray of hope for Roddick is Safin's unstable mental status. One bad call, and Roddick could roll right past Safin.
7. Tommy Robredo -- If you think that working hard (and often) means little, meet Tommy Robredo. Last year, he played 27 tournaments, scoring wins over James Blake, David Nalbandian, and Marat Safin. Yes, there is a 'but' here. Robredo has had little success with majors. It's unlikely his luck will change here. Four words: Baghdatis or Gasquet Round Four. Two more words: Federer's quarter.
8. David Nalbandian -- Really, who knows what to expect anymore from this guy? Here's one thing NOT to expect: Nalbandian getting past Tommy Haas.
9. Mario Ancic -- Blahblahblah(ACE)blahblahblah(ACE). Seriously, there's more to Ancic than a wicked serve, but it's hard to tell where that will take him, as far as Grand Slams go. Blahblahblah(GOOD LUCK BEATING SAFIN OR RODDICK)blahblahblah.
10. Fernando Gonzalez -- Another fine player with questionable success at Grand Slams. His game is risky, which often backfires, but also gives other players fits. He could meet Lleyton Hewitt in the third round and James Blake after that. Since I'm picking Blake for the finals, I don't guess I can pick Gonzalez to do well here, too.
Stragglers:
Lleyton Hewitt -- He's always a contender, although it's unclear how long that will be true. He comes to his home slam with some injury concerns, no coach and a strong odor of baby food.
Marcos Baghdatis -- Last year's finalist has little chance of coming in under the radar. His second round match against Gael Monfils should be a popcorn match.
Tommy Haas -- Opportunity knocks for the former World No. 3. The highest seed in his quarter is Davydenko, and he's got a sniff at Blake or Nadal in the quarterfinals.
Marat Safin -- He could have a great run here, but he could have a nervous breakdown, too. Here's hoping he didn't forget to pack his sedatives.
Interesting (remaining) first round matches:
Nadal v. Kendrick
How 'bout that second round?:
Baghdatis v. Gael Monfils -- The Frenchman's got a lot of talent, and he's a big guy. He's looking to make that next level, and he could claim a big scalp here.
The way it'll go down:
Quarterfinals: Federer v. Baghdatis, Ferrer v. Safin, Haas v. Davydenko, Blake v. Nadal
Semifinals: Federer v. Safin, Haas v. Blake
Final: Federer v. Blake
Winner: Duh.
Women:
1. Maria Sharapova -- She gets top billing with the withdrawal of Justine Henin-Hardenne. She had a strong finish to 2006, and comes in as the favorite. It helps that she has a soft draw, as she always seems to. Or she makes it look easy. She could get a good workout from Meghann Shaughnessy, then possibly Vera Zvonareva or Ana Ivanovic. Ivanovic would be the bigger obstacle, but Sharapova should be fine through the semis, where she could get Martina Hingis or Kim Clijsters.
2. Amelie Mauresmo -- She doesn't have to tackle too many "mental toughness" questions these days, but she hasn't exactly reversed her reputation yet, like Justine Henin-Hardenne did. There's a bit of doubt regarding how she'll respond to a challenge from Elena Dementieva or Nicole Vaidisova in the quarterfinals, or worse yet, Jelena Jankovic or Nadia Petrova in the semis. The other issue is Mauresmo's second round match. Olga Poutchkova played here in Pittsburgh a couple of months ago, and she's got a game, and the confidence to shake Mauresmo.
3. Svetlana Kuznetsova -- Kuznetsova is embedded in a tough part of the draw, with sleepers like Serena Williams, Maria Kirilenko, Shahar Peer and Tatiana Golovin, along with contenders like Petrova and Jankovic. I'd bet on a Kuznetsova/Petrova quarterfinal.
4. Kim Clijsters -- Shame on the Womens Tennis Association for robbing fans of a longer career from Clijsters. If they hadn't waited to tackle the schedule problems (and by extension, the injury issue), she likely wouldn't be talking about quitting after this season. Not only is she one of the most talented players of the last few years, but she's managed to be a fighter and a nice personality in the game. (We'll excuse the fact that she almost married Lleyton Hewitt.) She really shouldn't have only one Grand Slam. OK. I'm putting away the soapbox now. Clijsters has had a good warmup to the Australian with wins over Sharapova and Jankovic. She's also saying that she doesn't have a shot at the title. Although she has no chance of sneaking up on anyone, it's a nice try. She can get out of her quarter by beating Hingis or Dinara Safina. But Sharapova in the semis?
5. Nadia Petrova -- She's in the Kuznetsova quarter of the draw, and she may get to face Serena Williams in round four. Is she up to it? Petrova has struggled with injuries despite her solid game.
6. Martina Hingis -- Last year at this time, Hingis was unseeded, and was stopped by Kim Clijsters in the quarterfinals. Well, one year later, she's seeded sixth, and yet, Kim Clijsters is still standing in her way. There's nothing to indicate the results will be any different. And after her inexplicable loss to Virginie Razzano, it's hard to know for sure that she can even beat Nathalie Dechy.
7. Elena Dementieva -- As usual, her downfall will be her shaky service. Of course, the rest of her game can get her very far, even past Vaidisova in the fourth round.
8. Patty Schnyder -- Won't get out the second round, against Shuai Peng.
9. Dinara Safina -- This is her highest ranking at a Slam, which is great. What isn't great is that she's had some big wins against a few of her fellow Russians, but not consistent results. She has an opportunity here with her draw. She'll have a hard time against Na Li, and tougher still against Hingis.
10. Nicole Vaidisova -- After a breakout 2006, Vaidisova finds herself in the top top ten. If she was rusty coming into Australia, withstanding a challenge from Jill Craybas was a good start. (Incidentally, when did Craybas turn into the Incredible Hulk? She's 32 years old, and has muscles bulging out of her muscles. Can somebody say Barry Bonds?) She'd better shake it off in time for Dementieva in round four.
Stragglers:
Jelena Jankovic -- I think Jankovic has staying power. I don't see her wilting under pressure of expectations. She may have just missed a top ten ranking, but she can clear the quarters.
Alicia Molik -- The talented Australian has been sidelined since an inner ear infection last year. She's always dangerous if she rediscovers her 2005 success.
Shuai Peng and Na Li -- Is this the Slam where the Chinese players make a Grand Slam singles impact? Shuai could get to the fourth round, if she beats Schnyder. The toughest obstacle Na faces is Safina.
Serena Williams -- In her loss to Sybille Bammer during a warmup event, Williams said "I think she played the match of her life ... You just wish these players would play like this all the time instead of just against me. She played unbelievable." Yes, she's a seven-time Grand Slam champion. She may also on the decline, and better players are cropping up around her all the time. She's still a threat, but Serena should understand that people don't have to play perfect tennis anymore to beat her.
Interesting (remaining) first round matches:
Dechy v. Hingis
How 'bout those second round matches:
Mauresmo v. Pouchkova
The way it'll go down:
Quarterfinals: Sharapova v. Shuai, Clijsters v. Hingis, Jankovic v. Kuznetsova, Vaidisova v. Mauresmo
Semifinals: Sharapova v. Clijsters and Jankovic v. Mauresmo
Final: Sharapova v. Jankovic
Winner: Hmm. Jankovic in three.
Let's get to it.
Men
1. Roger Federer -- So here we go again, with talk that Fed's draw is tough. When it comes to the early rounds, he's practically sleepwalking out there. He'll probably face Novak Djokovic in round four, which could be tough, and Marcos Bagdatis after that, which would be tougher. With Ljubicic relinquishing his quarter, Federer could Safin, Roddick or Ancic in the semis. Yeah, that is tough. But he'll probably win another Australian Open, maybe with one eye open, if even that's necessary. Unless ...
2. Rafael Nadal -- Here's the only guy who can make Federer look downright uncomfortable. The bad news is that since Wimbledon last year, he's had something of a dry spell which includes zero titles and a semifinal loss to Federer in Shanghai. And, truly, Nadal's the one with the tough draw. His first round opponent is Robert Kendrick, who, with a couple more revolutions of the Earth, would have beaten Nadal at the first round in Wimbledon. We'll see how he handles him this time, but as he advances, he'll come upon potential minefields by the names of Andy Murray, Lleyton Hewitt and James Blake. With the added problem of an apparent thigh injury, it's hard to see him even getting to Federer.
3. Nikolay Davydenko -- Good to see him all recovered from his "foot injury." In case you didn't know, the third seed withdrew from the Sydney tournament, and said "I don't think nobody cares about here." So, assuming Davydenko is "healthy," he has a cushy little draw, with a projected meeting with Max Mirnyi in round four. But can he advance out of his quarter, past the likes of Tommy Haas or David Nalbandian? Don't think so.
4. Ivan Ljubicic -- That's a damn lot of money to spend on a plane ticket for one match. What's happened to Ljubicic? He's not been the same player since his clash with Nadal at the French Open.
5. James Blake -- The American belle of this ball has been Andy Roddick, with his newfound attacking game and win over Federer in exhibition. Still, I think James Blake is a better player -- for now. He can be a consistent threat to Federer, and I think the former Harvard student can figure out how to adjust his game faster, although he's obviously prone to mental lapses. His first-round match is a run-back of the Sydney final last week, where he edged Carlos Moya. Although the Spaniard is a tough customer, Blake should be OK through the fourth round. Lurking will be Fernando Gonzalez or Lleyton Hewitt. With a 1-7 record against the Annoying Aussie, I'm sure he'd rather see Gonzalez. If he gets out of that, he could meet Nadal. Having never lost to the world No. 2, and not playing on clay, should make James really happy.
6. Andy Roddick -- So you get a new coach to change your game, train hard in the offseason, beat Roger Federer in an exhibition final to start your season, and what do you get? Marat Safin in round three. This, in my mind, is a real problem for Roddick. Everything Roddick has been learning to do from Jimmy Connors, Safin can do naturally. He's a better volleyer and has incredible groundstrokes. The ray of hope for Roddick is Safin's unstable mental status. One bad call, and Roddick could roll right past Safin.
7. Tommy Robredo -- If you think that working hard (and often) means little, meet Tommy Robredo. Last year, he played 27 tournaments, scoring wins over James Blake, David Nalbandian, and Marat Safin. Yes, there is a 'but' here. Robredo has had little success with majors. It's unlikely his luck will change here. Four words: Baghdatis or Gasquet Round Four. Two more words: Federer's quarter.
8. David Nalbandian -- Really, who knows what to expect anymore from this guy? Here's one thing NOT to expect: Nalbandian getting past Tommy Haas.
9. Mario Ancic -- Blahblahblah(ACE)blahblahblah(ACE). Seriously, there's more to Ancic than a wicked serve, but it's hard to tell where that will take him, as far as Grand Slams go. Blahblahblah(GOOD LUCK BEATING SAFIN OR RODDICK)blahblahblah.
10. Fernando Gonzalez -- Another fine player with questionable success at Grand Slams. His game is risky, which often backfires, but also gives other players fits. He could meet Lleyton Hewitt in the third round and James Blake after that. Since I'm picking Blake for the finals, I don't guess I can pick Gonzalez to do well here, too.
Stragglers:
Lleyton Hewitt -- He's always a contender, although it's unclear how long that will be true. He comes to his home slam with some injury concerns, no coach and a strong odor of baby food.
Marcos Baghdatis -- Last year's finalist has little chance of coming in under the radar. His second round match against Gael Monfils should be a popcorn match.
Tommy Haas -- Opportunity knocks for the former World No. 3. The highest seed in his quarter is Davydenko, and he's got a sniff at Blake or Nadal in the quarterfinals.
Marat Safin -- He could have a great run here, but he could have a nervous breakdown, too. Here's hoping he didn't forget to pack his sedatives.
Interesting (remaining) first round matches:
Nadal v. Kendrick
How 'bout that second round?:
Baghdatis v. Gael Monfils -- The Frenchman's got a lot of talent, and he's a big guy. He's looking to make that next level, and he could claim a big scalp here.
The way it'll go down:
Quarterfinals: Federer v. Baghdatis, Ferrer v. Safin, Haas v. Davydenko, Blake v. Nadal
Semifinals: Federer v. Safin, Haas v. Blake
Final: Federer v. Blake
Winner: Duh.
Women:
1. Maria Sharapova -- She gets top billing with the withdrawal of Justine Henin-Hardenne. She had a strong finish to 2006, and comes in as the favorite. It helps that she has a soft draw, as she always seems to. Or she makes it look easy. She could get a good workout from Meghann Shaughnessy, then possibly Vera Zvonareva or Ana Ivanovic. Ivanovic would be the bigger obstacle, but Sharapova should be fine through the semis, where she could get Martina Hingis or Kim Clijsters.
2. Amelie Mauresmo -- She doesn't have to tackle too many "mental toughness" questions these days, but she hasn't exactly reversed her reputation yet, like Justine Henin-Hardenne did. There's a bit of doubt regarding how she'll respond to a challenge from Elena Dementieva or Nicole Vaidisova in the quarterfinals, or worse yet, Jelena Jankovic or Nadia Petrova in the semis. The other issue is Mauresmo's second round match. Olga Poutchkova played here in Pittsburgh a couple of months ago, and she's got a game, and the confidence to shake Mauresmo.
3. Svetlana Kuznetsova -- Kuznetsova is embedded in a tough part of the draw, with sleepers like Serena Williams, Maria Kirilenko, Shahar Peer and Tatiana Golovin, along with contenders like Petrova and Jankovic. I'd bet on a Kuznetsova/Petrova quarterfinal.
4. Kim Clijsters -- Shame on the Womens Tennis Association for robbing fans of a longer career from Clijsters. If they hadn't waited to tackle the schedule problems (and by extension, the injury issue), she likely wouldn't be talking about quitting after this season. Not only is she one of the most talented players of the last few years, but she's managed to be a fighter and a nice personality in the game. (We'll excuse the fact that she almost married Lleyton Hewitt.) She really shouldn't have only one Grand Slam. OK. I'm putting away the soapbox now. Clijsters has had a good warmup to the Australian with wins over Sharapova and Jankovic. She's also saying that she doesn't have a shot at the title. Although she has no chance of sneaking up on anyone, it's a nice try. She can get out of her quarter by beating Hingis or Dinara Safina. But Sharapova in the semis?
5. Nadia Petrova -- She's in the Kuznetsova quarter of the draw, and she may get to face Serena Williams in round four. Is she up to it? Petrova has struggled with injuries despite her solid game.
6. Martina Hingis -- Last year at this time, Hingis was unseeded, and was stopped by Kim Clijsters in the quarterfinals. Well, one year later, she's seeded sixth, and yet, Kim Clijsters is still standing in her way. There's nothing to indicate the results will be any different. And after her inexplicable loss to Virginie Razzano, it's hard to know for sure that she can even beat Nathalie Dechy.
7. Elena Dementieva -- As usual, her downfall will be her shaky service. Of course, the rest of her game can get her very far, even past Vaidisova in the fourth round.
8. Patty Schnyder -- Won't get out the second round, against Shuai Peng.
9. Dinara Safina -- This is her highest ranking at a Slam, which is great. What isn't great is that she's had some big wins against a few of her fellow Russians, but not consistent results. She has an opportunity here with her draw. She'll have a hard time against Na Li, and tougher still against Hingis.
10. Nicole Vaidisova -- After a breakout 2006, Vaidisova finds herself in the top top ten. If she was rusty coming into Australia, withstanding a challenge from Jill Craybas was a good start. (Incidentally, when did Craybas turn into the Incredible Hulk? She's 32 years old, and has muscles bulging out of her muscles. Can somebody say Barry Bonds?) She'd better shake it off in time for Dementieva in round four.
Stragglers:
Jelena Jankovic -- I think Jankovic has staying power. I don't see her wilting under pressure of expectations. She may have just missed a top ten ranking, but she can clear the quarters.
Alicia Molik -- The talented Australian has been sidelined since an inner ear infection last year. She's always dangerous if she rediscovers her 2005 success.
Shuai Peng and Na Li -- Is this the Slam where the Chinese players make a Grand Slam singles impact? Shuai could get to the fourth round, if she beats Schnyder. The toughest obstacle Na faces is Safina.
Serena Williams -- In her loss to Sybille Bammer during a warmup event, Williams said "I think she played the match of her life ... You just wish these players would play like this all the time instead of just against me. She played unbelievable." Yes, she's a seven-time Grand Slam champion. She may also on the decline, and better players are cropping up around her all the time. She's still a threat, but Serena should understand that people don't have to play perfect tennis anymore to beat her.
Interesting (remaining) first round matches:
Dechy v. Hingis
How 'bout those second round matches:
Mauresmo v. Pouchkova
The way it'll go down:
Quarterfinals: Sharapova v. Shuai, Clijsters v. Hingis, Jankovic v. Kuznetsova, Vaidisova v. Mauresmo
Semifinals: Sharapova v. Clijsters and Jankovic v. Mauresmo
Final: Sharapova v. Jankovic
Winner: Hmm. Jankovic in three.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Pulling a disappearing act -- before the final
Justine Henin-Hardenne has told Australian Open officials she won't be playing in the year's first Grand Slam for "personal reasons." The jokes come a little too easily, considering this was the tournament in which she pulled up lame against Amelie Mauresmo. Without a specific statement on Henin-Hardenne's reasons, we are left only to guess:
1. Broken fingernail?: Possible. If it goes into the skin, those things can be a bitch, causing minutes and minutes of untold pain, especially if you toss some salt onto it. I usually just go straight to the Percocet.
2. Can't find favorite shoes: That does suck. I know it's not supposed to make a difference, but when your gear doesn't match, it can throw off your entire game. You get self-conscious, thinking everyone's thinking you're color-blind -- it all adds up.
3. Lack of energy: One of her standbys from last year. With a little more than a week before the start of the Australian, this is something you could possibly never recover from. An unspoken pro tennis rule: A two week tournament requires two-week energy storage.
4. Pregnancy: The great thing about this one is getting to take the time off, and looking like a real trooper whenever you do decide to play again. I can just hear Cliff Drysdale now, "You know, pregnancy is a tough injury to come back from."
1. Broken fingernail?: Possible. If it goes into the skin, those things can be a bitch, causing minutes and minutes of untold pain, especially if you toss some salt onto it. I usually just go straight to the Percocet.
2. Can't find favorite shoes: That does suck. I know it's not supposed to make a difference, but when your gear doesn't match, it can throw off your entire game. You get self-conscious, thinking everyone's thinking you're color-blind -- it all adds up.
3. Lack of energy: One of her standbys from last year. With a little more than a week before the start of the Australian, this is something you could possibly never recover from. An unspoken pro tennis rule: A two week tournament requires two-week energy storage.
4. Pregnancy: The great thing about this one is getting to take the time off, and looking like a real trooper whenever you do decide to play again. I can just hear Cliff Drysdale now, "You know, pregnancy is a tough injury to come back from."
Friday, December 29, 2006
Wacky coach-player pairings
Jimmy Connors will travel with Andy Roddick nearly full-time next year. The improvement and fire in Roddick's shows that it turned out to be a good idea. So... which pro players today would benefit from the advice of a former player? Let's find out.
Marat Safin/Pete Sampras
Why?: Safin did take out Pete Sampras to win the U.S. Open in 2000, but his results have been inconsistent at best. He has been known to party quite a bit, and let's face it: he is the definition of "ladies' man". Pete would bring a championship mentality to the party. This is the guy who played through finding out his coach was ill and also managed to puke up his pre-match meal and still beat Alex Corretja. Match made in heaven.
What the first session would be like: Marat walks in with three half-dressed chicks, who sit on the courtside bench and titter every time he hits the ball. Pete's talking.
"OK, Marit, the first thing we need to do with you is ..."
"Hey, is Marat, all right. You still can't get my name right!"
"Sorry. Marat. Anyway, you've got a great game, but you get distracted way too easily ... Hey, Marat, are you listening to me?
Marat is not, unfortunately. One of his girlfriends has just bent forward.
"That's it," Pete says. They're outta here!"
How long it'd last: That was it. Marat needs his cheerleaders.
The second session: No. Seriously. That's it.
Maria Sharapova/Billie Jean King
Why?: Oh, she can grip it and rip it. But can Maria Sharapova add variety to her game? The former Slam winner, world No. 1, and Fed Cup captain says yes.
The first session: Billie starts Sharapova at the net, and is perplexed when Maria begins taking full swings.
"Whoa, sweetie," King says. "This is where you volley."
Maria looks at her quizzically, then at her father, seated courtside. He uses hand signals to tell her to speak.
"How do you do that?"
Billie shows her a classic volley, and Sharapova seems to enjoy it. But on the fifth ball, she can't help herself, and takes a roundhouse swing.
Billie smiles patiently and backs her up to baseline. "We're gonna try some slice backhands."
"But I can hit a lefty forehand!" Maria beams.
"That's nice, honey, but sometimes you want to change the pace on a ball, you know?"
Maria looks again to her father. He, too, seems confused.
How long it'd last:
The second session:
Elena Dementieva/Goran Ivanesevic
Why?: Duh.
What the first session would be like: Elena's warming up, hitting sizzling groundstrokes. After about five minutes of this, Goran speaks up.
"What you doing?"
"Hitting. Is that OK?"
"Too much. In my day, I hit serve, volley, maybe two. This why your game so bad."
"Fine then. I need to work on my serve."
"Really. I had no idea."
Goran watches her slice her serve weakly over the net. "What is that?"
"My serve. I had an injury a few years ago, and ..."
"You injured now?"
"No, I just ..."
"Hit the ball, then."
How long it'd last: This is long term, baby. She'll hate him, but hey, she'll squeeze out at least one major.
The second session: "Actually, that groundstroke thing look like fun. How you do it?" Goran inquires.
Marat Safin/Pete Sampras
Why?: Safin did take out Pete Sampras to win the U.S. Open in 2000, but his results have been inconsistent at best. He has been known to party quite a bit, and let's face it: he is the definition of "ladies' man". Pete would bring a championship mentality to the party. This is the guy who played through finding out his coach was ill and also managed to puke up his pre-match meal and still beat Alex Corretja. Match made in heaven.
What the first session would be like: Marat walks in with three half-dressed chicks, who sit on the courtside bench and titter every time he hits the ball. Pete's talking.
"OK, Marit, the first thing we need to do with you is ..."
"Hey, is Marat, all right. You still can't get my name right!"
"Sorry. Marat. Anyway, you've got a great game, but you get distracted way too easily ... Hey, Marat, are you listening to me?
Marat is not, unfortunately. One of his girlfriends has just bent forward.
"That's it," Pete says. They're outta here!"
How long it'd last: That was it. Marat needs his cheerleaders.
The second session: No. Seriously. That's it.
Maria Sharapova/Billie Jean King
Why?: Oh, she can grip it and rip it. But can Maria Sharapova add variety to her game? The former Slam winner, world No. 1, and Fed Cup captain says yes.
The first session: Billie starts Sharapova at the net, and is perplexed when Maria begins taking full swings.
"Whoa, sweetie," King says. "This is where you volley."
Maria looks at her quizzically, then at her father, seated courtside. He uses hand signals to tell her to speak.
"How do you do that?"
Billie shows her a classic volley, and Sharapova seems to enjoy it. But on the fifth ball, she can't help herself, and takes a roundhouse swing.
Billie smiles patiently and backs her up to baseline. "We're gonna try some slice backhands."
"But I can hit a lefty forehand!" Maria beams.
"That's nice, honey, but sometimes you want to change the pace on a ball, you know?"
Maria looks again to her father. He, too, seems confused.
How long it'd last:
The second session:
Elena Dementieva/Goran Ivanesevic
Why?: Duh.
What the first session would be like: Elena's warming up, hitting sizzling groundstrokes. After about five minutes of this, Goran speaks up.
"What you doing?"
"Hitting. Is that OK?"
"Too much. In my day, I hit serve, volley, maybe two. This why your game so bad."
"Fine then. I need to work on my serve."
"Really. I had no idea."
Goran watches her slice her serve weakly over the net. "What is that?"
"My serve. I had an injury a few years ago, and ..."
"You injured now?"
"No, I just ..."
"Hit the ball, then."
How long it'd last: This is long term, baby. She'll hate him, but hey, she'll squeeze out at least one major.
The second session: "Actually, that groundstroke thing look like fun. How you do it?" Goran inquires.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Lindsay Davenport out for nine months
Lindsay Davenport, who's been on the fence about whether she'll retire, has allowed biology to make her decision. The three-time Slam winner is pregnant with her first child, due in early summer.
"I hate the word 'retirement' but this season was such a struggle physically for me and I can't imagine playing again," the 30-year-old told ESPN.com. Davenport says farewell to a fine career that has seen her rise to No. 1 in singles and doubles. She holds 88 singles and doubles titles and comes away with more than $21 million in earnings over the years.
Yes, it's been a fine career for Davenport, but you just can't help but think how much better it could have been. She is one of the cleanest ball-strikers in women's tennis, and she has a great, reliable serve. All the technical tools were there for Lindsay. If her head game had been more solid, we could be talking about someone with six or seven Slams to her name.
But I'll miss the only American woman left with a chance at top 10. Even with the injuries, the slight underachievements, you could still bet on her being part of the late stages of just about any tournament she entered. Try to think of one other American female who fits that description.
One last thing: Anyone else suspicious about the timing of this kid? If she were to return in 2007, it'd be just in time for Wimbledon, and oddly, just missing the French Open. Man. Some people will do anything to get out of the dirt.
"I hate the word 'retirement' but this season was such a struggle physically for me and I can't imagine playing again," the 30-year-old told ESPN.com. Davenport says farewell to a fine career that has seen her rise to No. 1 in singles and doubles. She holds 88 singles and doubles titles and comes away with more than $21 million in earnings over the years.
Yes, it's been a fine career for Davenport, but you just can't help but think how much better it could have been. She is one of the cleanest ball-strikers in women's tennis, and she has a great, reliable serve. All the technical tools were there for Lindsay. If her head game had been more solid, we could be talking about someone with six or seven Slams to her name.
But I'll miss the only American woman left with a chance at top 10. Even with the injuries, the slight underachievements, you could still bet on her being part of the late stages of just about any tournament she entered. Try to think of one other American female who fits that description.
One last thing: Anyone else suspicious about the timing of this kid? If she were to return in 2007, it'd be just in time for Wimbledon, and oddly, just missing the French Open. Man. Some people will do anything to get out of the dirt.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Class o' 2006
It was a fair to middling year for pro tennis. Pluses: Amelie Mauresmo growing some balls, James Blake playing up to his potential, tennis officials finally owning that the season is too long. Minuses: Andre Agassi retiring, (moo!), Martina Navratilova retiring (yeah right) Justine Henin-Hardenne's crying game, the wading pool that is the depth of women's tennis, Roger Federer hogging all the titles. Sorry, but he's taking the suspense out of every tournament he enters.
As our favorite pros graduate to ... next year, I guess, a look at the yearbook:
Boys:
Most likely to succeed: Roger Federer
Most likely to succeed, not including Roger Federer: Rafael Nadal? Hmm. He finishes his year struggling with an abdominal injury, and with 2 losses to Fed, and another to Jimmie Blake. But his game gives most players, including Rog, fits. You don't want to take too much from end-of-year stats though, and it seems after Wimbledon, the year caught up with Nadal. Which is what seemed have to happened to Rafa last year. Remember? He won the French, and tumbled in the first week at Wimbledon and Flushing Meadow. Certainly, he's made some incredible strides this year. By far, his most impressive feat was making the Wimbledon final. He's going to get better, too, so look for a complete year for Rafa in 2007, and (gasp!) another Grand Slam that is not the French.
Least likely to succeed: This hurts, but I'm going with David Nalbandian. I love his game. At his best, he shows steadiness, variety and is capable of beating down his opponent. At his worst: Whiny. Slumped shoulders. Mental weakness. Those 'worsts' are worst than his 'bests.' He's been on the cusp for a couple of years now, and the closest he's come is taking the year-end championships in 2005. Impressive, yes, but let's be fair. Everyone's thinking "Caribbean vacation" when they get to Shanghai. Anyway, for someone with such a strong game, he possesses a surprising lack of consistency and confidence. Of course, if he can pull Argentina out of its Davis Cup hole this weekend, that could serve as a boon.
Most likely to start the year with a bang, er, Slam: Andy Roddick. He gave Federer a run for his money in Shanghai, and a couple more months with Jimmy Connors in his ear is only going to help.
Most improved player:James Blake. Everyone knows his comeback story. And most would have continued to laud Blake had he pretty much hovered where he was last fall. This year, though, he left mediocrity behind, and managed to fill the American void at the top of men's tennis. While Andy Roddick was coming around to the fact that all the naysayers were right, Blake was still improving. The fact that he can beat Nadal, Roddick, Nalbandian and Safin puts him right up there now with the real contenders, who come to the majors with a swagger. Can he get closer to Federer next year?
Most likely to skip a grade: Looks like the British investment in Andy Murray's gonna pay off real soon. Brad Gilbert led his charge on a summer tear, beating Roddick on his home court and Federer in the summer. Assuming he doesn't suffer from Big-Head Syndrome (BHS), he may break deep into the second week of a major.
OK, there's something else bothering me. Why do all the British players have such bad teeth? What the hell, Henman and Murray (who's really Scottish, but which I suppose is close enough)? And what the hell, Britain (and Scotland)? Why won't these players take full advantage of their dental bennies? Fight Bad Teeth Syndrome (BTS)!
Worst dressed: Nadal. Yes, the capris are cool. But there's not a damn thing sexy about pulling wedges out of your ass after every point.
Valedictorian:Andre Agassi. (Cue the Pomp and
Circumstance music) He started pro tennis school with a bleached mane and denim shorts. He finished a "super-senior" with 8 Grand Slams, no hair whatsoever, and jewelry made by his kids. How geeky. Yeah, right. Agassi graduates with a summa cum laude degree and a permanent place in sports history, as one of the best bad-boys, underdogs, frontrunners and foils to fellow legends of the game. (Pete Sampras, Pat Rafter) Who knows what Andre will do with his advanced degree? Teach children? Check. Mentor up-and-comers? Check. Kick his wife's ass in singles? Well, a man can dream. (Kill "Pomp and Circumstance" music now)
Girls:
Most likely to succeed: Who the heck knows? The women's game has been unpredictable this year, what with injuries and all. I still ask myself, despite the Vaidisovas, Petrovas and Jankovices out there, what would happen if everyone was fit? Utopia: Lindsay Davenport, the Williams sisters, Mauresmo, the Belgians, the Russians, Hingis, and hell, throw in a Capriati -- all in one tournament, preferably a major. What we have now: Mauresmo, Hingis, Sharapova, and no drama, no rivalries, matches that take 17 minutes to play, and, oh, is that Roger Federer playing Dominic Hrbaty? Hey, let's see that! Yeah. That bad.
Least likely to succeed: Kim Clijsters. You don't announce your retirement two years in advance and expect folks to let you roll on them as you pursue your Grand Slam.
Most improved player:Martina Hingis. Let's pay tribute to some hard work. In a time where players get hurt and return with more 'bone density,' (ahem)
here's someone who retired for almost three years. Hingis, let's not forget, started the year ranked outside the top 1000. By the Australian, she was at 349. Now, No. 7 in the world. That, my friends, is what you call a comeback.
Of course, Virginie Razzano taking Hingis to the woodshed at the U.S. Open remains filed in the "UFO Sightings, and the time Agassi beat Baghdatis at the U.S. Open" file.
Least improved player: Not only hasn't she improved, but Elena Dementieva has only managed to stay in the top 10 because of the lack of depth in the game right now. Okay. So what if you can be a steady top-tenner if you have the worst serve in the history of tennis, including the times when old heads were playing with wood racquets? I felt sorry for her a few years back, when she cried during the French Open final, "I hate my serve!" What, does she love it now? Because it's still the same sorry pedestrian serve. If being a professional tennis player is your career, and you're not working to improve your performance at your career, can Dementieva at least stop whining about reaching the next level? Next stop: Myskinaville.
Most likely to start the year with a bang, er Slam: Sharapova. She still hasn't tried to vary her game, but the Australian's on a fast surface, and it's a short break between seasons. Those factors will probably roll in her favor.
Most likely to skip a grade: Jelena Jankovic. She has a great game. Power, finesse, net game, brains, and she has a great time out there. With the exception of her meltdown against Henin-Hardenne at the U.S. Open, she deals with pressure fairly well. I could see her making top 10 next year, especially if most of the contenders keep taking sick days.
Most likely to drop out: Serena Williams. And this isn't a slight, a la Chris Evert. Serena is young, talented and has the world open to her. She can do whatever she wants. As a tennis fan, I wish she had really set her mind to domination. Venus, too. But I think the older sister still feels she's got something left to prove. Serena? Seven slams, including her last, at the Australian, which she practically won tripping out of bed that morning. Former world No. 1. Intimidating former world No.1. She was Federer-imposing. While she was on top, she brought a lot to the game, but it's time to set Serena free from our expectations. Fly away, Serena. Fly away.
Best dressed: Although I maintain the sequins was a big mistake, Sharapova wins for her black evening-dress gear for the U.S. Open. Who would've thought you could even wear a little black dress to a sporting event?
Worst dressed: Sorry, Serena, you've got to play to qualify. Alas, just when you think there's no more tackily-dressed players, allow me to submit Bethanie Mattek. If you missed her Wimbledon get-up, do a Google search.
Valedictorian:Martina Navratilova. Hands down, the best female player ever, better than Steffi Graf. Check out part of her last report card from the USTA:
Endurance: A+
Martina is a competitive player. She is always working to improve her game, but this persistence makes it difficult to get her to put down her racquet. As a result, she has been able to play quality tennis at fifty years old.
Mathematics: A+
Martina is very good with numbers. For example, she is a former World No. 1 in singles and doubles (and has held both spots at the same time.) For another example, Martina has won 9 Wimbledon titles. She is also very good with double digits. She has 49 Grand Slam titles. Eighteen are singles titles. She was 49 years old when she won her last Grand Slam title at the U.S. Open with Bob Bryan.
Martina's aspirations have enabled her to count very high. To illustrate, she has won 178 career titles, a record among all the boys and girls in her class, past and present. She once went on a 109-match win streak with her doubles partner, Pam Shriver.
English: A+
Although Martina is not a native American, she has learned to speak out very well. Some of her words have cost her many endorsement dollars, but Martina is undeterred. Her words have never failed to inspire her classmates, and those outside the classroom. Also, her grasp of the language and the measure of her words far exceed younger students whose first language is English.
Geometry: A+
As a left-handed student, Martina has become very good at creating beautiful (and acute!) angles in class.
As our favorite pros graduate to ... next year, I guess, a look at the yearbook:
Boys:
Most likely to succeed: Roger Federer
Most likely to succeed, not including Roger Federer: Rafael Nadal? Hmm. He finishes his year struggling with an abdominal injury, and with 2 losses to Fed, and another to Jimmie Blake. But his game gives most players, including Rog, fits. You don't want to take too much from end-of-year stats though, and it seems after Wimbledon, the year caught up with Nadal. Which is what seemed have to happened to Rafa last year. Remember? He won the French, and tumbled in the first week at Wimbledon and Flushing Meadow. Certainly, he's made some incredible strides this year. By far, his most impressive feat was making the Wimbledon final. He's going to get better, too, so look for a complete year for Rafa in 2007, and (gasp!) another Grand Slam that is not the French.
Least likely to succeed: This hurts, but I'm going with David Nalbandian. I love his game. At his best, he shows steadiness, variety and is capable of beating down his opponent. At his worst: Whiny. Slumped shoulders. Mental weakness. Those 'worsts' are worst than his 'bests.' He's been on the cusp for a couple of years now, and the closest he's come is taking the year-end championships in 2005. Impressive, yes, but let's be fair. Everyone's thinking "Caribbean vacation" when they get to Shanghai. Anyway, for someone with such a strong game, he possesses a surprising lack of consistency and confidence. Of course, if he can pull Argentina out of its Davis Cup hole this weekend, that could serve as a boon.
Most likely to start the year with a bang, er, Slam: Andy Roddick. He gave Federer a run for his money in Shanghai, and a couple more months with Jimmy Connors in his ear is only going to help.
Most improved player:James Blake. Everyone knows his comeback story. And most would have continued to laud Blake had he pretty much hovered where he was last fall. This year, though, he left mediocrity behind, and managed to fill the American void at the top of men's tennis. While Andy Roddick was coming around to the fact that all the naysayers were right, Blake was still improving. The fact that he can beat Nadal, Roddick, Nalbandian and Safin puts him right up there now with the real contenders, who come to the majors with a swagger. Can he get closer to Federer next year?
Most likely to skip a grade: Looks like the British investment in Andy Murray's gonna pay off real soon. Brad Gilbert led his charge on a summer tear, beating Roddick on his home court and Federer in the summer. Assuming he doesn't suffer from Big-Head Syndrome (BHS), he may break deep into the second week of a major.
OK, there's something else bothering me. Why do all the British players have such bad teeth? What the hell, Henman and Murray (who's really Scottish, but which I suppose is close enough)? And what the hell, Britain (and Scotland)? Why won't these players take full advantage of their dental bennies? Fight Bad Teeth Syndrome (BTS)!
Worst dressed: Nadal. Yes, the capris are cool. But there's not a damn thing sexy about pulling wedges out of your ass after every point.
Valedictorian:Andre Agassi. (Cue the Pomp and
Circumstance music) He started pro tennis school with a bleached mane and denim shorts. He finished a "super-senior" with 8 Grand Slams, no hair whatsoever, and jewelry made by his kids. How geeky. Yeah, right. Agassi graduates with a summa cum laude degree and a permanent place in sports history, as one of the best bad-boys, underdogs, frontrunners and foils to fellow legends of the game. (Pete Sampras, Pat Rafter) Who knows what Andre will do with his advanced degree? Teach children? Check. Mentor up-and-comers? Check. Kick his wife's ass in singles? Well, a man can dream. (Kill "Pomp and Circumstance" music now)
Girls:
Most likely to succeed: Who the heck knows? The women's game has been unpredictable this year, what with injuries and all. I still ask myself, despite the Vaidisovas, Petrovas and Jankovices out there, what would happen if everyone was fit? Utopia: Lindsay Davenport, the Williams sisters, Mauresmo, the Belgians, the Russians, Hingis, and hell, throw in a Capriati -- all in one tournament, preferably a major. What we have now: Mauresmo, Hingis, Sharapova, and no drama, no rivalries, matches that take 17 minutes to play, and, oh, is that Roger Federer playing Dominic Hrbaty? Hey, let's see that! Yeah. That bad.
Least likely to succeed: Kim Clijsters. You don't announce your retirement two years in advance and expect folks to let you roll on them as you pursue your Grand Slam.
Most improved player:Martina Hingis. Let's pay tribute to some hard work. In a time where players get hurt and return with more 'bone density,' (ahem)
here's someone who retired for almost three years. Hingis, let's not forget, started the year ranked outside the top 1000. By the Australian, she was at 349. Now, No. 7 in the world. That, my friends, is what you call a comeback.
Of course, Virginie Razzano taking Hingis to the woodshed at the U.S. Open remains filed in the "UFO Sightings, and the time Agassi beat Baghdatis at the U.S. Open" file.
Least improved player: Not only hasn't she improved, but Elena Dementieva has only managed to stay in the top 10 because of the lack of depth in the game right now. Okay. So what if you can be a steady top-tenner if you have the worst serve in the history of tennis, including the times when old heads were playing with wood racquets? I felt sorry for her a few years back, when she cried during the French Open final, "I hate my serve!" What, does she love it now? Because it's still the same sorry pedestrian serve. If being a professional tennis player is your career, and you're not working to improve your performance at your career, can Dementieva at least stop whining about reaching the next level? Next stop: Myskinaville.
Most likely to start the year with a bang, er Slam: Sharapova. She still hasn't tried to vary her game, but the Australian's on a fast surface, and it's a short break between seasons. Those factors will probably roll in her favor.
Most likely to skip a grade: Jelena Jankovic. She has a great game. Power, finesse, net game, brains, and she has a great time out there. With the exception of her meltdown against Henin-Hardenne at the U.S. Open, she deals with pressure fairly well. I could see her making top 10 next year, especially if most of the contenders keep taking sick days.
Most likely to drop out: Serena Williams. And this isn't a slight, a la Chris Evert. Serena is young, talented and has the world open to her. She can do whatever she wants. As a tennis fan, I wish she had really set her mind to domination. Venus, too. But I think the older sister still feels she's got something left to prove. Serena? Seven slams, including her last, at the Australian, which she practically won tripping out of bed that morning. Former world No. 1. Intimidating former world No.1. She was Federer-imposing. While she was on top, she brought a lot to the game, but it's time to set Serena free from our expectations. Fly away, Serena. Fly away.
Best dressed: Although I maintain the sequins was a big mistake, Sharapova wins for her black evening-dress gear for the U.S. Open. Who would've thought you could even wear a little black dress to a sporting event?
Worst dressed: Sorry, Serena, you've got to play to qualify. Alas, just when you think there's no more tackily-dressed players, allow me to submit Bethanie Mattek. If you missed her Wimbledon get-up, do a Google search.
Valedictorian:Martina Navratilova. Hands down, the best female player ever, better than Steffi Graf. Check out part of her last report card from the USTA:
Endurance: A+
Martina is a competitive player. She is always working to improve her game, but this persistence makes it difficult to get her to put down her racquet. As a result, she has been able to play quality tennis at fifty years old.
Mathematics: A+
Martina is very good with numbers. For example, she is a former World No. 1 in singles and doubles (and has held both spots at the same time.) For another example, Martina has won 9 Wimbledon titles. She is also very good with double digits. She has 49 Grand Slam titles. Eighteen are singles titles. She was 49 years old when she won her last Grand Slam title at the U.S. Open with Bob Bryan.
Martina's aspirations have enabled her to count very high. To illustrate, she has won 178 career titles, a record among all the boys and girls in her class, past and present. She once went on a 109-match win streak with her doubles partner, Pam Shriver.
English: A+
Although Martina is not a native American, she has learned to speak out very well. Some of her words have cost her many endorsement dollars, but Martina is undeterred. Her words have never failed to inspire her classmates, and those outside the classroom. Also, her grasp of the language and the measure of her words far exceed younger students whose first language is English.
Geometry: A+
As a left-handed student, Martina has become very good at creating beautiful (and acute!) angles in class.
Four reasons I haven't had any 'Attitude' since the end of the U.S. Open:
1. Lazy
2. Dropped on my head as a baby
3. Eh ... busy. ?
4. Hell, the season should be over anyway.
2. Dropped on my head as a baby
3. Eh ... busy. ?
4. Hell, the season should be over anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)