Musings from the beach

So, I’m on vacation in the Florida Keys, trying to ditch the hibernation weight for the upcoming league season when I notice that Serena Williams lost a match to someone ranked 95th in the world and Dinara Safina, she without a Slam, will be world No. 1 next week. There’s no Maria Sharapova in sight, and no one else in the top five has even sniffed a major, except spring chicken Venus Williams, who'll be 29 this year. And I’m getting ready for the leagues. Does anyone else think this would be a really good time to go pro in women’s tennis?
Anyway, some headlines since I’ve been gone:
1. Roger Federer gets married! OK, I hate starting out with gossip, but this is a big deal! Listen, Fed’s been pretty stubborn about not needing a coach, so who would’ve thunk he’d finally marry Mirka? Well, as someone celebrating her fourth wedding anniversary this week, I feel qualified to say: “Run, Roger, RUN!!!” Kidding. I guess.
The real question is how or if this will change Roger’s game. Because we all know that athletes are incapable of being married and successful at the same time, right? That’s silly. The issues keeping Roger from No. 1 have nothing to do with outside forces. It's that Spaniard ... and that Brit ... and that Serb.
Rumor also has it that Andy Roddick got married over the weekend. Aww. Let’s hope the wings of love will carry Andy to the second round of the French Open this year. But! getting married is a fine excuse to miss Roland Garros. Clever move, young Andrew.
2. Women’s tennis is still whack! This is getting hard to watch. It’s like walking into a bank to find the vaults have been cleaned out and the money left strewn on the ground – and that Jelena Jankovic, Safina, Ana Ivanovic, Elena Dementieva, Vera Zvonareva and the rest of the top 20 are just walking over it like it’s not there. Although congratulations are in order for Jankovic for winning Andalucia and mowing down top 1,000 competition ... and winning a tournament that sounds like a Disney movie. “Someday, my Slam will come ...”
3. WTA’s Larry Scott leaves! I’ve actually been meaning to get around to this one for a while. He’s moved on to some NCAA conference. He claims to have left because attempts to merge the men’s and women’s tours failed. I can see his point. Because the men’s tour is a well-oiled machine compared to the women’s tour. And when you're the CEO of the women's tour, and the tour sucks, then guess who's responsible for that? When you have the Williams sisters and Sharapova experiencing fame -- without the tour taking advantage of some of that, it's really your fault. Yeah, what's happening now is nothing to write home about, but it used to be, and the tour never benefitted from that. I say that's a failing of the PR machine. See you around, Larry. Thanks, anyway.
I'll be back in a week or so. Vacation calls.

There goes that android theory ...

So, I saw a few things I've never seen before while watching tennis. I'll share them:
1. Unfortunately, I had to watch the Rafa Nadal v. Juan Martin del Potro on Fox Sports Network. For the uninitiated, this means tennis coverage can be interrupted with no notice and in a blink of an eye, you're now watching hockey. Taped hockey. Anyway, today, toward the end of the match, a crawl came across the screen saying "Savran Sportbeat (or whatever) will air after the match." Wow. Look at them. All grown up and everything.
2. Then, I watched Nadal play very strangely in the third-set tiebreak. I don't know how to describe it. And I hesitate to even make this implication, but (gulp) did he looked to be afraid to lose!? Playing patty-cake against an opponent who had missed two wide-open sitters at the net? Whatever. I guess Nadal's entitled to lose every now and again, although just last week, he had beaten the crap out of del Potro. Is this going to be a milestone for the Argentine? I guess we'll find out when he takes on Andy Murray in the semis.
3. Right now, I'm watching the Williams sisters slug it out in the semis. I have one question: Why won't one of them take one step back from the baseline on the return? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: That only intimidates people if your returns are good. I don't know that the 25 percent of the time they can connect on the shot is worth it. Actually, I do know. Um, it ain't.

"The hunger is back."

So says Kim Clijsters, who announced today a slow-but-steady comeback to tennis. She plans to play some exhibitions, then start in Cincinnati, play Toronto and then the U.S. Open. (Good to see some players take that "Road Trip" campaign seriously.)
It'll be good for the game to see Clijsters back. It sure doesn't look like Maria Sharapova's coming back anytime soon, and all the players in the second tier right now seem content to stay there, and not challenge the Williams sisters. The question, though, is if injuries will continue to dog her, because if they do, she'll be making another quick exit from the game.
How-EVAH, should Clijsters come back and say, make the U.S. Open semis, it's really going to reveal some holes in the women's game. Not like they're not immediately obvious, but if a 25-year-old who took a couple of years off to have a kid can come back and go toe-to-toe with Jelena Jankovic or Dinara Safina ... well, that's remarkable, but not in a great way for Jankovic or Safina.
Clijsters was always a fun player to watch, and if she ever wanted to rack up the Grand Slam titles, this would be a good time to come back.
One more thing: Clijsters, in her press conference, said the urge to play again came almost immediately after practicing for exhibitions. She said, "We'll evaluate things after the U.S. Open and take it from there. What counts is that I simply feel like doing this right now!"
She feels like doing this right now, folks. I'm just going to throw this out there: You know, when you think retirement, you usually think about older people, because they've had time to think about it, make their mark on their career, and are now appropriately done with it. Kim. You're a kid. It's nice that you're back, but if you had taken a year off without retiring, it looks like you would have come back anyway. Here's a new tennis rule: No retirement press conferences for anyone under the age of 32. That's it!

Comeback time?

Some people (Jelena Jankovic, Dinara Safina, Ana Ivanovic, Vera Zvonareva, Amelie Mauresmo – shall I continue?) have no idea of how to take advantage of the proverbial gift horse.
Then there’s Kim Clijsters, who, taking a page out of Lindsay Davenport’s book, has decided that even with a kid on her hip, she could be in the women’s top 10 by the end of the year. If she puts the kid down, that’s top 5, easy.
Clijsters is having a press conference on Thursday to discuss her plans for 2009. Either she’s coming out of retirement or she feels the need to tell us she’s reserving a sitter every Wednesday for date night.
Having not seen her play lately, she still has a hella edge, as Serena Williams might say. She’d easily make the quarters of the French with the state of the women’s game, which is not a great thing. But the much-needed depth she could bring would be a huge breath of fresh air.
Although, as good as Clijsters was, most would add that she probably should have “finished” her career with more than one Slam. But now that Henin’s not around to choke against, maybe having a family will allow her to play with abandon.
More about this on Thursday. Meanwhile, let’s dish. How long before Kim Clijsters cracks the top 20?

Popcorn tennis

Sometimes, men’s tennis is so good, I wonder if there’s a script. But then it would be wrestling and that would make me sad.
If there were a script, Rafa Nadal would be the guy who always looks down and out … then claws his way to victory, defying the odds, probably with a Peter Cetera song shrieking on in the background about the glory of love.
Nadal’s latest magic trick was performed in the wee hours of Thursday morning at Indian Wells, fighting off five match points, then utterly dominating David Nalbandian 6-0 in the third set. A lot of people might see a result like this, and add them with the previous titanic battles he’s been through, and wonder if he’s really good enough to be No. 1, because he doesn’t wipe the floor with opponents (like some former world No. 1, ahemRogerFedererahem). Um, yeah! And on top of that, I like him more with each improbable victory. He da man! That’s it!

And then there’s Dinara Safina, who could have become world No. 1 with an appearance in this final. You did notice the past tense usage, right? Yeah, quarterfinal loss to Victoria Azarenka, who would have probably beaten Serena Williams in Australia if the match hadn’t taken place in an oven. However, Safina is slowly showing the ability to deal with pressure situations with a steady hand. Very slowly. How slowly? She might be mentally ready for a Slam final by this time next year.

Last, but certainly the most entertaining news this week is Roger Federer and his girlfriend Mirka expecting a baby. Let’s just kill the noise about fatherhood taking the edge off the Fed. Look, Tiger Woods has two kids, and he’s still the best player in the world! (He also finished ninth in his last tournament …) But we need to get to the heart of the matter here. There are some serious concerns to address:
1. Roger. Are you going to marry your girlfriend?
2. Whatever happened to traditional child names, like Susan, and Thomas and Randall? Why do people have to name their kids after car parts, fruits and aging rock stars?

The return of Maria Sharapova

Good to see Sharapova back! But did anyone tell her that she will probably have to volley in doubles?

9 things I've been doing instead of blogging

1. Watching Serena Williams clean up in a one-day $1.2 million exhibition tournament and wishing my parents had slapped me silly when I said I wanted to be a journalist.
2. Choosing my local league teams for the summer.
3. Thinking "This would be a good time to blog," then going on Facebook.
4. Watching Andy Roddick dismantle some poor Swiss guy in Davis Cup play. Besides Stan Wawrinka and that other decent Swiss player, there are no other men from that country in the top 100. In the top 200, make it three -- Stephane Bohli. You know. Stephane. Bohli.
5. Finding it interesting that David Nalbandian couldn't play Davis Cup because of a "virus." I think I've had that virus before. The original name is very scientific, but translates to "I don't feel like it."
6. Watching Venus Williams win two titles in a row. OK, one of them was in Mexico, but it was clay -- not a bad move if you really want to do some damage in Paris.
7. Reminding myself that it's been a long time since I've seen Maria Sharapova play. Allegedly, she's practicing and planning to play doubles in a tournament with Elena Vesnina -- just doubles. I'm asking myself how bad this injury is, because if I'm a pro with a lingering shoulder injury, I don't think the first major I'd be playing would be the French Open ...
8. Thinking that Zina Garrison has a long road ahead of her trying to prove discrimination in her lawsuit against the USTA. You know, Zina, my job happens to discriminate against me not doing my job. I understand I can be fired for that. Just sayin'. Let's get real for a second, hon: You can't allege discrimination for getting fired just because you're black.
9. Getting tired of Chris Brown. And Rihanna. I can say in all confidence that I DON'T GIVE A &@$(#! Is there nothing more interesting going on in the world? Like Indian Wells? Damn.

The week (or two) that was

So, I joke a lot about how some players shouldn't even bother to show up to events (ahemAndyRoddickatFrenchOpenahem), but everyone should have a chance, right? Specifically Shahar Peer, who, being an Israeli, was denied a visa this week so she could play in the Dubai tournament. Organizers claimed there was concern about her safety because of Israel's incursions into the Gaza Strip. But essentially, Peer was denied the chance to work because of her nationality, which I thought was called discrimination. And credit is due to the WTA and the Tennis Channel for fining and boycotting the event, respectively. More credit is due to Andy Roddick for speaking out about it and marking it off his calendar in support of Peer (although the Dubai organizers classily pointed out that Roddick wouldn't have made it to UAE if he made the final of the Memphis tournament anyway. Like I said, classy). The tournament gets a little bit of credit for clearing Andy Ram to play in the mens draw next week, I guess.
Here's something, though, that I have to put out there. Where is the outrage? Does anyone know what would have happened if Venus Williams was told she couldn't play because she was black? I actually do know. That tournament either would have been canceled or participants would have been forced to drop out, even if they didn't care, just because of the public outcry. Not really clear yet on why some discrimination is okay, while other forms are not. Maybe because if the tournament had not been bleeding cash like Dubai, there would have been a bit more outrage.

Speaking of the sisters Williams, don't they appear to be in the way-back machine. On the way to winning the tournament, Venus had to take on (and took down) Serena in the semifinals. Both women spoke early and often about the two of them being the best players in the world right now. Hunh. Well, I guess that's half-right. Serena is No. 1 in the world, but Venus lost in the third round of the Australian Open, right? Is that what one of the best players in the world does? (OK, it was Carla Suarez Navarro and a tight match, but ...) And you can't be the two best players in the world and be streaky as hell. This is why Jelena Jankovic hangs around, by the way. That's nit-picking, though. Women's tennis needs the sisters to make some noise right now. Be nice to have some other players making some noise, too.

Like Amelie Mauresmo. She beat Elena Dementieva last week in the final in France for her first win in two years. Others who just found themselves in Mauresmo's way were Aggie Radwanska and Jankovic. Very impressive for Mauresmo. She is a two-time Slam winner, and still has a dangerous game, obviously. I never quite understood how she just fell off the radar AFTER winning two majors.

Fed Cup time. Woo.

It's Fed Cup time again, and really, who wouldn't be thrilled about the prospects?! Most of the United States, plus the world. Hard to get excited about a world competition that is played whenever the calendar allows.
I watched some of Melanie Oudin's match against Argentina's Gisela Dulko, and besides being dumbstruck by the lack of quality of the match (it's rare when a match is so bad that I turn off the television), I had a couple more thoughts. I will share them now.
1. U.S. tennis is in trouble. Did you know that there are four American women in the top 10? Yes, four. And two of them are the Williams sisters. Another is Jill "Gramma" Craybas, who at 34, is decidedly not the future of American tennis. The last one, Beth Mattek-Sands, isn't even playing this tie -- and by the way, married some insurance guy in November. So, yeah, four. There are five Russian women in the top 10. Bad shape, people. The worst part is that the new crop doesn't exactly exude hope for even eventual dominance. If you wonder where all the U.S. women are, let's try the 100s: Julie Ditty, Vania King, Carly Gullickson, Oudin, Ashley Harkleroad, Alexandra Stevenson -- the mediocrity roll goes on and on. It's not even their fault. You have to ask: What's going on over at the USTA? How's that player development program going? Let's ask ...
2. Mary Joe Fernandez? Look, she's seems to be a really nice person. But Fed Cup coach? Hell, she's never even struck me as a really great commentator of the game. I'm guessing she was hired because she gets along with everyone. (Has she ever said anything critical about any player?) But what is it about Fernandez that made the USTA think she's going to be able to crack the whip and be a teacher? Even Pam Shriver would have been a better choice. She has a clear grasp of the game and is not afraid to point out shortcomings in players as she sees them.
Not that the criticism is limited to Fernandez. Her predecessor, Zina Garrison, was no Billie Jean King, either. Quite far from it. Come on, USTA, let's show Martina Navratilova the money! (If she's not busy playing hockey. Or making her 18 millionth comeback to tennis.) And who says the captain has to be a woman? There's Brad Gilbert (who, quite clearly, would have something to say), Robert Van't Hof, who coached Lindsay Davenport, Darren Cahill, Patrick McEnroe (hey, Shamil Tarpishev coaches both Davis and Fed Cup teams. Everybody has a price.), etc., etc. Sure, the real development starts way below the Fed Cup level, but what's happening right now at the top is not a good sign.
Oh, yeah, the U.S. and Argentina are tied at 1-1 right now, thanks to Gramma.

Random Aussie Ramblings, Vol. IX: Post Script, part 2

So, I'm trying to explain to my husband why I had to watch the Roger Federer v. Rafa Nadal final live, at 3:30 a.m. -- instead of getting up and watching the 9 a.m. replay on ESPN. I stumbled through a lot of reasons, which boiled down to the same thing, which was "It's just not the same," until I realized what it really was. Fed v. Nadal is like crack cocaine to a tennis buff. You just have to have it, and you don't know why. That explanation, by the way, didn't go over all that well, either.
Regardless, while watching this match unfold, I found myself asking: Is Nadal rope-a-doping? Not in a disrespectful way, but really, in that third set, did he not look like he was foundering, down break points in his last two service games? And then, did he not suddenly rediscover his legs after that massage (trainer bonus, puh-leeze) and dominated that tiebreaker? You don't think of Nadal usually the same way you think about Serena Williams, but there is that refusal to lose that they seem to have in common. Even after Nadal blinked and lost the fourth set, he charged back in the fifth and didn't flinch at all after that. If there was any question before about Nadal's ranking, there shouldn't be anymore. Not until he gets beaten in a Grand Slam final again.
Which brings me to Roger Federer, who has been beaten in a few major finals lately. I want to say glowing things about the way Fed dug in in the second and fourth sets to get it to a fifth set, about how he flattened out his backhand at times and approached the net at others. All I can think about are bad double faults and very bad errors. If Fed ever wants to see the No. 1 ranking again or a Grand Slam champions trophy again, he really needs to address the fact that his backbone comes oozing out of his racquet every time he plays Nadal. If I can see someone tensing up from thousands of miles away on television, then he's freakin' tense. You could literally see Fed checking his swing -- on both wings -- as the match got tighter. I hate to say this, but it appears we're watching the process of Federer getting owned. He hasn't beaten Nadal since late '07, fer cryin' out loud. And his goes schizo against the world No. 1. Now he's attacking the net. Now he's running around his backhand. Now he's hitting drop shots. Nadal doesn't alter his strategy at all. He slugs away at the backhand and it might take a while, but it works. Federer seems to try something for about 15 minutes, and then abandon it at the first error.
Anyway, it was tough watching Federer post-match. And it was nice to see that someone raised Nadal right. He handled watching his opponent weeping in front of him like a real man -- and this is why I'm grateful that tennis is not football. Can you imagine Chad Johnson or Terrell Owens resisting the urge to talk about how great they just played? Sheesh.
All told, AO'09 delivered in drama. We've got the apparent deterioration of the women's draw, only to come up with a familiar winner and the men's draw coming down to the best possible match up and delivering the quarterly fix we tennis junkies need. Some props to for the Williams sisters, the Bryan brothers and Mahesh Bhupati and Sania Mirza (now a doubles specialist??) for winning the -- as follows: womens doubles, mens doubles, and mixed dubs. Um ... woo!

Random Aussie Ramblings, Vol. VIII: Post Script, part one

You know, when you see Serena Williams shouting like a pissed-off lioness, pumping her fist and with her big hoop earring looped over her ear instead of hanging neatly on her lobe, it makes you realize that you wouldn't really want to run into her in a dark alley. She reminds me of the wannabe gang members girls I knew in junior high who packed a plastic container of vaseline in their bookbags just in case someone looked at them wrong.
Also quite glad I didn't stay up until 3:30 a.m. to watch the Williams v. Dinara Safina final. I'm almost upset I got up at 9 to watch it. What a stinker -- really? 6-0, 6-3?? Anyway, Safina's movement, or lack thereof, really hurt her in this match. Up until now, Safina's gotten the edge because of her solid groundstrokes, and not because she's chasing everything down. The writing was on the wall early here, but at least Safina can take a lot of positives out of this tournament.
Moving on, I will be staying up for the Roger Federer v. Rafa Nadal match tonight (this morning?). First, some props to Fernando Verdasco for pushing Nadal to the limit in the semis. It's nice to see a journeyman finally tap that potential. I've said it before, but this is what's great about men's tennis right now. Everyone in the top 20 is dangerous. Here's hoping we see some more great tennis for The Hot Truth.
Back to the battle of the titans. I wouldn't even venture to guess who's going to come out on top, but the idea that Nadal will have trouble recovering from this tournament is a little ridiculous to me, even if it's coming from Nadal's own mouth. Dude is 22 years old and I again point out that he's pretty much a cyborg. He sleepwalked through the first five rounds of this tournament. One match, and he's tired? Are you kidding me?
As for Fed, he has recovered nicely from going the distance with Tomas Berdych earlier in the tournament, and against Andy Roddick in the semifinals, he was fairly frightening. A lot is being made of this match being the first Grand Slam final against Nadal on hard courts, and Fed has a 3-2 edge on the surface. However, it has been more than a year since Fed last beat Nadal on anything. In that time, Nadal's been able to expose Federer's backhand, and Fed's been unable to settle on a match-long strategy. But it's a new year and a new major. The real question is "What can you snack on at 4 a.m. during an instant-classic match?"

Random Aussie Ramblings, Vol. VII: More guesses that are just going to be wrong

OK, that's what's great about Serena Williams, right? Love her or not so much, only very special athletes can summon their best game when they're on the verge of losing. Her win over Svetlana Kuznetsova was phenomenal. Yes, she might have gotten an assist from Aussie Open organizers, who opted to close the stadium roof after the first set, but she still was down 5-3 in the second set. Then she started hitting the ball. Really, what was she doing in the first couple sets? It was like she didn't want to break a nail. Anyway, she recovered from that dire concern to lay the smackdown on Kuznetsova, who, unfortunately, has to wonder again what happened to her in a high-stakes match. She can't just blame the closing of the roof. Just as Serena grabbed victory from defeat, she's got to believe she was just as capable of sticking one more volley. She definitely let Serena off the ropes.

Anyway, a few semifinals coming to a court near you (if you live in Australia):
Elena Dementieva v. Serena Williams: Still not ready to give Dementieva her props, and after watching Serena yesterday, not utterly convinced that she'll beat Dementieva, either. Maybe Dementieva's finally ready for her Grand Slam close up. If it gets tight, and it comes down to someone getting free points on the serve, well, I guess we all know Dementieva's not winning that battle. I'm hesitantly going with Serena in three.
Vera Zvonareva v. Dinara Safina: Too close to call. This is a huge moment for both these players. Safina's been to a major final before, but she is really playing with conviction now. For Zvonareva, this is the best she's ever done in a Slam, and it's hard to tell how a player will respond to that. I just hope they don't revert to their former selves at the same time on court. Could you imagine? Safina's over there smashing hell out of her racquet and Zvonareva's on the other side having a nervous breakdown. Here's hoping nerves don't get in the way of what could be a great match.
Andy Roddick v. Roger Federer: Federer in straight sets. I'm not drinking the Andy Roddick Kool-Aid. I don't care how much weight he's lost. OK, I do. Very impressive rededication to fitness, blah, blah, blah.
But.
He needs to learn how to volley, and really make that serve work for him.

On a non-AO note, the U.S. Fed Cup roster was announced and the Williams sisters are absent. Scheduling conflicts or the skirmish between the USTA and Zina Garrison? Inquiring minds ...

Random Aussie Ramblings, Vol. VI: Is it hot in here or is it me?

Today's TWA post is brought to you by the number 95, as in the on-court temperature that sucked the game right out of Novak Djokovic. He eked out a tiebreaker win against Andy Roddick, but couldn't hang for much longer after that. Post-match, Djokovic complained about having a couple of late matches, then an early one, which threw off his preparation for this match. Normally, the schedule goes like this: Ladies first. And it just figures that men would have an issue with that. Geez. Seriously, though, he raises a good point. Why not balance out late matches among all players? Never mind, really, how the players feel about it, but if messed-up scheduling leads to lopsided late-round matches, then spectators don't get the best matchups, either. And isn't it really all about us?

The weather sure has turned out to be the third man in Australia. I wonder, though, are players not as fit as they should be, or is it just too darned hot in January out there?

And, AND! Did anyone catch the women's doubles match between Cara Black and Liezel Huber and Daniela Hantuchova and Ai Sugiyama? What a match! Who doesn't love Ai Sugiyama? Or at least saying Ai Sugiyama?

On tap for today:
Carla Suarez Navarro v. Elena Dementieva: I'm just not ready to jump on the Dementieva bandwagon. Everyone's all, "She's won 14 straight matches. She's a threat." She sure seems to be on a roll, true enough, but so does Suarez Navarro. She's followed up her win over Venus Williams with a trip to the quarters, so who knows? Plus, I'm still waiting for Dementieva's serve to fail her yet again. At some point, she's going to encounter someone who can attack it. So ... I'm going with Dementieva in straights.
Svetlana Kuznetsova v. Serena Williams: Serena. Straights. Let's move on.
Fernando Verdasco v. Jo-Jo Tsonga: Curious matchup, and exactly what I expected in this part of the draw. Uh-huh. It's hard to pick against Tsonga, and I won't do it here, although if the excessive heat continues, it would probably hurt him more than Verdasco. Otherwise, it's hard to beat the kitchen sink when it comes at you with every shot. I think Tsonga's going to cruise.
Rafa Nadal v. Gilles Simon: Nadal. Simon is crafty and patient, but Nadal has the best form of anyone left. He's smacking winners around like the ball stole something from him. Maybe Simon grabs a set. Maybe.

A quarterfinal for your thoughts?

Boy, these are exactly as I called 'em!

Marion Bartoli v. Vera Zvonareva: I might have to stop calling Bartoli "Candy". She looks to have slimmed down a touch, and she's in the quarterfinals of a major again. After she beat the fuzz off the balls against Jelena Jankovic, it's pretty clear that when she's on, she's on. But Zvonareva has been very solid lately. I think this'll be a tight one, but Zvonareva will come out of top. It's about time to her to make a move in a major.
Andy Roddick v. Novak Djokovic: OK, Djokovic did not look very impressive against Marcos Baghdatis. Or Amer Delic. And Andy Roddick has been firing on all cylinders at this tournament. I can't see Djokovic getting aced off a court, though, and that's all Roddick's really got. Novak in four.
Dinara Safina v. Jelena Dokic: This match should be really entertaining. Basically, it's the collision of two really good stories this tournament. It looks like Safina is really maturing these days -- digging deep when she falls behind instead of going all Marat on her racquet. And Dokic, now baggage free, is collecting her own little collection of scalps. I don't even want to call this one, because if I did, I'd have to favor Safina, and what kind of heart would I have to do something like that?
Juan Martin del Potro v. Roger Federer: Look, after watching "Houdini" Federer get out from under Tomas Berdych the other day, I can't see him losing to anyone except the big 3 (or 4. Whichever.). Del Potro's been starting his matches slowly this tournament, and he should really not try that here. Friendly suggestion. Fed in straights.

Random Aussie Ramblings, Vol V: Shame on me ...

It's quickly becoming clear that being a favorite at the Australian Open will mean nothing. Whoever wins the Open this year will be the last man standing (possibly literally).
It won't be Andy Murray, who lost in five sets to Fernando Verdasco. I swear, I fell asleep last night with Murray up a break in the third set. What happened after that? Anyone? Well, I guess I'll see it in the replay, but I did suspect that Verdasco would be a bit dangerous with that Davis Cup win under his belt. As for Murray, it's back to square one trying to convince Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic to take him seriously. And me too, dammit. Once again, I pick Murray to make noise in a Slam, and he comes through -- but it's a whimper.
Gael Monfils won't be the last one standing, either. He managed to win the second set against fellow Frenchie Gilles Simon, before he was waylaid by injury. It seems like it's always something with Monfils. Isn't Roger Rasheed supposed to be a fitness trainer? So what's he getting paid for, to offer unsolicited commentary on the fitness of the women on tour? He might want to focus on the job at hand, and get his charge deep into the second week of a major.
How-EVAH, I am really starting to dig Simon's game. I have never seen this guy overswing at a ball. He just absorbs power, then waits patiently to whack his own winners. He showed how dangerous he is at the end of last season, and he'll get a chance to beat Rafa Nadal, this time in the quarterfinals of a Grand Slam.
Who, by the way, might be a cyborg. He's tearing through the draw like he's going to be late for dinner. Unforced errors against Fernando Gonzalez: 11. Which is just pathetic compared to the eight he had in the previous round. And then only 33 winners. That's +22, people. But this is where the draw's going to get really tough for Nadal. First Simon, then probably Jo-Jo Tsonga, and most likely either Djokovic or Federer in the final. If he can beat them around the court, then it'll be official: He's a cyborg.
Decidely not a cyborg is Serena Williams, who was up against the ropes until Victoria Azarenka had to stop due to illness. For Serena, it must be nice to get through, but really, she was getting outhit and looked really sloppy in the fourth round. Next up: Svetlana Kuznetsova. This could be a really ugly match, or a really good one.
Quarterfinal previews comin' up!

Random Aussie Ramblings, Vol IV: Reason No. 172 that Rafa should NOT be a wrestler

How about Richard Gasquet losing a heartbreaker in five sets to Fernando Gonzalez? Pretty nice match for week one of a Slam. But did anyone notice that Chilean fans appeared to have started a fire in the stands at the end of the match? They apparently set off flares. Seriously. I know I said tennis could use some more active fans, but I wasn't talking about setting the joint on fire.
Despite the loss, Gasquet really showed something aside quite different from the shaky mentality he had last season at Davis Cup. He had a match point in the third set, lost it, and then played a hell of a fifth set before he simply blinked. Here's hoping he doesn't lose massive amounts of confidence from this. Gonzo just beat him, and he fought well. Besides, if you're Gasquet, your consolation is that you know you left Gonzo with very little in the reserves for ... wait for it ... Rafa Nadal.
One of the horrid commentators on the Tennis Channel made an, um, interesting observation against Nadal while he was dismantling Tommy Haas (who really deserved, with his game, to be No. 1 in the world at some point in his career): "Y'know, Nadal should have been a wrestler. You just sense that he's grappling with you the whole time." Nadal does draw every ounce of energy from his opponents, but no, he should not be a wrestler. Why?
1. Nadal with cauliflower ear is not a Nadal I would like to watch.
2. No time to pick out wedgies as a wrestler. Clearly.
3. Onesies.
4. Nadal is actually beating the crap out of people. Triple H is faking it. Seriously. (And what are the triple h's? If one of them is Harold, ...)
Regardless. Nadal made 8 unforced errors for the entire match. Are you kidding me? The big four (and there are four now) are playing like demons, and they're on a collision course. Whew.
On the women's side, I just watched Marion Bartoli beat Jelena Jankovic in straight sets. Bartoli played great, no question, but if you're Jankovic and watching the tape later, you'd have to ask yourself why you didn't make Bartoli run up and back with crosscourt angles. It was a clear weakness that begged to be exposed. Basically, the top draw is now led by Dinara Safina, which means that anyone can come through. I'm officially intrigued by the women's draw now. There. I said it.

Random Aussie Ramblings, Vol. III: What is this now, soccer?

... I've never been able to understand why people choose sporting events to make political statements. And why they'd think that throwing chairs and injuring innocent people proves you're right. Ethnic tensions between Bosnians and Serbians came to a boil on Day 5, with morons -- er, spectators -- throwing chairs at each other and knocking some woman unconscious. There's not a lot more to say about this, except that the days of the streaker are sorely missed ...

... except on the doubles court, where a guy showed up on court half-naked during the Williams sisters match. Considering the alternative, bring it on, I guess ...

Ana Ivanovic bowed out to Alisa Kleybanova in the third round. Kleybanova's a nice player and played a great match, but it's hard to win a match when you give up 50 unforced errors. And can anyone name one man in the top 100 who is so obviously not fit, because I can name about 10 women, and that ain't right.

Marat Safin indicated that this will be his last year on tour in his post-match conference. For those of us who could just break a tooth over that eye candy that is Safin, it's a sad day. As a tennis fan, though, it's about time, methinks. It's really sad to watch someone so naturally gifted lose matches for no really good reason and manage to lower his level to that of journeyman. If, as he says, he's no longer happy playing tennis, then that's that. At the conference, though, he was asked if he knows what he'll do next. His answer: "Yeah, but I'll keep it to myself for the moment. I would love to do that. I'm ready."
So, inquiring minds want to know: What's Safin's next move? Actor? Model? Wrestler? (Heaven forbid.)

Random Aussie Ramblings, Vol. II: Yikes, Venus. Yikes.

There's always one alternate reality day at a Grand Slam, and Day 4 might have been the one. Amelie Mauresmo went three rounds with Elena Baltacha (huh?), Serena Williams struggled with Gisela Dulko (wha?) and Venus Williams lost in three sets to Carla Suarez Navarro.
Now, Suarez Navarro is no Julie Coin, who upset Ana Ivanovic at the U.S. Open last year and will probably do nothing else. She's drawn a lot of comparison to Justine Henin in the last year or so, but Venus is her biggest scalp yet.
As far as Venus, it's a disappointment, but it was also a close match against someone who played their butt off. It's not like she threw in one of her classic 72-error/12 winner matches. Regardless, she could learn a lesson from little sister Serena, who found herself in a bit of a dogfight finishing out her second-round match. Serena was spraying errors all over creation, but found a way to come back.
Venus is running out of time to prove that she can start a season strong. She even played some exos this year to get ready, so she had matches. Maybe she'll have better luck at the Aussie Open if it's ever moved back in the calendar year.

Moving on, Roger Rasheed, Gael Monfils' coach is catching some heat for calling out some female players on their lack of fitness. I, for one, am appalled. Because folks like Casey Dellacqua, Kaia Kanepi, Baltacha, and Marion Bartoli don't deserve to be called out for looking more like spectators than competitive athletes. I, for one, would never call someone "Candy" Bartoli or tell people to pass on a snack for a change.
OK, it might be hard to hear from a man. That's understandable. But the man is right. If you're an editor, you always have a dictonary. If you're a plumber, you always have a plunger. If you're an athlete, you always have a fit body. That's your tool, and to show up on a court looking dumpy, it signals a lack of full commitment. It's certainly an athlete's prerogative not to be as fit, to surrender to the Snickers urgings, but you'd absolutely deserve to be called out about that.

Jo-Jo Tsonga just limped away from a 3 hour and 25 minute match against Ivan Ljubicic in the second round. Get the popcorn ready for that replay ...

And then there's Andy Murray. Novak Djokovic joined Roger Federer in saying that Murray shouldn't be a favorite at the tournament, despite the fact that he beat Federer and Rafa Nadal before it started. Yeah. Whatever. Anyway, it's Murray's comment to Djokovic and Federer that is cracking me up.
“They say there’s a lot of pressure on them, but then (when) people aren’t saying they’re the favorites, they want to be the favorites. Therefore, by saying they’re the favorites, they’re putting more pressure back on themselves.”
Uhmmm ... what?'

Random Aussie Ramblings: Back in the big leagues?

By far, the big story so far at the Australian Open has got to be Jelena Dokic. Yes, she screwed up my draw a bit, but what a story! At the risk of going all Afterschool-Special here, it really is unfortunate that a father could take total advantage of his kid's talent and status to completely derail her career and make her hate the thing she should love doing. But big props to Jelena. For her to win her first round match against Tamira Paszek, who's an up-and-comer, is a bit more than what most would have expected (which would be nothing). To follow that up with beating Anna Chakvetadze is just cake. It would be great to see Dokic have another semifinal run, to overcome all the family angst to start over and be rewarded. Next up for her is Caroline Wozniacki. Should be interesting ...

The magician strikes again: First Phil Kohlschreiber beats Sam Querrey. Then Fabrice Santoro beats Kohlschreiber. The old man's still got it, I guess. He's going to need some more of "it" for his next match, against Andy Roddick. Last time those two played, I seem to remember Santoro nearly in tears because he thought Roddick was trying to kill him with his hard serves. Well, two rounds ain't bad ...

Oh, yeah, and David Nalbandian. You know, being a fan of Nalbandian is like being a woman with a boyfriend who keeps acting up, and you swear him off. Then he comes back with flowers and promises to do better, and you take him back. He cleans up after himself, stops flirting, wins a couple tournaments, whatever. Then he's back to his old loser self, and the cycle begins ... again and again and again. Sheesh. Would it kill Nalbandian to show some consistency?

The Aussie Open preview

Let's do this!

MEN:
1. Rafael Nadal: Very suspect preparation for this tournament (three matches), especially considering that he ended '08 with an injury. The draw won't be altogether helpful if he's feeling any rust. There's Dmitry Tursunov, Richard Gasquet -- and the guy who just beat Nadal a week or so ago, Gael Monfils. However, Nadal is basically awesome. There is that factor.
2. Roger Federer: Here's something I didn't know: Apparently, having previously been world No. 1 gives you the ability the determine who can win a major. Federer seems amazed that anyone would pick Andy Murray as the favorite. There seems some hesitance on his part to let Murray into the club. Could he be a bit touchy about his own tenuous membership of that club?
Federer, of course, is always a strong competitor. He saved his season last year by winning the U.S. Open, but he comes to Australia still with a lot to prove. He mainly needs to prove he can hang with everyone else in the club. The ones will full privileges, that is. Such as Novak Djokovic, who he might face in the semifinals. If he's not careful, Fed's going to have to count all the way to three to get to his ranking come French Open time. (Which would be just what he needs for that tournament.)
3. Novak Djokovic: The reigning champion seems to have been rewarded with a sweet draw. Looks like the second best player in his quarter would be David Nalbandian. To defend his title, though, he'd probably have to beat Federer in the semifinals. As we discussed, Fed might have a slight chip on his shoulder. Plus, no mono.
4. Andy Murray: I wish Murray would lose again in the first round of this tournament. Because that would mean you'd have to lose to Andrei Pavel. Pavel's no slouch, but he's not really Jo-Jo Tsonga, either. It'd be hard for Murray not to find some confidence in his 2008, even though it took some time for him to warm up.
You know, George W. Bush once said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ... eh, heh, heh ... y'can't fool me twice!" Wise words indeed. I only mention this because I chose Murray to make the semis last year, and this year, I've gone a bit further. Read on.
5. Jo-Jo Tsonga: Tsonga might return to the site of his coming-out party with confidence, but his draw wouldn't be an easy one. He could meet Murray in the quarters this time. Or he might not show up. Looks like he's tweaked his back and is unsure about playing. It'd be a shame if he couldn't compete.
6. Gilles Simon: Is that right? Ranked sixth at a Slam?? Seriously, Simon's got a great game. He's like a backboard for the most part, but he has the ability to change the direction and add some pace. He deserves his ranking, but he sure doesn't deserve having to play consistent wild card Ivo Karlovic in the third round. Or Monfils in the fourth round. Or Nadal in the quarters. Crikey.
7. Andy Roddick: God bless Andy Roddick for keeping the hope alive, but this is about where he belongs in the rankings right now. This might actually be a bit kind. After all, if Nikolay Davydenko were here (out with injury), he'd be eighth. Whatever. In filling out the draw, I hesitated when I got to Roddick v. Querrey. And again with Roddick v. Nalbandian. In a nutshell, I'm not holding out much hope for Roddick to meet Djokovic in the quarterfinals.
8. Juan Martin del Potro: Del Potro was on a roll last summer, and even into the fall, where he was widely expected to take Argentina past Spain. We all know by now that didn't work out. It'll be interesting to see if he can get back on the horse. A rematch with Feliciano Lopez in the third round might be the motivation he needs.
9. James Blake: Ernests Gulbis in round three. This would be a good time for Blake to beat Gulbis for the first time, and I suppose anything could happen. Sure. James Blake could win the Australian Open. And Andy Roddick could win the French. I could quit my job to become the tooth fairy. See where I'm going here?
10. David Nalbandian: Well, it's only January, so it's hard to know what to expect from Nalbandian. Doesn't seem like he really gets going until somewhere around September (after the Open), but if he was on his game, he could handle his draw until Djokovic in the quarters.

The stragglers:
Gael Monfils (12): Nice win against Nadal this month. Make it happen in a major.
The Fernandos (13 and 14): Pretty boy Lopez and F. Verdasco should still be riding high after their Davis Cup win. Lopez in particular was impressive then, coming up with the big win against del Potro and in doubles. Verdasco, who is not exactly known for his consistency, finished off Jose Acasuso. Who knows?
Marat Safin (26): For old times sake. And because he allegedly shows up to a tournament with his pretty face bruised from a fight. Sounds like a hell of a story to bring to a tournament, but not really boding well for someone already talking retirement. Will he make it to Wimbledon? The French? Yeah, if someone doesn't piss him off, I guess.

I can't believe they're still seeded!
Rainer Schuettler (30): Kicking it old school. Emphasis on old.

First round matches to watch:
Lleyton Hewitt v. Fernando Gonzalez: Here's my question: What good is it to be a home boy like Hewitt only to get a draw like this? Good luck, Lleyton.

The way it'll go down:
Quarterfinals: Nadal v. Monfils, Murray v. Gulbis, Nalbandian v. Djokovic and del Potro v. Federer
Semifinals: Nadal v. Murray, Djokovic v. Federer
Final: Murray v. Djokovic
He is the champion, my friend!: Andy Murray. Prize money should be just enough for those braces.

WOMEN:
1. Jelena Jankovic: I've decided that Jankovic deserves to be number one -- in a way. She's played more than the other top contenders, and manages to stay fairly consistent. Realistically, though, if she wants a Slam and wants to stay numero uno, she's gonna have to ease off on that frenetic schedule.
As far as that other, small matter of winning her first major title, Jankovic can work with this draw. Nathalie Dechy and "Candy" Bartoli will be good warmup matches. The quarters could bring Vera Zvonareva and Dinara Safina in the semis.
2. Serena Williams: Well, we all know Serena's general policy about dominance -- "Never say No. 2!" Unless she's adressing a baby. Along with wanting to be No. 1, she also has what looks to be an easy draw .... that could suddenly become a brick wall in the form of her sister.
3. Dinara Safina: Here's one thing that can happen that will automatically make women's tennis more interesting. Dinara Safina could start to believe in herself. Last year, it was understandable that she blinked in the French finals. And in the U.S. Open semis. 6-3, 6-2 in a semifinal of a Grand Slam? Blinked. More like trying to play tennis with your hands around your throat.
Regardless, it'd sure be nice to see Safina live up to her potential. She certainly has the ability to advance to the semifinals and beat Jankovic. But will she?
4. Elena Dementieva: For all the jokes made here at TWA at Dementieva's expense, let's show some appreciation (so we can get back to the slow-serve jokes) for how she makes the most of what she has. Not that she doesn't have a lot. Some of the most solid groundstrokes in women's tennis, and the ability to make things tough for those in the top 10, regardless of where she's ranked. She could face Venus Williams in the quarters, and give her a tough match. And if she loses, at least we'll all have her post-match conference to look forward to, where she waxes philosphically about the Williams sisters fixing their face-offs.
5. Ana Ivanovic: Toss-up. After winning the French last year, she was waylaid by a thumb injury, which appeared to wreck her confidence. She managed to win a title at the end of the season to end on a positive-ish note. Having said that, she could draw Caroline Wozniacki in the fourth round. That'd be the same Wozniacki (is there another one?) who almost beat Serena Williams last week. Then maybe Safina in the quarters, and Jankovic in the semis. It just depends on the state of her game.
6. Venus Williams: I'm not really a morning person. I start really waking up starting at around noon. By three, four o'clock, I'm on fire. You sort of get the same idea about Venus in the scope of the yearlong schedule. She generally poops out in the early tournaments of the year, but by Wimbledon, she's kickin' butt. She did end the '08 season on a roll, and it could help her that the offseason's only about 18 minutes. She should be able to take advantage in a draw that includes Flavia Pennetta, Patty Schnyder and Dementieva. Looming in the semifinals would be her very own sister, and their latest matches have been hard-fought, high-quality battles.
7. Vera Zvonareva: So, the last time anyone questioned whether Zvonareva belonged in the top 10, it was the year-end championships in November. She beat everyone there except Venus. Lesson: Don't mess with VERA! Anyway, she's the player with the hottest streak in her quarter of the draw. She's taken down some big names at majors, including Venus in '03. But if she doesn't want to be discounted again, she might want to update that Slam resume.
8. Svetlana Kuznetsova: Yikes. How can someone like Kuznetsova have so much game with such an unsteady hand? To be fair, a lot of people would have been glad to have had the year she had in '08 -- fairly consistent appearances in late stages in tournaments, but with no titles. But those people probably don't have her bag of tricks, either. Being in the same quarter with Aggie Radwanska and Serena Willliams isn't really going to help her confidence problems.
9. Aggie Radwanska: I believe this is only Radwanska's second appearance in the top 10 for a major, and she's been rewarded nicely for it. The biggest obstacle for her (before the quarters) is the aforementioned Kuznetsova. Her issue is that she can easily overpowered, so basically, to win a major, she needs some face time with a hamburger.
10. Nadia Petrova: With Petrova, I always wonder 'What if?' What if she hadn't gotten injured before the French Open in 2005, where she was the huge favorite going in? Would she have gotten her first major and run with that confidence for years? Well, all we know now is she'll have a heck of a time getting past Zvonareva in the fourth round.

The stragglers:
None worth mentioning. Now, of course, Daniela Hantuchova's going to make a semifinal run because I said that.

I can't believe they're still seeded!:
Kuznetsova: Although I guess you get points for being a bridesmaid and never a bride ...
Petrova
Marion Bartoli (16)
Amelie Mauresmo (20): This is what I mean about the wading pool that is women's tennis. Amelie Mauresmo made two semifinals last year. In one of them, she lost to Nathalie Dechy. Unh-huh. She's been struggling in mediocrity for ... well, since she won two majors. But ... she did beat Ivanovic last week. So who knows, right?
Having said that, I read a quote from Mauresmo a while back that really made me feel her pain. Last February, she admitted that: "I sometimes ask myself what the hell I am doing there, in front of half-empty stands."
And at the risk of going off on a rant (especially one I've been on before), that should never happen. With all the storylines and characters on women's tennis, they shouldn't be playing in mostly-empty stadiums. I'm not saying tennis could be as big as, say, football, but it deserves to attract a bigger audience than it does. "Gee, how do we get someone to watch two hard-hitting, history-making sisters play for a Grand Slam title? Hunh. I'm stumped."
Seriously.
OK, that was a rant. Back to the program.

First round matches to watch:
Sania Mirza v. Marta Domachowska
Hantuchova v. Casey Dellacqua: I'm thinking Dellacqua, actually.
Jelena Dokic v. Tamira Paszek: Talk about "Whatever happened to ..." Hopefully, Paszek won't beat her too badly.

The way it'll go down:
Quarters: Jankovic v. Zvonareva, Safina v. Wozniacki, Venus v. Dementieva, Radwanska v. Serena
Semifinals: Jankovic v. Safina, Venus v. Serena
Final: Jankovic v. Venus (I think)
She is the champion, my friend!: One of the above, although I'm giving Venus the edge on experience.

TWA '09, or The dog ate my laptop

Happy New Year! A moment of silence, though, please, for my ill laptop, which has kept me from ringing in the year a tad sooner. Resolution: get a new computer without the old one finding out about it.
Anyway, let's get right to it. Let's talk sportsmanship.

cheat: the fraudulent obtaining of another's property by a pretense or trick (from Random House dictionary)

So, Serena Williams is playing a warm-up tournament in Sydney (which in itself is surprising) against Samantha Stosur, and she hits a serve that is clearly a net cord, but is not called. So Stosur returns it, and gets the point because the umpire is sleeping on the job. Williams ended up winning the match.
Fine, umpires make mistakes. But whatever happened to the old soccer mom adage? The one that goes something like "It doesn't matter if you win, it's how you play the game?" How does Sam Stosur take that point with no qualms? Just because it's a clear error by the umpire doesn't mean you act like you have to go with it, even when you know he's wrong. Last I checked, that was called cheating. I've seen pro matches on big stages when opponents overruled an obvious umpire error and awarding their opponents a point, or a new serve. Players are not bound to the call -- especially if they think it's wrong. So, a very firm shake of the finger to you, Sam Stosur. Grow up.
Moving on, just read that Maria Sharapova is out of the Australian Open. Boy, this just makes for an interesting start for the women's tour, doesn't it? Bleech.

As if on cue ...

So, last week, Lindsay Davenport was gearing up for the Aussie Open, and some of her fans (Vicki, Van and myself) were wondering what the eff she was thinking.
Today, nature intervened, and Davenport announced she was pulling out of the major with the ol' nine-month virus.
Whew! Talk about dodging a bullet. Look, the Australian Open wasn't going to turn out well for Davenport anyway, but 'lil Ringo will, in all likelihood, be just fine. Although he probably won't be lucky enough to get that name.

What, does she get senior parking rates?

I'm at odds with myself over whether Lindsay Davenport's decision to enter the Aussie Open is good news. Here's the good, the great part: Davenport is still looking to pursue a professional and competitive tennis career at the ripe old age of 32 -- and as the mother of a toddler. Her intentions are inspiring, and if you've ever thought to yourself that it's too late -- for anything -- it certainly shouldn't have anything to do with your age. (As though 32 is old. But I'm sure it feels old for Davenport when she walks onto the court to play some 14-year-old hotshot.)
How-EVAH. Let's just be unflinchingly honest here. Lindsay Davenport would need to have gotten a speed transplant in the offseason to have a sniff at the Aussie Open third round. Or those Maria Sharapova-type draws. You can't play competitive tennis these days by hoping you hit enough winners that you don't have to rally. Even in the wading pool of women's tennis these days, Davenport hasn't made any major waves. Losing to Marion "Candy" Bartoli at the U.S. Open? Yikes.
Which begs the question: Is it enough (especially for a great champ like Lindsay) to just go out and give it the old university try? If you can't win, is it worth hitting the gym? It's one thing when you're coming up and getting better. When you're obviously on the downslope of your career, and you can't even stay in tournaments long enough to face the big players, it's another thing.
Seriously, I'm conflicted. Lindsay Davenport's return: Thumbs up or thumbs down?

Sneak peak

Roger Federer's 2009 schedule (which starts about six weeks after his 2008 season wrapped) includes two fewer clay court tournaments.
I know, I know ... what does it all mean? His agent says Fed's trying to cut down on all tournaments and peak for the important ones -- the majors. It stands to reason, too, that because he can't seal the deal at the French, he should be playing more clay matches. However, Fed's been to three straight French Open finals. He's lost to the same dominant clay-courter every time. (Although the 2008 whomping had to be demoralizing.)
The other way to look at this: Maybe he's put too much pressure on himself to win at Roland Garros. He is still playing the Masters clay tournaments, so he will get quality opponents -- just not as many matches.
So, does Federer need more clay court play to win the French? And another twist: If he loses it again this year, will he stop trying? I open the floor.

Davis Cup musings, or "Ohhhh-ohhhh-ohhhh"

For the most part, I am a purist, but today, the zoo in Argentina gave me a major revelation about tennis.
First off, wow! Great doubles between Argentina's Agustin Calleri and David Nalbandian and Spain's Feliciano Lopez and Fernando Verdasco! It's not often that you can squander a 5-1 lead in any set. Nope, that only happens when it counts, and you really want to win.
But this is where my revelation comes in, the second off. In the third set, when the Argentinians came back to force the tiebreaker, and were leading 5-1, something happened that seemed to change the course of the set. Someone in the crowd shouted out just as Nalbandian was serving -- and he double-faulted. After that, the Spaniards ran away with it, and set point was played with the crowd going berserk, banging drums, playing trombones, hitting whatever was around.
In theory, Davis Cup is a chance for teams to play for their country. I believe they even invite tennis fans to attend. And they do. With band accessories. Anyway, that's what makes Davis Cup great. (What makes Davis Cup suck is the way it's organized. But I digress. For today. With great hesitance.) Yet, the umpires are shushing the fans like they're in fifth grade again. Sorry, but isn't that what tennis is missing -- excitement? So my question is, "Why is tennis the last sport that needs to be played in utter silence?"
Answer: It doesn't. For the four thousandth time, tennis is 99.921842% mental. That means that if some drunk fans want to scream bloody murder during your service motion, that shouldn't mean you drop your serve. For those of us who don't play in clubs every week, how many times has a car alarm begun blaring during your tennis game? Or a kid started crying? Or a cell phone began ringing? Or a flock of seagulls took flight overhead? And how many times has your foursome just stopped playing until there was complete silence? (If you guys did, I am wagging a severely punishing finger at you right now. Shame.)
The point is, it's time to stop insisting on silence in order to play tennis. It's the last sport to hold on to such an archaic standard. Can you imagine a football game being played as long as the fans keep their pieholes full of beer and hot dogs? In fact, attempts at breaking concentration in football is a common strategy among coaches. How about trying to "ice" a kicker just before he kicks a key field goal? It's sport, people. Not tea and crumpets.
The great thing about not playing the silence game during tennis is that it becomes more of a crowd event, which is one thing tennis needs to gain traction. Note: tennis does not need to change the way it plays tiebreaks or the doubles game in order to gain traction. It needs the little things -- letting Andy Roddick throw his racket if he's a little irritated about that missed volley. We know that for Andy, there will be many.
Point is, this is a small factor that could change the culture of tennis -- for good. Watch the Davis Cup matches this weekend. There is excitement that you don't see in Grand Slams. That should be encouraged. And as for players, it's time they learned to play through fan noise, as Lopez and Verdasco did.
So, what do you think? What could possibly be the downfalls of letting fans be more of an active part of tennis?

The week (or so) that was

Just noticing that a Mariah Carey lyrics blog has been updated before mine. Wow.
Anyway:
1. A belated congratulations to Venus Williams for winning the women's year-end event. There were a lot of good things going on for ol' girl this tournament. She dominated matches that could have been tight. Venus actually changed the pace on a few balls, too. (I really thought the first two were mishits.) She also didn't wilt in the third set, which she's done all season. Her forehand was on point, but her serve was not. I really don't understand how you have a first serve that'll break someone's wrist, and a second serve that strongly resembles Elena Dementieva's first serve. Especially after all these years, you'd think Venus would have developed a stronger weapon with it. However, we know that forehand of hers wasn't built in a day.
Plus, it was nice to see Serena Williams stick around to watch her sister, if that's what she wants to call it. Seems she didn't stop texting rap lyrics to Common until the end of the tournament.
2. Also nice to see Tracy Austin still with a job. Did she really say that the women's field had just seven players -- singling out Vera Zvonareva, who made the final? I'm not sure if that's worse than her saying Kim Clijsters had nothing to hurt Jennifer Capriati with just before the French Open final in 2001, which ended with a 12-10 tiebreaker.
I'm just going to make a quick suggestion for Tracy. If you've never heard of someone (and I don't know how you could not know who Zvonareva is after all these years -- and after her really solid season), refrain from speaking. Just ride the camels in Doha and shriek until I have to turn the television off and count to 60.
3. And on to the men. First, has anyone seen the promo shots for the Shanghai tournament compared to the Doha event? Not only do the men look totally hot, but the ATP appears to have planned the shoot in advance. Notice the similar clothing and controlled environment. It looks like it was organized.
The women? Seriously. What the hell is that? It's just a microcosm of what is wrong with women's tennis.
4. Anyway, put on your blindfolds and stick your hand into the hat. Pick the two men's finalists. That's how random it seems to have Novak Djokovic and Nikolay Davydenko as the last men standing. I thought it was kind of lame for Davydenko to admit he'd rather play Andy Murray than Roger Federer because he had a better record against Murray. (Sure, they all think that way, but actually says it?) I'm like, "Yeah, like you'd beat either of them." But Davydenko looked good this week, dumping water on red-hot Jo-Jo Tsonga and Juan Del Potro. Of course, the only person he didn't beat in his group was Djokovic. Their first match was tight, so we'll see.
Of course, all eyes were on Roger Federer, who went 1-2 in this event, losing to Andy Murray and Gilles Simon. Poor guy. You win one Slam and finish the year at No. 2 in the world, and everyone thinks you're washed up. See, this is why you don't establish a record of excellence. You miss a step, and you're a failure. Now, if you wade in mediocrity, and win a major every now and again (ahemMaratSafinahem), everyone thinks you're doing well ... for you. You decide which is better.
5. A lot of great doubles on this week in Shanghai. Three doubles matches only in Doha. Wow. Now that's suspense.
Oh, I feel a rant coming.
Yup. That's definitely a rant.
Look, WTA, tennis fans love doubles. Four teams in Doha? Are you people out of your tree? It's bad enough that we have "deciding points" and ridiculous "champions tiebreakers" instead of a third set. The powers that be at the WTA must think their singles lineup is waay too stellar to have doubles get in the way. That would be wrong. Doubles would have helped. How disrespectful to the players who concentrate on doubles to delegate them to "whenever we have time." Hopefully, they watched the men's tournament to see what they could have had.
6. Sigh. Let's try again about the men's doubles. It's great stuff! Despite the deciding points crap and everything designed to take the suspense out of doubles. I am suppressing the rant. How about the teams of Luis Hornas and Pablo Cuevas and Mariusz Fyrstenberg and Marcin Matkowski (hell, yes, I cut and pasted those names. Are you kidding me?) making a deep run against the more established teams out there? When you think about it, it makes sense. Looks like some of those other teams didn't know what to do against new-ish teams that don't really play the run-o'-the-mill doubles. The final match is down to the Bryan brothers and Danny Nestor (so does not look like a Danny) and Nenad Zimonjic. Should be a good one.
One more thing on doubles: There's positive reinforcement between partners, and then there's "OH MY GOD, WOULD YOU GET PLEASE YOUR HAND OFF OF ME?" What is the deal with all the hand slapping after every single point? Regardless, by the way, of who won the point! What do these pros know that rec players don't? I don't even talk to my husband after every point, let alone some random person. What cracks me up the most is that even teams not used to playing together fall right into this. Is the confidence really that thin? Yikes.
Well, at least we know we won't be seeing that kind of behavior from the Bryan brothers.

Doha -- Day Two

Due to Election Day obligations and work deadlines, I found myself unable to watch the matches today. But Jankovic over Ivanovic, 6-3, 6-4? That was my match of the day!? So with that as prologue, a look at tomorrow's matches:
Ana Ivanovic v. Vera Zvonareva: Yikes. I'm actually going to go with Zvonareva here. If I'm wrong, a match might ensue.
Elena Dementieva v. Venus Williams: Despite the serve, Dementieva is always a threat. And rightfully so. Everyone has a weakness in their game, and hers is considerable. Although it's interesting that she can hit her serve all right until a match gets tight. Then it's back to that weak slice serve heading to the forehand. Anyway, Venus has been the opposite lately: Her serve is working, even when nothing else is. So this should be interesting.
Dinara Safina v. Serena Williams: Serena. Sorry. Obama just became president of the United States. Gotta fly!

No pressure, ladies, but ...

Tomorrow begins the end for the women's season, and let's be honest: It should have happened right after the U.S. Open. The fact that five women have held the No. 1 slot this season might suggest a high level of competition to some.
Well, only two guys held No. 1 on the ATP tour. So I'm gonna nix that theory.
The women's tour has lacked any real rivalries, few really good matches, and about as much depth as my bathroom sink. If this season's to be saved, this year-end event in Doha is going to have to be a classic.
It's almost like the organizers knew it, too. The Serbians are together in one group. The Williams girls are in the other. A look at the first day in the desert:
Svetlana Kuznetsova v. Vera Zvonareva: This is going to sound terrible, but has anyone else wondered if Zvonareva's wearing that much eye makeup as a preventive measure against crying? Anyway, there's a big-time head case in this match-up, and it's not Zvonareva. Kuznetsova's had a good year, but has come up short in the big matches. Although Kuznetsova owns Zvonareva big-time in career meetings, that goes out of the window until Kuzzy proves she can close.
Jelena Jankovic v. Ana Ivanovic: Ooh. My interest is piqued. Right after I questioned whether Ivanovic is a one-Slam wonder, she stepped up, playing Venus Williams tough in Zurich and then won in Austria. (I'm gonna go ahead and take credit for that.) So Ivanovic is warming up just as her countrywoman's getting ready to shut it down for the season, after this, her 73rd tournament of the year. I don't think Jankovic's got enough left in the tank to get out of the round-robin, um, round.
Has anyone seen those "Looking for a Hero" commercials with Jankovic, by the way? While she's becoming a "superhero" by going through those revolving doors, I can't help but think that in real life, she would have definitely injured herself doing that stunt.
Dinara Safina v. Venus Williams: A match-up between the Jan Bradys of their families. I think that next year, this match will be more competitive, but Venus will probably steamroll Safina until she believes she belongs in the upper echelon. It's all in Safina's head right now.
Quick note about Shanghai: Rafa Nadal is OUT! We can blame the schedule or Nadal's wildly successful year, but the year-end championships should have THE best, so this is bad news! So this means Gilles Simon is in. I'm already way more excited about Shanghai without Nadal than a "full" field in Doha. Sad.

Freaky Friday (or Jo-Jo Tsonga, Your Life is Calling)

Now you know things in Paris are officially on the flip side when Andy Roddick is blocking serves back.
Sorry, but that's more shocking (but barely) than Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal begging out of their quarterfinals. Federer never got on court because of a bad back. ("Who cares anymore?" he's thinking. "I'm only number two.") Meaning, of course, that James Blake advances to the semis, because he would have beaten Fed anyway. (...)
Then Nadal lost his first set against Nikolay Davydenko and pulled out after complaining of pain in his right knee. With the kind of year Nadal has had, going deep in every tournament, this late-season injury is no surprise. But how about this exchange in the locker room between Fed and Nadal:
Nadal said: "I saw him in the locker room five minutes before my match and he told me he had a pain in the back.
I said, maybe we are both going to be going home tonight."
Hopefully, their injuries are nothing a little time off can't heal, because if Fed and Nadal aren't in Shanghai, it's got to be cancelled. It just wouldn't be right not to have two of main characters of the drama that's been men's tennis there. When they're out of a tournament early these days, the vacuum they leave behind is definitely felt.
But that's not to say the remaining cast of characters in Paris aren't interesting.
For example, registering high on the weird-o-meter was David Nalbandian beating Andy Murray in straight sets. Murray's been hot stuff this season, no doubt. But can anyone derail Nalbandian's annual end-of-season run? What is up with that? That man owns the month of October. How about getting warm a wee bit earlier, David? Like, when Grand Slams are being contested?
Then there was Roddick and Jo-Jo Tsonga, the other two players to actually get on court and complete their matches. And it was very Halloween-ny. I wouldn't have believed it unless I had seen it myself, but Roddick finished several points at the net. And it wasn't because he lost his string dampener. He was actually trying to volley. Emphasis on trying.
Then there was the bizarre half-hour conference over whether Roddick had any challenges left. The scoreboard said there were none. The ref said there was one. Chaos ensued. Seriously, if there's no disagreement between the players, why the delay in game? And I thought I was mathematically challenged.
Eventually, Tsonga came out on top in a third-set tiebreak. Looks like Tsonga's looking to salvage the rest of his season, and he's been impressive here. He wasn't at his best against Roddick, but he kept his head just a bit longer. As for Roddick, I'm just starting to feel sorry for him. What does this guy have to do to catch a break?
Hopefully, the answer isn't getting on a plane.

Black Monday (or Thanks so much, Juan Monaco)

Screw the stock market.
This is serious.
Marat Safin, after getting waxed by Juan Monaco, 6-0, 7-6, today in Paris, said the dreaded "R" word. No, not recession. Safin's talking retirement!
"I’ve been struggling throughout my career with injuries left and right. It’s a little bit uncomfortable to find yourself in the top 10 for many years and to find yourself ranked 70 and 30 and 50 ... It’s not really a comfortable position," he said.
He's going to take some time off, try to figure out how a two-time Grand Slam winner (should've been three, Thomas Johansson) finds himself with a record of only 24-24 this season. Or how someone with so much natural ability can lose to the likes of Philipp Petzschner (yes, THE Philipp Petzschner) or Andrey Golubev, a household name.
In Kazakstan.
This is a huge decision for Safin, with far-reaching implications. In his deliberations, he has to consider what could happen to him if he should hang up his racquet:
1. Safin could take the Andre Agassi route: He makes one last push, wins a few more Slams, shave his head and open a school for groupies in St. Petersburg.
2. Or, he could quit right now and film a reality show, a la Mark Philippoussis, called The Color of Love. Safin is presented with two groups of women -- the Blondes and the Brunettes -- and must decide which group is his true love(s).
3. Then there's the Roscoe Tanner road. Safin's mug shows up on The Smoking Gun's Web site after he's busting passing bad checks for million-dollar cars. Prison is no place for such a cute face, Marat.
Hopefully, though, Safin is inspired by the success of his sister, Dinara -- who, by the way, is nowhere near as naturally gifted and has done more with less -- and comes back with a fire under his cute tush.

The week in review

A brief recap of the week in tennis:

1. Venus Williams did something she hasn't done since Wimbledon -- close out a match. She won her second (yes, that's it) tournament of the year at the Zurich Open, beating her nemesis Flavia Pennetta in the final. In the semis, she played Ana Ivanovic. Judging from previous performances from both of them recently, it could have been an ugly match, but both played well. Ivanovic showed this week she's still got game, but it remains to be seen whether she can get -- and keep -- her mind right.
I have to admit to agreeing with Corina Morariu on the Tennis Channel, which is rare only because I can't stand her voice. I can't explain why. Anyway, as Morariu says, Venus insists on standing inside the baseline to receive serve, no matter how hard it is. Because nothing is as intimidating as standing just inches behind the service line and screwing up every single return. Imagine what would happen, Venus, if you *gasp* stepped back a foot or three? You might have room to, oh, I don't know, SWING!
2. Speaking of intelligence, I gotta give it up to Gilles Simon. He fought off something like twenty-eight match points during the week and played a great match against Rafael Nadal in the semis. And here I thought he was just a pusher. That's some pusher, changing spin, direction and speed whenever he wants. He finally encountered a match point he couldn't shake, though. And how about that Andy Murray? (I gotta ask: What is that gigantic blotch on the back of Murray's leg?) Looks like his U.S. Open run was no flash in the pan. Just when you thought things were heating up at the top of the men's game, you've got to make room for more. A Scot, no less. I'm going to guess that one day, Murray will do a little better than Tim Henman at Wimbledon. And the Open. All of them.
3. Roger Federer is relegated to world No. 2 for the rest of the year. Can we agree that he might be the second-best world No. 2 EV-ER?

Tired yet?

I don't often suggest this to players (especially not women players, given the lack of depth), but really, Jelena Jankovic, take a week off. Or three.
Jankovic's run this fall has been impressive. She's been great all year, actually. But, who wants to bet that by the year-end championship, she'll have nothing left?
A better question: Who wants to guess how many tournaments Jankovic has played this year? And compare it, to say, Serena Williams?
Here's someone who does what no one else does -- play a full schedule -- and yet comes up empty at every Slam. It's almost not fair, but part of being a consistent pro has to do with taking care of yourself, pacing yourself. If Jankovic has a deep run this week in Zurich, that'll give her about two weeks to recover from playing nonstop for a month.
The word is not "cast". It's "balance". We've seen the opposite happen (ahemVenusWilliamsahem) where certain players take weeks off at a time, then falter in early rounds. Even Williams, though, manages a Grand Slam with her scheduling. It's next to impossible for Jankovic to play every tournament, and still be tough enough to win a major. Kudos to her coaches and mom for making her the world's best. Now they just have to make sure she can stay that way for a long time.
No takers on how many tournaments she and Williams have played this year? No cheating. I already did that.

One-hit wonder?

I remember watching Anastasia Myskina win the French Open in 2004, and thinking right away, "Now here's someone who'll never win a Grand Slam again." And where's Myskina now? Burping her 5-month-old.
It took a little longer, but I'm starting to have that one-hit wonder feeling about Ana Ivanovic. She lost today in the second round in Moscow -- against a talent, Dominika Cibulkova, but for those counting, she has played eleven matches since she won the French Open. She has lost six of them. To lesser players -- at bigger events. Let's not forget Julie Coin, who took her out at the U.S. Open. Or Nathalie Dechy at Wimbledon, which Ivanovic won, after about a year and a half.
I know, I know, she's just a kid. And, yes, she's been dealing with injury. Now that she's better, what's the problem? Tennis is 99.234% mental. Clearly, this is Ivanovic's hang-up right now. But why? Is it a lack of confidence? (After winning a Grand Slam? She must be hanging out with Amelie Mauresmo, also a loser today in Moscow ...) And if so, how do you get that back without winning matches? How do you win matches if you aren't mentally tough?
Ivanovic's got the game, there's no question. Lord knows she's no pusher like Myskina was. But where's her head at?
Anyone else wondering if Ivanovic's a one-Slam wonder? Or is she having a tough time handling the pressure?

Create your own caption ...

"Aaaughh! Is that a mouse?!!?"

Is this fair?

So, the ITF has penalized Croatia for having hard courts that were too fast during their Davis Cup tie against Brazil.
First, yeah. It was obviously the court that allowed the Croats to win, 4-1. As I recall, Gustavo Kuerten is no longer playing tennis. So, is there any surface Brazil could beat the Croatians upon? Ice? No, it's freakin' hot in Brazil.
Second, here's what really bugs me about this punishment. I'm just going to "borrow" this from the story:

Marina Mihelic, the head of Croatian Tennis Federation, said the ITF checked the court three days before the matches started on Sept. 19 and concluded that the speed of surface was indeed above the maximum, but only minimally. Mihelic said she consulted ITF again and it suggested that the court surface didn’t need another layer because it would postpone the matches.

Riight. So, the ITF knew the courts were too fast, and says, "Hey, don't worry about it. Not enough time to worry about it now." At the end of the tie, they take 2,000 points away from them -- after they told them not to fix the "problem?"
I'm not a huge Davis Cup fan, so I'm already slightly biased, I guess. But does anyone else think this punishment is a little wrong? Or a lot wrong?

Seen on my Yahoo page this morning ...

Jankovic, Sela to meet in Beijing finals

Hm. Is that Jelena Jankovic and Dudi Sela? What's going on in that tournament?

The TWA Bestseller List

Twenty-six-year-old Serena Williams is working on her autobiography, which will focus on her inspirational rise, fall and re-rise (don't use that word at home) in the rankings.
Not that Serena's story isn't interesting. It almost seems like she got back to No. 1 just to tack an ending onto that story, though, doesn't it? And really, isn't she kind of young for a book? I know James Blake has a book out already, but Blake also had a life- and career-threatening injury. It's hard for me to think Serena's going to have an uneventful rest of her life.
Regardless, her announcement came with the usual copycat flurry of book deals. A few to put on that library list:

1. My Meteoric Rise to No. 1 ... from No. 2 by Roger Federer
2. The Three Faces of Nole by Novak Djokovic
3. Serena, Serena, Serena! by Venus Williams
4. .... And All I Got Is This Lousy T-Shirt by Andy Roddick
5. Calm Under Pressure by Marat Safin
6. Yes, There's a Cast for That by Jelena Jankovic
7. Make Mine a Double ... Fault by Elena Dementieva
8. "No?" Means "Yes." by Rafael Nadal

TournamentWatch: End of an era

The last tournament of my summer was the Highland Park Wrap-Up.
OK, so here’s the deal with Highland Park, because it’s probably the one thing I’ve never written at length about. I can’t believe I managed to gloss over Highland Park. Especially because HP players bring the ‘A’ to TWA -- big time.
My husband and I began to come to Highland Park a few years back, and our first event was the “Celebrity Mixed Doubles tournament, always held on Labor Day. The first team we went up against was Dwayne and Joy Woodruff. If you’re a man and a sports fan, yes, that Dwayne Woodruff. If you’re a woman, I’ll tell you who Dwayne Woodruff is as though I knew when I first met him. He used to be a cornerback for the Pittsburgh Steelers in the 1980s (DUH!), and anyone who used to be a Pittsburgh Steeler is royalty in Pittsburgh, even backup quarterbacks and even if they’re now working at the Taco Bell. Except Kordell Stewart. But I digress.
We warmed up with the Woodruffs, and Joy made an offhand comment about how young we both looked, to which her husband replied, “She is, but he ain’t.” Being that my husband’s just a tad older than I am, he took offense and the pissing contest begun. So here’s how our match went. Let’s say Dwayne serves. I return to Joy. Joy hits to Jerry. Jerry tries to blast a hole through Dwayne’s midsection. The whole match was Jerry and Dwayne trying to blast each other into next week. Joy and I just gave each other that “boys will be boys” smile, and we were probably both praying they didn’t actually connect on any of these shots.
Fortunately, Dwayne Woodruff is better at football than tennis, and we won that match. Apparently, guys do that kind of thing for giggles, and Dwayne and Jerry shook amiably at the end.
We found that Highland Park was the only place in the ‘Burgh where you could pick up tennis matches. You’ve still got one foot in your car, and someone on the court’s asking you to be their fourth. This is city tennis at its best. There is: trash-talking, blatant attempts to hit net players with overheads, steady conversations between players and those sitting on the bench during play, and various other goings-on that would get you drop-kicked out of Wimbledon. So naturally, we love it.
But it has its blemishes, namely two courts with cracks big enough to lose a can of balls. That’s why, as I tap, construction crews are removing the fences and resurfacing all nine courts. Which is great, but it’s like replacing your old couch. Yes, the springs are popping up out of the upholstery, but it’s your old couch.
This year’s wrap-up, then, would be the last time to note with annoyance the teeny bump along the baseline of the slow court nearest the street. Personally, I wanted to do well there to mark a high note to a nice season. When I saw the draw, I could see I got some help in that mission. I was seeded first in singles. Then I looked at the bottom half of the draw to find my nemesis, the girl who’s beaten me the last three times I’ve played her. AND she was unseeded. I had to laugh. Apparently, the organizers didn’t know who she was, or she would have been seeded first. Sigh. At least I’d make the final there. My partner and I were seeded second in the women’s doubles and half of the top team was my other nemesis. I have a lot of nemesi – meaning the people who beat me. Anyway, I cruised through the singles draw, and ran smack dab into Nemisis No. 1 in the final.
You know what’s frustrating? To know why you lose to someone and to still find yourself incapable of doing anything about it. I have had a different strategy for each time I’ve played this chick, and this time was no different. I thought deep topspin would make it more difficult to hit her push-y groundstrokes. We would see.
The first game of the match was on her serve and it lasted about ten minutes. When I won it, I thought to myself, “Woo! First strike!” Then I dropped my serve in about three seconds. Yeah. That kind of day. I won a lot of my matches just by running everything down and making my opponent hit one more shot. It was not cool to have it happen to me. Not cool. I played well and valiantly, and even held a 4-2 lead in the second set, but it wasn’t to be. I lost, 6-3, 6-4, but I left with some hope. I thought it was our most competitive match yet.
In the women’s doubles, my partner and I also cruised, but we had one of those “Court of Appeals” (you know, the advice column in Tennis magazine)- moments. So, we’re in a rally in the semis and my partner charges in and hits a volley behind the net person for a winner. We’re like “Awesome!” Then our opponent clears her throat and says politely, “Excuse me (yes, she said ‘Excuse me’) but I’d like to call a let. There’s a ball behind you.” We turn, and sure enough, there is a ball a touch behind the baseline. The four of us, on the other hand, are at the net. Also, the ball, I would imagine, didn’t just drop down from Mars. It had probably been there for a minute or so, and was of no consequence – until that volley skimmed her backside. We argued, not assertively, that you can’t call a let after a point is over – specifically, after you’ve already lost the point. But we were in control, and let it slide. A few games later, we had a date with Nemesis No. 2.
Nemesis No. 2 is basically the queen of Highland Park. She wins just about every tournament she’s in, and although I hadn’t played against her in more than a year, she’s beaten me twice. Naturally, all of us women (heck, even the men – she beats them, too) want to beat her. My partner and I felt this was a match we could win, but we didn’t sweat it too much, either. I’ve been playing with Mavis all summer, and win or lose, we’ve basically laughed our way through every match. We have so much fun, and even when we lost the first set 6-2, we were in good spirits. The spirits were better when we opened up a 3-0 lead in the second set. That set turned out to be quite a tussle. I was serving at 4-3, thinking that if I lost this game, we’d be tied, and then, we’d be just as good as dead. Despite my positive mindset, I pulled that game out, and we won the second set, 7-5.
Have you ever felt a sense of foreshadowing during a match? Even though the score is tied? Well, I had that feeling, and it was after we won a very nervous first game of the second set. I felt like we were barely hanging on, which I guess is what separates the champions from the second-place finishers. We lost the third set, 6-2, but I learned a lesson, I think. First, Nemesis No. 2 didn’t miss a single shot in the third set. She got focused and didn’t let up. Her mind’s like a steel trap, and I want to be like that when I grow up.
So, the last tournament on our old courts was not a complete wash. Got two (runner-up) trophies out of it. But that’s not it for me, although I’ve been ready to shut it down for some time. Winter mixed league is coming up. Can the Hubster and I make it to sectionals? Will we join one league or two? And who will we play for? Tune in next time … (cue Batman music) …

Decisions, decisions, decisions ...

Here's how Rafa Nadal's summer went: He went to Wimbledon (won it), went to Canada (won it), went to Cincinnati (semis), went to Beijing for the Olympics (won it), went to the U.S. Open (semis), then went to Spain for the Davis Cup (barring a complete collapse, will win that).
Here's how Andy Roddick's summer went: He went to Wimbledon (lost early), went to Canada (lost in the quarters), went to L.A. (lost in the final), went to D.C. (lost in the quarters), went to the U.S. Open (lost in the quarters), went to Spain for the Davis Cup (not looking so good).
Never mind that Roddick's scheduling looks to have been a lost gamble. He's got the rest of his life to think about that one. Give him credit for setting priorities and sticking to it, though. It's just that nothing else really went to plan.
For example, it was Sam Querrey, not James Blake, who went up against Nadal in Davis Cup play on Friday. Now Querrey played Nadal close -- he lost in four sets -- but what would Blake have done? Yes, it's clay, but Blake does has a career edge over Nadal.
Then, Roddick played his ass off, only to come up short in the fifth set against David Ferrer. And as crazy as I thought Roddick was for putting all his eggs in one basket, it's pretty sad about seeing someone come up empty-handed.
Now, tomorrow, it's up the doubles match to give the U.S. a half of a half of a chance to come back. And, like everything else, it's not the team anyone planned. It's up to Bob Bryan and Mardy Fish, who have never played together, to keep this tie alive.
No pressure, guys.

Oh, this is special.

The U.S. Davis Cup is dropping as though their next tie was on red clay or something.
Bob Bryan's bad shoulder mean's he'll be tapping out for the match against Spain this weekend. In his stead is Mardy Fish. Now, Fish has got the hops to do the flying chest bump with Mike. But Fish's record on clay this year? He lost to Andy Roddick in Rome. Yeah. So.
What say Cap't Mac? “We are the underdog but we are not here strictly for our health. We are here because we think we can win. No way do we look at this as a setback.”
Heh heh. I sure hope he doesn't OD on that Kool-Aid.

It's about time ...

The ATP has finally made a decision about the gambling investigation surrounding Nikolay Davydenko -- although after a year, we could guess that there wasn't much evidence damning the guy.
Unfortunately for Davydenko, a good deal of the damage done can't be undone. That's because of the irresponsible and slow manner of this gambling probe. In that year, he's been warned (by 2 umpires) for not trying hard enough and has had to answer, oh, about twelve gambling questions per press conference everywhere he plays. In that time, he's not flipped out once. Which is pretty good, because he got screwed. The irregular gambling pattern was there, and should have been investigated. It shouldn't have taken a year. The fact it took so long means that the accusation stays with Davydenko for the rest of his career. If he becomes No. 1 in the world (If, I said. I'm not crazy), his Wikipedia page will still have the gambling investigation in the first paragraph of his bio.
What say you? Did this investigation take too long? Does the ATP owe Davydenko an apology? Discuss.

OOH!! He got served!

The Davis Cup rosters for the U.S. at Spain semifinal are out today. Ho-hu-WHA?
Here's the U.S. team:
Andrew Roddick
The Bryan Bros.

(wait for it ...)

Sam Querrey

Yeah, James Blake was kicked to the curb. He told Coach Pat McEnroe he was exhausted. Makes sense. Losing in the third round at the U.S. Open must have been grueling. Seriously, Beijing to N.Y. to Spain is a little nutty. But why Sam Querrey and not Mardy Fish, who had the best run at the Open?
Oh. Because they're playing on clay, and Americans are allergic.
And, oh. Because Rafa Nadal's playing for Spain with about 20 minutes of sleep.
This should be interesting.

U.S. OPEN: Knocking on the door, huh?

All right, all right! Andy Murray is ready for prime time, okay? When it looked like he would fold against Rafa Nadal (broken at love after a 15-minute game in which he had myriad chances to break Nadal), he stepped up and finished off the world number one. (Quick word on Nadal: That was some drop shot on match point, there, Rafa. I'd give you more of the business about that, but you've had a successful, but long, season. I can't think of anyone who deserves more of a break than you do, kid. See you in Shanghai.)
But, hey, Murray, huh? Now, can he beat Roger Federer in a major final? Yes. If you can beat the dominant player of the year in a major semifinal, you can take the next step. Oh, and Murray is 2-1 lifetime over Fed.
Now, will he beat Federer in a major final? No. Right now, I'd bet Federer is laughing in delirium over not having to play Nadal. He will be loose, confident and a lot fresher than his opponent. Fed wants that major win. For him, one is pretty wack, but it's better than coming in second ... again.

U.S. OPEN: A very male-heavy "pre"view

If it doesn't get rained out, the men's semifinals could be a set of classics. First up is Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic, warming up as I tap. (OK, first, what was the deal with Djokovic after that Roddick match? Dude, you're a tennis player. When did you ever need crowd support to get by?) Anyway, this is the real popcorn match of the day, provided it doesn't get rained out. Fed's been struggling, but he also has been up against some folks who played well against him. However, I think everyone's noticing the shakiness of his forehand these days. Djokovic, on the other hand, is looking very solid, and where no one could even sniff Roddick's serve, he broke him often through the match. I can also see it's really windy out there, but I don't anticipate anyone yelling "I hate the wind!" (ahemDinaraSafinaahem). These guys are experienced. They'll figure it out. I'm going with Djokovic in five.
Then there's Rafa Nadal v. Andy Murray. During this tournament, Murray's shown the ability to check out a bit in matches, only to return just in time to win. Which is great -- if you're playing Jurgen Melzer or Juan Del Potro. To be fair, Nadal started slow against Mardy Fish the other day as well. I give Nadal the overwhelming edge in this match. He's growing in confidence and is just a mental steel trap. I think Murray's knocking on the door, so I'll give him a set.
As for the women's final, boy, I'd like to think Williams v. Jankovic at night will be good, but let's be realistic. We've got yet another women's final that might clock in at under 56 minutes. I really, really want Jankovic to play well, and to make it interesting, but Serena is looking really good. That's great for her. Sucks for us.

Really, Venus? Really?

They say one out of 10 ain't bad.
And it ain't. For some tennis players (ahemVenusWilliamsahem), that would have been plenty.
That's right. Venus had 10 set points in her quarterfinal against her sister. If she'd converted one, I'd be watching the third set of their match right now. Big sis has got some hard questions to ask herself. Like, "Why did Serena need just one match point to win the match?" or "Why am I going for lines when my opponent's not even in the screen?" How about "Am I playing the ball or the situation?"
Anyway, it looks like Williams v. Williams is just what women's tennis needs right now. Strangely, no coaches on court throughout the match ...
Sooo, Mardy Fish is starting strong against Rafael Nadal. I can just see I won't be going to bed anytime soon.

Noooooo!!!!!!!

From the news wires:
NEW YORK —The coaches of women’s tennis players will be able to visit them on the court during matches starting next year on the WTA Tour.
The Tour’s board approved the long-discussed change last week, and the decision was announced Wednesday during the U.S. Open. Tour CEO Larry Scott says the main motivation was for television, because fans enjoy gaining insight into the sport. Coaches must agree to wear microphones to have on-court access to players.
Coaches will be allowed one visit per set. They also will be able to come on court when an opponent is taking a medical break.


All this tennis tweaking is out of control.
If it's not a stupid-tiebreak, or club tennis, it's on-court coaching -- ruining one thing that sets tennis apart from other sports.
Plus, they're not even doing it right. I still don't understand how viewers can hear this coaching and opponents won't. You know, in football games, a team doesn't get to know what the other is doing.
I love how the WTA in particular tries to fix tennis when the game is just fine, thank ye. What's wrong with the WTA is that they have two history-breaking sisters, a fine player who just had a kid, two top-three players from a war-torn country, and, oh yeah, Maria Sharapova, and they still can't market the sport properly.
Yeah, let's fix tennis. Or let's fire Larry Scott and hire someone with a brain. Who's with me?

U.S. OPEN: A quarter for my thoughts? Sure ...

OK, I'm just going to admit it. I hate watching Andy Roddick play. When he's on.
It's the most boring tennis you'll ever see, next to Ivo Karlovic. Ace, walk. Ace, walk. Second serve ace, game. No rallies to speak of, and not a whole lot an opponent can do.
It might not be fun to watch, but even I have to admit that Roddick is on. He took (and will continue to take at TWA) a lot of flack for missing the Olympics. But whatever Patrick McEnroe's saying to him is clicking. His serve hasn't been this dominant in some time. He's even swinging out on his backhand! The question is whether he'll continue this dominance when the draw gets tricky. Next stop for Roddick: Novak Djokovic. We shall see.
A peek at the rest of the quarters:

Flavia Pennetta v. Dinara Safina: Safina. She'd better win. Sheesh!
Juan Martin del Potro v. Andy Murray: OK, del Potro has shown me the error of my ways. He is not just a flash in the summer pan. But can he win the U.S. Open? Can Andy Murray? Will these two get into a brawl? Seriously, I choose Murray, because he's shown mental maturity in this tournament -- and he loves his mama.
Rafa Nadal v. Mardy Fish: I don't know how to say this tactfully, so I'll just say it: Fish is not playing Fed tonight -- someone who might have slightly shaky confidence. He's playing Rafael Nadal. And these guys should play before the ladies, because I don't see it lasting all that long.
Venus v. Serena: Don't complain, ladies. Get your rankings up and you can meet in any final you like. For now, only one of them can advance to the semis. Both are looking like buzzsaws out there, and here's hoping they really whup up on each other. I'm going to stick with my pre-tournament pick of Venus. If she serves well, I could see that being the determining factor.