Serena, Serena, Serena.
Had no time yesterday to post about Serena's comments about being the REAL number 1, dammit.
"Quite frankly, I'm the best in the world," she says. Shh, Serena, shhh...
Next day, she's thisclose to getting bageled in the third set by Patty Schnyder on her way to a second round beatdown in Rome.
The really bad part about this is that even though she just got her ass handed to her, she is still the best player in the world. Until someone, namely Dinara Safina, can prove that she's not.
Speaking of, did anyone catch what Safina had to say about Serena's comments?
"She’s also older than me, so she has more experience than me. So let’s see when I’m her age how many titles I’m going to have, and then we can say."
That's nice and sneaky-catty, just the way I would do it. I'm starting to like Safina.
Some quick hits:
-- Rafa Nadal won another tournament on clay. WHAT!??!
-- Roger Federer did not win a title on clay. In fact, Roger's not won much of anything lately. What on earth has happened to that forehand? Is this one of those Tiger Woods things, where he's got to retool his swing -- and look bad for a little bit -- in order to return to dominance? Or have we got some other issues going on? I'm not talking about Mirka, either, people!
-- Maria Sharapova isn't playing the next couple clay tournaments. I'm going to give her about ten more days before she pulls from the French.
-- The Williams sisters now want to play for the Fed Cup team in the final against Italy. Look, that's foul. Great -- just sit around for the early rounds and let the Bethanie Matteks and Alexa Glatches of the world do the heavy lifting, then decide to probably rob them of their chance to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Sounds perfectly fair to me. Yeah, I know. If you want to win, you gots to go Williams. But if I really cared about Fed Cup, which I do not, that would bother me.
-- James Blake lost to a qualifier in Rome. WHAT?!?
-- So, I was watching the Tennis Channel and there was a show about the top 10 chokes in pro tennis, and my boy, Guillermo Coria was just behind Jana Novotna at Wimbledon (y'know, crying on the dutchess' shoulder). It remembered of watching that French Open final, when I was sure Coria was going to beat the crap out of Gaston Gaudio. Personally, watching Coria lose that match, I remembered wondering how anyone could blow a match like that. Unfortunately, that's about the only memory tennis fans will have of Coria, who announced he was retiring this week. Man, I hope he finds redemption somewhere else in life. Later, G.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Sunday, May 03, 2009
LEAGUE WATCH: Ahhhh -- WIPEOUT!
It's springtime in Pittsburgh, which means two things: (1) The sky goes from gray to grayish and (2) That's right. League season, baby! It's on!
Those (OK, you, yogahz) following League Watch know that my team made it to the regionals last season. The Princeton experience wasn't much to write home about, but it has a lot to do with my goals for this season. I will list them here:
1. To make it back to Princeton -- and to win maybe two matches this time.
2. To get moved up to the 4.0 level.
3. To win all my matches and utterly dominate all my opponents.
So, modest goals. But, hey, I can do it, right?
Well, I woke up on Saturday morning at around 10 a.m., two hours before my match. You know that pre-match, jacked feeling you get? Well, I had nothin'. Which can be a good thing. Or a bad thing.
I was still pretty blah by the time I was warming up with my opponent. Now, as we know, warmups are very important. It's when you get a feel for your opponent's strengths and weaknesses, develop a strategy. Or if you're me, it's when you think about how effed up your week was. About the one-day seminar and the six hours you spent in a car in less than 24 hours to get there, about getting reamed out for not calling when you had a defective cell phone anyway, about coming back from a two-week vacation to face immediate deadline pressure and the fact that certain things that were supposed to be done while you were out of town were not done, about having to get a new car and cell phone fairly quickly, about spending nearly four hours in a hair salon for no really good reason watching Judge Judge and Days of Our Lives when I could have been at work, about spending 30 minutes on a phone with some guy yelling at me for something that happened while I was on vacation. About the time wasted on the way to the match on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Whoo. Didn't expect to go there.
Anyway, the match. I started out pretty listlessly, and found myself down 1-2. Then, as I was standing there between points, I realized something. I wanted to, right at that moment, walk off the court and go home. I did not feel like playing. I tried to get myself into the match, but even after hitting winners and retrieving nearly impossible balls, I couldn't get interested. I might have looked at the ball I hit about three times over that two-hour match. Even my opponent's sketchy calls couldn't piss me off enough to get in the match. (OK, I have to say this. People -- ladies -- if the ball lands on the line, it's in. We don't invent different rules for your dream world. In tennis, if you hit the ball OUTSIDE the line, the ball is out and out of play. If it's on the line or inside the line, it's in play. Either you try to play the ball or you walk to the other side of the court. You don't hit the ball into the net and then call it out in order to bail yourself out. (Wo)Man up and say, "Nice shot." Yes, that happened yesterday. A few times. And yet I couldn't get as mad about it as I'm getting right now.)
So, she wins the first set on a AA (accidental ace), 6-4, and I go to get some water from their vending machine. (So, a tennis club without water on the court. Nice. What, exactly, do these people pay for? The privilege to play in a building that also has no air conditioning?) I put a dollar into the machine and absently hit A1. Nothing comes out. I also don't get my dollar back. Son of a @#$^$#. Another dollar later, I have some water, finally. It's only on the way back home (an HOUR LATER) that I realized that the A1 slot was empty. I literally selected, and paid for nothing. Yeah, folks. That's where my head was.
Set two. We start out evenly, and I feel entirely no anxiety or pressure to rebound. That might have been why every groundstroke I tried to hit almost hit the wall without bouncing and why all my drop shots landed at the baseline. It didn't help that the strings in my main racquet broke in the first set, and I was using a backup that felt a bit heavier. I suppose I could have figured out how to keep those balls from sailing, but it just seemed like a process that would injure my brain. Even when I stood at the line to serve at 5-6 to get into a tiebreak, I didn't think it would happen, and it didn't. Strangely enough, my opponent walked up to me at the net and says, "Close match."
I thought, "Really. You think? If you hadn't screwed me on about a dozen calls, it might have been even closer. What are you, blind? Do you not understand the rules of tennis? I can't believe your teammates are sitting up there, cheering, when they watched you screw me on about thirty calls! You almost screwed me on a let cord when it landed right on the line! You said, "Too close to call!" The ball was traveling EXACTLY .001 MILE PER HOUR!! And you said it was TOO CLOSE TO CALL!!! I know a good eye doctor. I can get you his name if you need it. Maybe your teammates also need his number. I'll loan you my glasses next time if you want! I don't mind. I don't need them as much as you do. Even if the prescription's not right, it couldn't hurt you. Do you understand?!"
I said, "Nice match."
Yikes. A day later, I can't explain what happened to me. I'm a little afraid that it might be the dreaded "B" word -- burnout. I've never been unable to get stoked for a match. Even when I lose, I get dialed in enough to at least have a plan of attack -- even if it's wrong. As of this second, I have no idea what my opponent's weaknesses were. I'm hoping it's general life burnout, because if I don't enjoy tennis, what the hell am I supposed to do? Start a blog about macrame?
So, the goal list took a hit, but here's the great thing about our region: Playoff system! All we have to do is finish in the top two and we've still got a chance at Princeton. Easy, right?
Right. Ri-ight.
Those (OK, you, yogahz) following League Watch know that my team made it to the regionals last season. The Princeton experience wasn't much to write home about, but it has a lot to do with my goals for this season. I will list them here:
1. To make it back to Princeton -- and to win maybe two matches this time.
2. To get moved up to the 4.0 level.
3. To win all my matches and utterly dominate all my opponents.
So, modest goals. But, hey, I can do it, right?
Well, I woke up on Saturday morning at around 10 a.m., two hours before my match. You know that pre-match, jacked feeling you get? Well, I had nothin'. Which can be a good thing. Or a bad thing.
I was still pretty blah by the time I was warming up with my opponent. Now, as we know, warmups are very important. It's when you get a feel for your opponent's strengths and weaknesses, develop a strategy. Or if you're me, it's when you think about how effed up your week was. About the one-day seminar and the six hours you spent in a car in less than 24 hours to get there, about getting reamed out for not calling when you had a defective cell phone anyway, about coming back from a two-week vacation to face immediate deadline pressure and the fact that certain things that were supposed to be done while you were out of town were not done, about having to get a new car and cell phone fairly quickly, about spending nearly four hours in a hair salon for no really good reason watching Judge Judge and Days of Our Lives when I could have been at work, about spending 30 minutes on a phone with some guy yelling at me for something that happened while I was on vacation. About the time wasted on the way to the match on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Whoo. Didn't expect to go there.
Anyway, the match. I started out pretty listlessly, and found myself down 1-2. Then, as I was standing there between points, I realized something. I wanted to, right at that moment, walk off the court and go home. I did not feel like playing. I tried to get myself into the match, but even after hitting winners and retrieving nearly impossible balls, I couldn't get interested. I might have looked at the ball I hit about three times over that two-hour match. Even my opponent's sketchy calls couldn't piss me off enough to get in the match. (OK, I have to say this. People -- ladies -- if the ball lands on the line, it's in. We don't invent different rules for your dream world. In tennis, if you hit the ball OUTSIDE the line, the ball is out and out of play. If it's on the line or inside the line, it's in play. Either you try to play the ball or you walk to the other side of the court. You don't hit the ball into the net and then call it out in order to bail yourself out. (Wo)Man up and say, "Nice shot." Yes, that happened yesterday. A few times. And yet I couldn't get as mad about it as I'm getting right now.)
So, she wins the first set on a AA (accidental ace), 6-4, and I go to get some water from their vending machine. (So, a tennis club without water on the court. Nice. What, exactly, do these people pay for? The privilege to play in a building that also has no air conditioning?) I put a dollar into the machine and absently hit A1. Nothing comes out. I also don't get my dollar back. Son of a @#$^$#. Another dollar later, I have some water, finally. It's only on the way back home (an HOUR LATER) that I realized that the A1 slot was empty. I literally selected, and paid for nothing. Yeah, folks. That's where my head was.
Set two. We start out evenly, and I feel entirely no anxiety or pressure to rebound. That might have been why every groundstroke I tried to hit almost hit the wall without bouncing and why all my drop shots landed at the baseline. It didn't help that the strings in my main racquet broke in the first set, and I was using a backup that felt a bit heavier. I suppose I could have figured out how to keep those balls from sailing, but it just seemed like a process that would injure my brain. Even when I stood at the line to serve at 5-6 to get into a tiebreak, I didn't think it would happen, and it didn't. Strangely enough, my opponent walked up to me at the net and says, "Close match."
I thought, "Really. You think? If you hadn't screwed me on about a dozen calls, it might have been even closer. What are you, blind? Do you not understand the rules of tennis? I can't believe your teammates are sitting up there, cheering, when they watched you screw me on about thirty calls! You almost screwed me on a let cord when it landed right on the line! You said, "Too close to call!" The ball was traveling EXACTLY .001 MILE PER HOUR!! And you said it was TOO CLOSE TO CALL!!! I know a good eye doctor. I can get you his name if you need it. Maybe your teammates also need his number. I'll loan you my glasses next time if you want! I don't mind. I don't need them as much as you do. Even if the prescription's not right, it couldn't hurt you. Do you understand?!"
I said, "Nice match."
Yikes. A day later, I can't explain what happened to me. I'm a little afraid that it might be the dreaded "B" word -- burnout. I've never been unable to get stoked for a match. Even when I lose, I get dialed in enough to at least have a plan of attack -- even if it's wrong. As of this second, I have no idea what my opponent's weaknesses were. I'm hoping it's general life burnout, because if I don't enjoy tennis, what the hell am I supposed to do? Start a blog about macrame?
So, the goal list took a hit, but here's the great thing about our region: Playoff system! All we have to do is finish in the top two and we've still got a chance at Princeton. Easy, right?
Right. Ri-ight.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
"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!
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!
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
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?
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?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
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?
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?
Monday, March 09, 2009
The return of Maria Sharapova
Saturday, March 07, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
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!
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!
Saturday, January 31, 2009
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?"
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?"
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
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 ...
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 ...
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, January 26, 2009
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.
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!
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!
Saturday, January 24, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, January 23, 2009
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.)
... 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.)
Thursday, January 22, 2009
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?'
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?'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)