I've received a few queries over the last couple of months asking if Rafael Nadal has lost his winning touch. Since reaching the Wimbledon final in early July and up until the ATP Tennis Masters Cup in Shanghai, Nadal had not advanced beyond the quarterfinals of any event he played and his losses have not come against the true elite of the game. That's hardly the performance you would expect from the number 2 player in the world. The player himself has offered a couple of possible explanations for his dip in standard post-Wimbledon. The first was that he didn't practice very much after the Wimbledon final, instead choosing to relax and fill his social calendar a bit. Unfortunately, the American hard court season is probably the one that Nadal needs to practice for the most, especially as more and more of the US Open Series events are quickening their courts in an attempt to match the speed of those at Flushing Meadows (by the way, if anyone tells you that the courts at the US Open aren't quick, that person is either lying or doesn't know what he is talking about).
Watching Nadal play on the hard courts over the summer, it was evident that his confidence wasn't high and when that's the case, Rafa tends to go back to his basic game which is essentially defensive and played from yards behind the baseline. On quick hard courts, this strategy becomes self-defeating when facing players who can flatten out their strokes and hit through the court thus neutralizing Nadal's running game. That trend continued into the fall when Rafa faced Thomas Berdych in Madrid and again was undone by a player who was able to take Rafa's high, mid-court replies and flatten them out for huge winners. Nadal had a chance to take the second set against Berdych, but was undone by a moment of poor focus - something that was unimaginable in 2005 and the first half of 2006. Once he was out of the Madrid tournament, Rafa told us that his recent results were due to fatigue, but that he would make every effort to be 100% for Shanghai.
And then Shanghai came around and his first match in group play was against nemesis James Blake. No player on the tour hits through a quick court quite as well as James Blake and from a confidence perspective, Blake was a terrible first match for the Spaniard. Not surprisingly, Blake won in straight sets, yet Nadal had chances and didn't capitalize on them. Once again, it was hard to believe that we were watching the same player as the one from '05 and early '06.
Nadal still managed to make the semifinals of the Masters Cup where he faced the number one player in the world, Roger Federer. Based on the surface and the varying confidence levels of the two players, I fully expected a Federer victory, however I was pleasantly surprised while watching the match live on my laptop. Nadal was playing more aggressively from the baseline than in previous months. He was taking the opportunity to step into the court and hit the ball early rather than waiting on it. It was as if he knew that he had no chance to beat Federer playing his usual style, and like a caged animal, came out and attacked because it was his only option. There were some brilliant points from both players in the match, more from Roger perhaps, and although Nadal lost, Rafa fans should be encouraged by what we saw in Shanghai. Now the question is, can Nadal make an impact at the Aussie Open? In theory, the Rebound Ace surface should help Rafa's heavy topspin game, but there have been rumors that the Australian Open tournament committee is looking to speed up the courts - *sigh*.
So has Rafa lost it? I don't think so and I hope not. I saw some renewed confidence in his semifinal loss to Federer and a willingness to be more aggressive. He needs to do that against more players than just the Mighty Fed, else he'll continue to suffer losses to the likes of Blake and Berdych. Also, his rivalry with Federer is important for the game and I expect that he'll provide a better showing in Australia. If he doesn't, then the clay court season will be very interesting and Roger Federer may become the odds-on favorite to win his first French Open.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Friday, August 25, 2006
US Open Preview - Mostly Men, Light On The Ladies
The US Open draw was released a few days ago and since everyone loves previews, let’s take a look at the draw in detail. Where applicable, I will note a player's seeding in parentheses.
At first blush, it appears that the toughest quarter of the draw is Ivan Ljubicic’s (3), with such contenders as Andy Roddick (9), Richard Gasquet (25), Marcos Baghdatis (8) and Lleyton Hewitt (15) lurking. Andre Agassi is also in this quarter and faces a potential second round match-up with Baghdatis if he can overcome Andrei Pavel in the first round.
If the seeds hold form in this section of the draw, here are some intriguing matches:
3rd Round – Ljubicic vs. Gasquet
3rd Round – Hewitt vs. Novak Djokovic (20)
4th Round – Roddick vs. Baghdatis
As you may remember, the Cypriot ended Andy Roddick’s Australian Open dreams this past January and that will certainly fuel Andy’s motivation if this match comes to fruition. If Agassi can get his game clicking, perhaps he shows up in the fourth round versus Roddick. That would be very interesting!
This is the hardest quarter of the draw to pick because all of the contenders have question marks coming into this event.
Ljubicic – While the Croat is the third ranked player in the world, his Grand Slam performances are decidedly underwhelming. His results this summer don’t suggest a deep run in New York.
Baghdatis – The 8th seed seems to bring his “A” game to the big events while he’s mediocre the rest of the time. The quick Flushing Meadows courts should help him and if he can get through the second round, he could go to the quarterfinals at the minimum.
Roddick – The big serving American seemed to have found himself and his game in Cincinnati last week, but the challenge will be to continue that run of good play. Is this the new Andy Roddick or will he revert to his previous 2006 form? That’s an open question.
Hewitt – The 15th seed has had some injury concerns this summer, and he and coach Roger Rasheed aren’t talking when it comes to the subject of Lleyton’s fitness.
Gasquet – The young Frenchman was brilliant in Toronto a few weeks ago before crashing out of Cincy (it’s funny how that happens in the second event of consecutive ATP Master Series tournaments). If he can replicate his form from north of the border, the man with the spectacular one-handed backhand has an excellent chance of making the quarterfinals.
My pick for this quarter: Although I can’t believe I’m actually doing this, I’m going with Roddick to stay hot and continue to build on his resurgent confidence. If he serves well, plays inside the baseline and hits effective backhands down the line, he will be tough to beat on the Flushing Meadow courts.
Let’s move to Roger Federer’s quarter of the draw to see if there is anyone there who can challenge him. The short answer is “no”. However, what is notable about this cast is that it contains two of Rafael Nadal’s nemeses on hard courts: James Blake (5) and Thomas Berdych (12). In fact, if the seeding holds, these two would meet in the 4th round. Before that could happen, Berdych would have to potentially defeat one of this summer’s hottest players in Dmitry Tursunov (23). The blogging genius has shown everyone that he can hang with the best on the court as well as on the keyboard so a Blake – Tursunov encounter in the round of 16 is certainly a possibility.
The world’s number 1 should have no problem moving through this section of the draw into the semifinals. Federer has a potential date with Juan Carlos Ferrero (16) in the 4th round and then a quarterfinal clash with Blake, Berdych or Tursunov. I can’t see any of those players troubling the Mighty Fed including Tennis Magazine’s pick to win the tournament, Blake. James’ performances over the last few weeks have made a mockery of Tennis’ prognostication skills and the player himself has said that he can’t fathom how anyone wouldn’t pick Federer to win the tournament. Oh well, I guess it gets some discussion going.
My pick: Surprise! Federer.
Now, let’s head to the bottom of the draw where the number 2 seed, Rafael Nadal, resides. If this were the French Open, this quarter would be kind of exciting. Tommy Robredo (6), David Ferrer (11), Jose Acasuso (24), Gael Monfils (27), Juan Ignacio Chela (31) and Nicolas Almagro are all solid dirt-ballers. Unfortunately for them, this is New York and the courts are quick and the balls are light.
Some of the unseeded players in this section could pull some upsets. The giant Croat, Ivo Karlovic, will love the fast courts as will the ever dangerous Max Mirnyi. Xavier Malisse has an excellent chance of progressing to the 4th round where he could encounter Nadal.
Speaking of Nadal, how happy must he be to see Blake and Berdych on the other side of the draw? A quick glance at this quarter tells me that Nadal has a reasonable chance of making the semifinals. However, an outstanding question for the 20 year-old Mallorcan is how much confidence does he have based on his ATP Master Series performances in Toronto and Cincinnati? One has to believe that he was highly disappointed with his loss in Cincy to fellow Spaniard, Juan Carlos Ferrero, a man that he had never lost a set to in four previous encounters. Rafa needs to find the aggressive baseline game that he employed at Wimbledon this summer in order to make a run in New York. If he plays too defensively, as he did versus Ferrero last week, he could be ripe for an upset, but there appear to be few players in this section who could take advantage of that.
My pick: Vamos Rafa! Nadal gets through this relatively weak quarter to set up a titanic clash with Andy Roddick.
And finally, we’ve arrived at what we’ll call the Nalbandian (4) quarter. Other than Andy Murray (17), this particular section of the draw seems to be reserved for the under-achieving, less-confident segment of the ATP Tour (Marat Safin, Guillermo Coria, Robby Ginepri, Nikolay Davydenko). According to the seeding, Nalbandian should face the German, Tommy Haas (14), in the 4th round. That seems like a reasonable possibility, but the enigmatic Safin is a potentially dangerous 2nd round match for the fourth seeded Argentine.
In the other half of this quarter, Davydenko (7) is the highest seeded player, but Andy Murray looks like the most in-form competitor. Can Brad Gilbert get Murray through to the semifinals? Will fitness play a role in the Scot’s ability to progress through the draw? Murray appears to be a good bet to get through his first 2 matches which could set up a clash with the 10th seed, Fernando Gonzalez of Chile. That’s an interesting match-up and I give the nod to Murray.
My pick: I think the cooler temperatures in the Northeast US will help Andy Murray’s ability to get through matches. Murray emerges from this quarter to reach the semifinals and face the defending champion, Roger Federer.
At this point, I won’t embarrass myself any further by picking beyond the semis. Let’s see how things go over the first week of the tournament and then we can reassess.
As for the ladies, I haven’t studied that draw extensively so I can’t give any detailed analysis. However, aside from Kim Cljisters who is out due to a wrist injury suffered in Montreal, the usual cast of characters (Justine Henin-Hardenne, Amelie Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova, Lindsay Davenport) has to be considered for the title. Are some of the young guns, like Nicole Vaidisova, Jelena Jankovic and Ana Ivanovic, ready to break through for a Grand Slam title? It’s not likely, but these ladies may have an impact on who will win the championship.
My pick: Henin-Hardenne comes back from injury to take the final Grand Slam of the year.
At first blush, it appears that the toughest quarter of the draw is Ivan Ljubicic’s (3), with such contenders as Andy Roddick (9), Richard Gasquet (25), Marcos Baghdatis (8) and Lleyton Hewitt (15) lurking. Andre Agassi is also in this quarter and faces a potential second round match-up with Baghdatis if he can overcome Andrei Pavel in the first round.
If the seeds hold form in this section of the draw, here are some intriguing matches:
3rd Round – Ljubicic vs. Gasquet
3rd Round – Hewitt vs. Novak Djokovic (20)
4th Round – Roddick vs. Baghdatis
As you may remember, the Cypriot ended Andy Roddick’s Australian Open dreams this past January and that will certainly fuel Andy’s motivation if this match comes to fruition. If Agassi can get his game clicking, perhaps he shows up in the fourth round versus Roddick. That would be very interesting!
This is the hardest quarter of the draw to pick because all of the contenders have question marks coming into this event.
Ljubicic – While the Croat is the third ranked player in the world, his Grand Slam performances are decidedly underwhelming. His results this summer don’t suggest a deep run in New York.
Baghdatis – The 8th seed seems to bring his “A” game to the big events while he’s mediocre the rest of the time. The quick Flushing Meadows courts should help him and if he can get through the second round, he could go to the quarterfinals at the minimum.
Roddick – The big serving American seemed to have found himself and his game in Cincinnati last week, but the challenge will be to continue that run of good play. Is this the new Andy Roddick or will he revert to his previous 2006 form? That’s an open question.
Hewitt – The 15th seed has had some injury concerns this summer, and he and coach Roger Rasheed aren’t talking when it comes to the subject of Lleyton’s fitness.
Gasquet – The young Frenchman was brilliant in Toronto a few weeks ago before crashing out of Cincy (it’s funny how that happens in the second event of consecutive ATP Master Series tournaments). If he can replicate his form from north of the border, the man with the spectacular one-handed backhand has an excellent chance of making the quarterfinals.
My pick for this quarter: Although I can’t believe I’m actually doing this, I’m going with Roddick to stay hot and continue to build on his resurgent confidence. If he serves well, plays inside the baseline and hits effective backhands down the line, he will be tough to beat on the Flushing Meadow courts.
Let’s move to Roger Federer’s quarter of the draw to see if there is anyone there who can challenge him. The short answer is “no”. However, what is notable about this cast is that it contains two of Rafael Nadal’s nemeses on hard courts: James Blake (5) and Thomas Berdych (12). In fact, if the seeding holds, these two would meet in the 4th round. Before that could happen, Berdych would have to potentially defeat one of this summer’s hottest players in Dmitry Tursunov (23). The blogging genius has shown everyone that he can hang with the best on the court as well as on the keyboard so a Blake – Tursunov encounter in the round of 16 is certainly a possibility.
The world’s number 1 should have no problem moving through this section of the draw into the semifinals. Federer has a potential date with Juan Carlos Ferrero (16) in the 4th round and then a quarterfinal clash with Blake, Berdych or Tursunov. I can’t see any of those players troubling the Mighty Fed including Tennis Magazine’s pick to win the tournament, Blake. James’ performances over the last few weeks have made a mockery of Tennis’ prognostication skills and the player himself has said that he can’t fathom how anyone wouldn’t pick Federer to win the tournament. Oh well, I guess it gets some discussion going.
My pick: Surprise! Federer.
Now, let’s head to the bottom of the draw where the number 2 seed, Rafael Nadal, resides. If this were the French Open, this quarter would be kind of exciting. Tommy Robredo (6), David Ferrer (11), Jose Acasuso (24), Gael Monfils (27), Juan Ignacio Chela (31) and Nicolas Almagro are all solid dirt-ballers. Unfortunately for them, this is New York and the courts are quick and the balls are light.
Some of the unseeded players in this section could pull some upsets. The giant Croat, Ivo Karlovic, will love the fast courts as will the ever dangerous Max Mirnyi. Xavier Malisse has an excellent chance of progressing to the 4th round where he could encounter Nadal.
Speaking of Nadal, how happy must he be to see Blake and Berdych on the other side of the draw? A quick glance at this quarter tells me that Nadal has a reasonable chance of making the semifinals. However, an outstanding question for the 20 year-old Mallorcan is how much confidence does he have based on his ATP Master Series performances in Toronto and Cincinnati? One has to believe that he was highly disappointed with his loss in Cincy to fellow Spaniard, Juan Carlos Ferrero, a man that he had never lost a set to in four previous encounters. Rafa needs to find the aggressive baseline game that he employed at Wimbledon this summer in order to make a run in New York. If he plays too defensively, as he did versus Ferrero last week, he could be ripe for an upset, but there appear to be few players in this section who could take advantage of that.
My pick: Vamos Rafa! Nadal gets through this relatively weak quarter to set up a titanic clash with Andy Roddick.
And finally, we’ve arrived at what we’ll call the Nalbandian (4) quarter. Other than Andy Murray (17), this particular section of the draw seems to be reserved for the under-achieving, less-confident segment of the ATP Tour (Marat Safin, Guillermo Coria, Robby Ginepri, Nikolay Davydenko). According to the seeding, Nalbandian should face the German, Tommy Haas (14), in the 4th round. That seems like a reasonable possibility, but the enigmatic Safin is a potentially dangerous 2nd round match for the fourth seeded Argentine.
In the other half of this quarter, Davydenko (7) is the highest seeded player, but Andy Murray looks like the most in-form competitor. Can Brad Gilbert get Murray through to the semifinals? Will fitness play a role in the Scot’s ability to progress through the draw? Murray appears to be a good bet to get through his first 2 matches which could set up a clash with the 10th seed, Fernando Gonzalez of Chile. That’s an interesting match-up and I give the nod to Murray.
My pick: I think the cooler temperatures in the Northeast US will help Andy Murray’s ability to get through matches. Murray emerges from this quarter to reach the semifinals and face the defending champion, Roger Federer.
At this point, I won’t embarrass myself any further by picking beyond the semis. Let’s see how things go over the first week of the tournament and then we can reassess.
As for the ladies, I haven’t studied that draw extensively so I can’t give any detailed analysis. However, aside from Kim Cljisters who is out due to a wrist injury suffered in Montreal, the usual cast of characters (Justine Henin-Hardenne, Amelie Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova, Lindsay Davenport) has to be considered for the title. Are some of the young guns, like Nicole Vaidisova, Jelena Jankovic and Ana Ivanovic, ready to break through for a Grand Slam title? It’s not likely, but these ladies may have an impact on who will win the championship.
My pick: Henin-Hardenne comes back from injury to take the final Grand Slam of the year.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Wedge Thoughts
This post is a little overdue, but what the heck – here goes. I don’t know about other Yankee fans, but I was more than a little perturbed by the “managerial genius” of Cleveland Indians skipper Eric Wedge last week during the Tribe’s stay in
Let’s review the pivotal moments of the two games that Wedge gifted to
We all know that Manny Ramirez bats behind David Ortiz and conventional thinking tells us that you don’t walk the bases loaded to get to Manny Ramirez. Or do you when the potentially greatest clutch hitter of all-time steps to the plate? No doubt it is a tough decision and it’s compounded by the fact that a 22 year-old rookie named Fausto Carmona is on the mound. However, there is sufficient evidence available that suggests not letting Ortiz beat you in this situation. Unfortunately, Wedge appears to be a slave to conventional thinking. Not only did he choose to pitch to Ortiz and subsequently lose the game, he said later that he would do it all over again if he were in the same position. No, no, no, no, no!
Conventional wisdom shouldn’t be a barrier to learning and creativity, yet Eric Wedge isn’t bright enough to understand that. He’s not doing his job if he can’t think creatively. Just ask Devil Rays manager Joe Maddon who was in a similar situation on Sunday with Ortiz at the plate. Maddon might be on the extreme end of non-conventional thinking, but he had the guts to do what Wedge did not; he walked Ortiz to get to Manny and it paid off.
Wedge’s second gaffe of the week versus the Red Sox occurred last Wednesday and again it was in the bottom of the ninth. Once again, Fausto Carmona was on the mound and I had a flashback to the 2001 World Series when Arizona Diamondbacks manager Bob Brenley sent closer Byung-Hyun Kim out to the mound on consecutive evenings to finish games versus the Yankees only to see it all go wrong. Kim hasn’t been the same since and I fear that Carmona may not be either. Granted, the circumstances were far different – World Series vs. run-in-the-mill regular season game – but the trauma of such losses could be devastating for a young pitcher.
Carmona appeared as if he was going to escape the game with his first save when he started having control problems. He walked a batter and hit two others, and was clearly melting down. Only when the bases were loaded did Wedge think to get another pitcher to warm-up. By then, it was too late. Carmona was allowed to pitch to Mark Loretta and Loretta delivered the game winning hit. The fact that Carmona was losing his mind on the mound was so obvious that it was shocking to me that Wedge left him in there to face the Sox second baseman. Perhaps he did it for the kid’s development – I don’t know. Whatever the reasoning, I’m not sure Wedge is managing his team to win, and maybe that’s fine for the Indians, but it isn’t so great for teams competing with the Indians’ opponents for potential playoff spots.
If Wedge hadn’t salvaged two games for the Sox,
Random Thought
The Tampa Bay Devil Rays are officially my second favorite club after they “tweaked” the Red Sox a few times this week. First, after their victory over the Sox on Sunday, they started to play “Sweet Caroline” over the PA system at Tropicana Field which was followed by a turntable needle scratch sound effect and then the playing of Bruce Springsteen’s “Better Days”. That was a nice touch as the Sox departed for the weekend.
On Tuesday, it was reported that the D-Rays blocked the transfer of Adam Stern to the Orioles to complete the Javy Lopez deal. That move seemed to be some form of retaliation for
Monday, July 10, 2006
A Rough Sunday
As sports fans, we all have our favorite sports, favorite events, favorite teams and favorite athletes. When one of our beloved events is happening or one of our revered athletes is in action, it’s usually a special day. For me, Sunday was one of those special days that a sports fan looks forward to as I (my favorite senior tennis player) was in the final of a local tennis tournament, Rafael Nadal was playing Roger Federer in the Wimbledon final, and the finale of the World Cup was taking place in Germany contested by Italy and France.
Such a day is all the sweeter when our rooting interests are served, and more bitter when they are not. It was a rough Sunday in that regard for yours truly; a day in which the karma of my allegiances seemed to be linked in such a way that none of us had a chance.
Not unexpectedly, I lost in my final. Although that result was predictable, it appeared to be the first domino to fall in a day of disappointments. Next up was the Wimbledon final with Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Anyone who has read this space before knows of my admiration for El Rey del Clay, Nadal. His presence in the final at the All England Club was unexpected, but his march through the draw was impressive especially his victories over Andre Agassi and Marcos Baghdatis.
Yesterday, Rafa faced the man who currently owns Wimbledon and is the standard bearer for grass-court tennis, Roger Federer. Before the tournament, Roger didn’t believe that Nadal was ready to progress to a Wimbledon final, but on Sunday, the three time Wimbledon Champion was forced to look into the eyes of his nemesis and deal with the psychological baggage of having lost four straight matches to the Mallorcan. If he could overcome that challenge, he would have his fourth straight Wimbledon title and a renewed stake in tennis’ best rivalry. If he failed, then his status as the world’s best tennis player would certainly be in jeopardy.
As we all know by now, the Swiss Master overcame some spirited competition from his 20 year-old foe to collect that fourth straight title at the Cathedral of Tennis. At this point in the day, I started to suspect that everything was interconnected and that it was all going wrong. Surely, my rooting interest in the World Cup final would lose too, right?
Right. I was rooting for France as much as I was rooting against Italy. Basically, it’s a preference in style. Since at least the early ‘80s, the French have exhibited an artistic flair in their soccer that is pleasing to watch. They have players with tremendous skill who are explosive and exciting. These qualities helped them to conquer the soccer world in 1998 as well as semifinal finishes in the World Cups of 1982 and 1986. While I enjoy watching French football, I don’t have a tremendous allegiance to their squad.
On the flip side, we have the Italians who play soccer in a way that is analogous to the trapping New Jersey Devils of the late ‘90s. Defense and a 1-0 score line are the order of the day. They also happen to be masters at diving, whining, cheating, faking injuries, brutal fouls, and did I say whining? While these qualities can be attributed to players from many different countries (Zinedine Zidane perhaps?), they are systemic in Italian football. Rooting for Italy is rooting for everything that is wrong in modern soccer. So of course, the bastards won. It was a victory for negative and cynical play, and for some reason, I knew it was going to happen before the match even started. Ever get that feeling? The feeling that there is something negative in the air and the team or player you’re rooting for isn’t going to win? Well, yesterday was one of those days for me and although the results didn’t go the way I wanted them to, it was still a great sporting Sunday.
Also, there was one consolation. At least the Red Sox lost.
Such a day is all the sweeter when our rooting interests are served, and more bitter when they are not. It was a rough Sunday in that regard for yours truly; a day in which the karma of my allegiances seemed to be linked in such a way that none of us had a chance.
Not unexpectedly, I lost in my final. Although that result was predictable, it appeared to be the first domino to fall in a day of disappointments. Next up was the Wimbledon final with Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Anyone who has read this space before knows of my admiration for El Rey del Clay, Nadal. His presence in the final at the All England Club was unexpected, but his march through the draw was impressive especially his victories over Andre Agassi and Marcos Baghdatis.
Yesterday, Rafa faced the man who currently owns Wimbledon and is the standard bearer for grass-court tennis, Roger Federer. Before the tournament, Roger didn’t believe that Nadal was ready to progress to a Wimbledon final, but on Sunday, the three time Wimbledon Champion was forced to look into the eyes of his nemesis and deal with the psychological baggage of having lost four straight matches to the Mallorcan. If he could overcome that challenge, he would have his fourth straight Wimbledon title and a renewed stake in tennis’ best rivalry. If he failed, then his status as the world’s best tennis player would certainly be in jeopardy.
As we all know by now, the Swiss Master overcame some spirited competition from his 20 year-old foe to collect that fourth straight title at the Cathedral of Tennis. At this point in the day, I started to suspect that everything was interconnected and that it was all going wrong. Surely, my rooting interest in the World Cup final would lose too, right?
Right. I was rooting for France as much as I was rooting against Italy. Basically, it’s a preference in style. Since at least the early ‘80s, the French have exhibited an artistic flair in their soccer that is pleasing to watch. They have players with tremendous skill who are explosive and exciting. These qualities helped them to conquer the soccer world in 1998 as well as semifinal finishes in the World Cups of 1982 and 1986. While I enjoy watching French football, I don’t have a tremendous allegiance to their squad.
On the flip side, we have the Italians who play soccer in a way that is analogous to the trapping New Jersey Devils of the late ‘90s. Defense and a 1-0 score line are the order of the day. They also happen to be masters at diving, whining, cheating, faking injuries, brutal fouls, and did I say whining? While these qualities can be attributed to players from many different countries (Zinedine Zidane perhaps?), they are systemic in Italian football. Rooting for Italy is rooting for everything that is wrong in modern soccer. So of course, the bastards won. It was a victory for negative and cynical play, and for some reason, I knew it was going to happen before the match even started. Ever get that feeling? The feeling that there is something negative in the air and the team or player you’re rooting for isn’t going to win? Well, yesterday was one of those days for me and although the results didn’t go the way I wanted them to, it was still a great sporting Sunday.
Also, there was one consolation. At least the Red Sox lost.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
World Cup Thoughts - Part 2
To continue with our World Cup thoughts, let’s look at some of the teams that didn’t make the WC Final Four.
United States – The quarterfinal finish at the 2002 World Cup most likely created unrealistic expectations for the 2006 edition of the US National Team and that may explain the reaction of the media and the fans to the first round exit in Germany. Although the US has been ranked in the top ten of FIFA’s World Rankings for an extended period of time, that ranking system has been openly criticized as flawed and it does not accurately reflect the world order in soccer. The fact that FIFA doesn’t use it to seed the teams in the World Cup draw ought to tell us how much belief that organization has in its own system.
When the groups for the World Cup were selected last December, I knew the US wasn’t going to advance to the second round. Italy and the Czech Republic were horrible match-ups for the Red, White and Blue. The Italians are masters at limiting opponents’ chances on goal (as they did yesterday versus the Germans in Dortmund) and the USA’s conversion rate of chances to goals has historically been poor. I couldn’t see the Americans scoring a goal versus the Azzurri. As it turned out, the Italians decided to score one for them. To be fair, the US did play well in this match and unfortunately the referee decided to kill the game off with multiple red cards.
The Czechs’ advantages over the Americans are size, speed and skill. The US simply doesn’t have anyone who can cope with Jan Koller, Pavel Nedved, etc., and the American defenders are clearly out of their league. In reality, the early goal from Koller ended the contest. The US opened up the play and exposed themselves to dangerous counter-attacks. To have won this game, the US needed to score first.
Ghana was the wildcard in the group. You never know what you are going to get out of an African side. They tend to be physically imposing, but usually show their inexperience versus the traditional soccer powers. This was the final game for the US in group play, and I thought in all likelihood that the game would be meaningless. I was wrong on that account and the US did have a chance to advance out of the group stage with a victory (and some help) over Ghana. While another refereeing decision did contribute to the Americans’ downfall, the US was unable to muster enough chances on goal to win the game. US soccer hasn’t reached the maturity level in which it can exploit inexperienced sides like Ghana. In fact, Ghana always looked like the better team.
So should US soccer fans be disappointed with the first round exit in Germany? Sure, there were some disappointing aspects about the way the team went out including some dubious refereeing decisions, as well as poor performances in two of their three games. But to have expected the team to advance to the second round in the wake of the 2002 World Cup was unrealistic. Everything fell into place perfectly in ’02. In their first game, the Portuguese were caught sleeping and before they knew it, they were down 3-0. During the entire tournament (except against the Germans), every time the Americans had a chance on goal, it seemed as if they converted it. That high conversion rate was completely uncharacteristic of American soccer and that remains a central problem with the national team today. In the end, the US team couldn’t break down defenses well enough to create viable scoring opportunities. When they did get their chances, they couldn’t convert them.
The 2006 US National Team is a better team than the 2002 edition even though the results don’t bear that out. They are more skilled, better on the ball, and more able to control the tempo of a game than any American team in history. Because of that, I’m not as disappointed as some in what happened in Germany this summer. I think the progress of American soccer over the last 15 years is very impressive and what Bruce Arena has done with this collection of players is amazing. Let’s remember, outside of goalkeepers, there isn’t a single American player who has ever been close to being the best in the world at his position. Players like Landon Donovan, DaMarcus Beasley and Claudio Reyna may be close to household names in the US, but they are simply faces in the crowd on the world stage.
Due to the zonal system of qualification for the World Cup, the US basically has automatic entry into the finals every 4 years so it will be very interesting to measure the 2010 version of the US National Team with this year’s side.
England – The media hype about England’s chances of winning the World Cup was probably at an all-time high in recent months, but as usual, it was just hype. There was never any substance to the argument for England as tournament victors.
One of the main reasons that England is invariably discussed as a World Cup favorite every four years is that the English people see soccer (football) as a birthright of the nation and that England should simply be the best because they are England. Most of the media in the UK (except for The Fiver!) pick up on this and thus create expectations for their team that simply cannot be met by the current crop of players. An examination of England’s results over the last several years shows that the national side is clearly in a second tier of countries vying for World Cup glory. That notion isn’t acceptable to the English public, but a 4-1 thrashing at the hands of Norway in a friendly earlier this year and a 1-0 World Cup Qualifier loss to Northern Ireland last Fall cannot be overlooked. Can you imagine Brazil with those results? No, I didn’t think so.
Another contributing factor to the hype around the England team is the players themselves. Sure, they’re fine players, but they aren’t the superstar talents that the English media would have you believe they are. They are media created superstars, not soccer superstars. Players like David Beckham, Wayne Rooney, Steven Gerrard, etc. are lauded as superstars by the media simply because they are English and have achieved relative success in the English Premiership. As I said, they are good players, but they aren’t the best in the world. No matter how many times the media tells you they are (that includes Marcelo Balboa of ESPN), it doesn’t make it true.
Compare the talents of England to those of a country that plays in relative anonymity, Portugal. Not only did Portugal eliminate England from this World Cup, but also they eliminated them from the 2004 European Championships and humiliated them in Euro 2000. Most casual soccer fans know who Luis Figo is and maybe Cristiano Ronaldo, but the rest of the team is probably a mystery. However, that doesn’t mean they aren’t good. Some “experts” thought that the English midfield was one of the best in the tournament, but if one compares them to their counterparts from Portugal, one can see that they don’t match up well at all. Of course, the results on the field demonstrated this even further.
Regardless of the hype and unrealistic expectations, England never played up to their true abilities. They created very few offensive opportunities and seemed to play very slowly. English soccer is usually at its best when played at a frenetic pace, but perhaps the summer heat stifled their ability to play that way. The heat was certainly a factor in 2002 when they wilted versus the Brazilians so there’s no reason to think it wasn’t an issue this time around. Now that England is out of the tournament, team manager Sven Goran Eriksson is taking the heat and that’s a shame. He’s been acclaimed as one of the best managers in the world and the England team has done well under his stewardship, but there’s a segment of the English population that can’t accept a foreign born coach for their team. Let’s see if they get what they want with recently appointed, and second choice at least, manager Steve McLaren.
Part 2 of my World Cup Thoughts has turned out to be longer than I thought it would, so I guess there will be a Part 3 covering such teams as Argentina, Brazil, and Spain.
United States – The quarterfinal finish at the 2002 World Cup most likely created unrealistic expectations for the 2006 edition of the US National Team and that may explain the reaction of the media and the fans to the first round exit in Germany. Although the US has been ranked in the top ten of FIFA’s World Rankings for an extended period of time, that ranking system has been openly criticized as flawed and it does not accurately reflect the world order in soccer. The fact that FIFA doesn’t use it to seed the teams in the World Cup draw ought to tell us how much belief that organization has in its own system.
When the groups for the World Cup were selected last December, I knew the US wasn’t going to advance to the second round. Italy and the Czech Republic were horrible match-ups for the Red, White and Blue. The Italians are masters at limiting opponents’ chances on goal (as they did yesterday versus the Germans in Dortmund) and the USA’s conversion rate of chances to goals has historically been poor. I couldn’t see the Americans scoring a goal versus the Azzurri. As it turned out, the Italians decided to score one for them. To be fair, the US did play well in this match and unfortunately the referee decided to kill the game off with multiple red cards.
The Czechs’ advantages over the Americans are size, speed and skill. The US simply doesn’t have anyone who can cope with Jan Koller, Pavel Nedved, etc., and the American defenders are clearly out of their league. In reality, the early goal from Koller ended the contest. The US opened up the play and exposed themselves to dangerous counter-attacks. To have won this game, the US needed to score first.
Ghana was the wildcard in the group. You never know what you are going to get out of an African side. They tend to be physically imposing, but usually show their inexperience versus the traditional soccer powers. This was the final game for the US in group play, and I thought in all likelihood that the game would be meaningless. I was wrong on that account and the US did have a chance to advance out of the group stage with a victory (and some help) over Ghana. While another refereeing decision did contribute to the Americans’ downfall, the US was unable to muster enough chances on goal to win the game. US soccer hasn’t reached the maturity level in which it can exploit inexperienced sides like Ghana. In fact, Ghana always looked like the better team.
So should US soccer fans be disappointed with the first round exit in Germany? Sure, there were some disappointing aspects about the way the team went out including some dubious refereeing decisions, as well as poor performances in two of their three games. But to have expected the team to advance to the second round in the wake of the 2002 World Cup was unrealistic. Everything fell into place perfectly in ’02. In their first game, the Portuguese were caught sleeping and before they knew it, they were down 3-0. During the entire tournament (except against the Germans), every time the Americans had a chance on goal, it seemed as if they converted it. That high conversion rate was completely uncharacteristic of American soccer and that remains a central problem with the national team today. In the end, the US team couldn’t break down defenses well enough to create viable scoring opportunities. When they did get their chances, they couldn’t convert them.
The 2006 US National Team is a better team than the 2002 edition even though the results don’t bear that out. They are more skilled, better on the ball, and more able to control the tempo of a game than any American team in history. Because of that, I’m not as disappointed as some in what happened in Germany this summer. I think the progress of American soccer over the last 15 years is very impressive and what Bruce Arena has done with this collection of players is amazing. Let’s remember, outside of goalkeepers, there isn’t a single American player who has ever been close to being the best in the world at his position. Players like Landon Donovan, DaMarcus Beasley and Claudio Reyna may be close to household names in the US, but they are simply faces in the crowd on the world stage.
Due to the zonal system of qualification for the World Cup, the US basically has automatic entry into the finals every 4 years so it will be very interesting to measure the 2010 version of the US National Team with this year’s side.
England – The media hype about England’s chances of winning the World Cup was probably at an all-time high in recent months, but as usual, it was just hype. There was never any substance to the argument for England as tournament victors.
One of the main reasons that England is invariably discussed as a World Cup favorite every four years is that the English people see soccer (football) as a birthright of the nation and that England should simply be the best because they are England. Most of the media in the UK (except for The Fiver!) pick up on this and thus create expectations for their team that simply cannot be met by the current crop of players. An examination of England’s results over the last several years shows that the national side is clearly in a second tier of countries vying for World Cup glory. That notion isn’t acceptable to the English public, but a 4-1 thrashing at the hands of Norway in a friendly earlier this year and a 1-0 World Cup Qualifier loss to Northern Ireland last Fall cannot be overlooked. Can you imagine Brazil with those results? No, I didn’t think so.
Another contributing factor to the hype around the England team is the players themselves. Sure, they’re fine players, but they aren’t the superstar talents that the English media would have you believe they are. They are media created superstars, not soccer superstars. Players like David Beckham, Wayne Rooney, Steven Gerrard, etc. are lauded as superstars by the media simply because they are English and have achieved relative success in the English Premiership. As I said, they are good players, but they aren’t the best in the world. No matter how many times the media tells you they are (that includes Marcelo Balboa of ESPN), it doesn’t make it true.
Compare the talents of England to those of a country that plays in relative anonymity, Portugal. Not only did Portugal eliminate England from this World Cup, but also they eliminated them from the 2004 European Championships and humiliated them in Euro 2000. Most casual soccer fans know who Luis Figo is and maybe Cristiano Ronaldo, but the rest of the team is probably a mystery. However, that doesn’t mean they aren’t good. Some “experts” thought that the English midfield was one of the best in the tournament, but if one compares them to their counterparts from Portugal, one can see that they don’t match up well at all. Of course, the results on the field demonstrated this even further.
Regardless of the hype and unrealistic expectations, England never played up to their true abilities. They created very few offensive opportunities and seemed to play very slowly. English soccer is usually at its best when played at a frenetic pace, but perhaps the summer heat stifled their ability to play that way. The heat was certainly a factor in 2002 when they wilted versus the Brazilians so there’s no reason to think it wasn’t an issue this time around. Now that England is out of the tournament, team manager Sven Goran Eriksson is taking the heat and that’s a shame. He’s been acclaimed as one of the best managers in the world and the England team has done well under his stewardship, but there’s a segment of the English population that can’t accept a foreign born coach for their team. Let’s see if they get what they want with recently appointed, and second choice at least, manager Steve McLaren.
Part 2 of my World Cup Thoughts has turned out to be longer than I thought it would, so I guess there will be a Part 3 covering such teams as Argentina, Brazil, and Spain.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
World Cup Thoughts - Part 1
With the first of the World Cup semifinals taking place today (Italy vs. Germany), the time seems appropriate to comment on the tournament thus far. Let’s start by reviewing the progress of the four semi-finalists.
Germany – It’s been no secret in international soccer that the German national team has been in decline for several years despite their second place finish at the 2002 World Cup in Korea/Japan. As the host nation, the Germans were directly entered into the final 32 so it was difficult to gauge how much the team had progressed in the last few years. A poor showing versus the Italians in March (a 4-1 loss) seemed to indicate that national team manager, Juergen Klinsmann, had much work to do before their opening match on June 9 versus Costa Rica.
But as host nations often do, the Germans have raised the level of their performances in this tournament and have capitalized on the tremendous public support they’ve received, especially since their last second 1-0 victory versus Poland. The Germans don’t necessarily have the stars of some of the other semifinalists, but they do have their characteristically well-organized style of play working well. Coming into today’s match with Italy, Germany does not have a good record in World Cup play with their neighbors to the south. However, it’s always dangerous to bet against a host nation, especially one as good as Germany.
Italy – Coming into the 2006 World Cup, many soccer observers wondered if the team might be distracted by the match-fixing scandal surrounding some of Italy’s largest club teams. Of course, match fixing scandals are nothing new in Italy, this one just happens to involve some major figures in the Italian game, and the team hasn’t been phased by any of the events going on at home. Thus far, they’ve progressed in typical Italian fashion – solid defense and opportunistic offense combined with the usual flopping around on the pitch and incessant whining to the referees. If you detect some hostility toward the Azzurri, you’re correct, but it isn’t due to what occurred when the US played Italy earlier in this tournament. It goes way back to 1982 when I watched my first World Cup and I’ll detail more of that in my upcoming World Cup Memories posts.
In this tournament, the Italians came through group play extremely well and have entered the semi-finals with a controversial late penalty kick versus Australia and a comfortable victory over the Ukraine. The match-up with the Germans should be a classic clash of styles that may not translate into an enjoyable game to watch. Italy’s style often diffuses the creativity of its opponents and they’ll look to suffocate the energy of the Germans early in the match. If the Azzurri can get an early goal, look for the Italians to choke the life out of the game and to demonstrate why they are the masters of the 1-0 score-line. My pick: Italy 2-1.
France – Les Bleus have had a collective hangover since their Euro 2000 victory over the Italians, but there are signs in this tournament that they may be recovering in time to capture the 2006 World Cup. A round of 16 victory over Spain, a country that France has never lost a competitive match to, served as inspiration for their quarterfinal clash with reigning World Champions Brazil. The French have had good history with the Brazilians in World Cup play. Twenty years ago, France defeated Brazil in the quarterfinals in Mexico, and of course, in 1998, the French raised the trophy at the expense of the Samba Kings.
Although this team’s average age is close to 30, it’s a very talented group of players who have had success at the highest level. Now that they’ve started playing well again as a team, there’s an excellent chance that the French will raise the World Cup trophy for the second time on July 9 in Berlin.
Portugal – Perhaps the most talented soccer nation to never have won a major championship, the Portuguese have equaled their best progress at a World Cup, and they look to go further in an intriguing clash with France. Although history is not always an accurate predictor, history is not on the side of Portugal. The French have a decided advantage in head-to-head play including victories in their last seven encounters.
On the other hand, this team may be ready to take the next step toward conquering a World Cup. Led by “Big Phil” Felipe Scolari, a Brazilian who knows how to win, this Portuguese side looks to have the mental strength that their past brethren have not. At Euro 2004, they advanced to the final before succumbing to a Greek team that had no interest in playing attractive soccer. In this tournament, they’ve progressed to the semifinals in impressive fashion, most notably dispatching their old friends England on penalty kicks just as they did at Euro 2004.
Scolari’s challenge is to get his team ready to play a French side that can match them in technical skill on the ball and has a star-studded line-up. Given France’s talent, it’s not a huge surprise that they defeated a less than impressive Brazil, and the Portuguese will have to cope with a team that is growing in confidence. My pick: France 2-1.
In part 2, we’ll review the performances of some other nations of note, including the United States and England.
Germany – It’s been no secret in international soccer that the German national team has been in decline for several years despite their second place finish at the 2002 World Cup in Korea/Japan. As the host nation, the Germans were directly entered into the final 32 so it was difficult to gauge how much the team had progressed in the last few years. A poor showing versus the Italians in March (a 4-1 loss) seemed to indicate that national team manager, Juergen Klinsmann, had much work to do before their opening match on June 9 versus Costa Rica.
But as host nations often do, the Germans have raised the level of their performances in this tournament and have capitalized on the tremendous public support they’ve received, especially since their last second 1-0 victory versus Poland. The Germans don’t necessarily have the stars of some of the other semifinalists, but they do have their characteristically well-organized style of play working well. Coming into today’s match with Italy, Germany does not have a good record in World Cup play with their neighbors to the south. However, it’s always dangerous to bet against a host nation, especially one as good as Germany.
Italy – Coming into the 2006 World Cup, many soccer observers wondered if the team might be distracted by the match-fixing scandal surrounding some of Italy’s largest club teams. Of course, match fixing scandals are nothing new in Italy, this one just happens to involve some major figures in the Italian game, and the team hasn’t been phased by any of the events going on at home. Thus far, they’ve progressed in typical Italian fashion – solid defense and opportunistic offense combined with the usual flopping around on the pitch and incessant whining to the referees. If you detect some hostility toward the Azzurri, you’re correct, but it isn’t due to what occurred when the US played Italy earlier in this tournament. It goes way back to 1982 when I watched my first World Cup and I’ll detail more of that in my upcoming World Cup Memories posts.
In this tournament, the Italians came through group play extremely well and have entered the semi-finals with a controversial late penalty kick versus Australia and a comfortable victory over the Ukraine. The match-up with the Germans should be a classic clash of styles that may not translate into an enjoyable game to watch. Italy’s style often diffuses the creativity of its opponents and they’ll look to suffocate the energy of the Germans early in the match. If the Azzurri can get an early goal, look for the Italians to choke the life out of the game and to demonstrate why they are the masters of the 1-0 score-line. My pick: Italy 2-1.
France – Les Bleus have had a collective hangover since their Euro 2000 victory over the Italians, but there are signs in this tournament that they may be recovering in time to capture the 2006 World Cup. A round of 16 victory over Spain, a country that France has never lost a competitive match to, served as inspiration for their quarterfinal clash with reigning World Champions Brazil. The French have had good history with the Brazilians in World Cup play. Twenty years ago, France defeated Brazil in the quarterfinals in Mexico, and of course, in 1998, the French raised the trophy at the expense of the Samba Kings.
Although this team’s average age is close to 30, it’s a very talented group of players who have had success at the highest level. Now that they’ve started playing well again as a team, there’s an excellent chance that the French will raise the World Cup trophy for the second time on July 9 in Berlin.
Portugal – Perhaps the most talented soccer nation to never have won a major championship, the Portuguese have equaled their best progress at a World Cup, and they look to go further in an intriguing clash with France. Although history is not always an accurate predictor, history is not on the side of Portugal. The French have a decided advantage in head-to-head play including victories in their last seven encounters.
On the other hand, this team may be ready to take the next step toward conquering a World Cup. Led by “Big Phil” Felipe Scolari, a Brazilian who knows how to win, this Portuguese side looks to have the mental strength that their past brethren have not. At Euro 2004, they advanced to the final before succumbing to a Greek team that had no interest in playing attractive soccer. In this tournament, they’ve progressed to the semifinals in impressive fashion, most notably dispatching their old friends England on penalty kicks just as they did at Euro 2004.
Scolari’s challenge is to get his team ready to play a French side that can match them in technical skill on the ball and has a star-studded line-up. Given France’s talent, it’s not a huge surprise that they defeated a less than impressive Brazil, and the Portuguese will have to cope with a team that is growing in confidence. My pick: France 2-1.
In part 2, we’ll review the performances of some other nations of note, including the United States and England.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Wimbledon: Week One
Between a busier than usual work schedule and World Cup soccer viewing, it’s been a while since I posted. Now that Wimbledon has completed its first week, it’s time to share some thoughts on the happenings of Week One of the Championships.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I haven’t seen much of the tennis this past week, but I did catch the Andre Agassi – Rafael Nadal match twice yesterday (once on NBC and again on ESPN). Thanks to our friends at NBC, no one in the US saw the match live, but my wife and I decided to listen to the end of the match on Radio Wimbledon via Wimbledon.com. We heard Sue Barker’s interview with Nadal and Agassi live and it was an emotional moment. One could hear Agassi struggling to bottle up his emotions as he spoke to the Centre Court crowd for the final time in his career. The emotion of the moment may have been more discernible via the audio feed of Radio Wimbledon as we had no video to distract us from Agassi’s words.
As it turned out, Nadal was the perfect opponent for Agassi in his final Wimbledon match. The many contrasts between the 36 year-old and the 20 year-old showed everyone watching that Agassi had chosen well in making the summer of 2006 his swan song. While Agassi is still one of the best players in the world, Nadal showed him that his time for competing for Grand Slam championships has passed, and one gets the sense that Andre won’t want to compete under those circumstances, especially given his recent injuries and physical issues.
The departure of Andre Agassi from competitive tennis is a significant event for the game. He is the last of a great generation of American tennis players – a generation that included Pete Sampras, Jim Courier, Michael Chang and Todd Martin. It’s a generation that has yet to be succeeded. Andy Roddick teased American audiences for a while, but he’s been revealed to be a pretender to the legacy of Agassi’s generation. So with Andre’s departure, the face and buzz of American tennis will be gone by the end of the summer and we’ll be left with the reality that there is no one ready to replace him in the hearts of US tennis fans.
And while Agassi’s farewell tour is sad for tennis, it does create two interesting story lines for the men’s game over the summer that should bring plenty of media attention. The first is, of course, Agassi himself. The media coverage of his final tournaments in the next few months should be unprecedented and that will be a positive for the sport. The other story line is the continuing saga of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Is Nadal ready to reach a Wimbledon final and possibly challenge Federer on grass? What will happen when these two champions meet during the hard court season? Can Federer improve on his 1-6 record versus Rafa? These two stories have the potential to give tennis some of its greatest media exposure in the US in recent years.
Other Thoughts
· In my two viewings of the Agassi – Nadal match, I was quite impressed with Rafa on the grass. He’s made a few adjustments in his court positioning (closer to the baseline on service returns and during rallies) and he’s putting more velocity on his serves. The fact that Agassi did not have a single break point during the match is remarkable and a testament to how well Nadal played. Based on his current form, a run to the semi-finals and a potential date with Lleyton Hewitt is certainly attainable.
· Wimbledon 2006 is just the latest chapter in the descent of Andy Roddick. The tactically befuddled American got it all wrong again against anti-Englander Andy Murray, and he went down in straight sets. Murray’s been lauded as an intelligent player, and justifiably so. This was his second victory over Roddick in ’06 and he proved once again that brains can overcome brawn, even in tennis. The combination of Murray’s tactical awareness and Roddick’s physicality would make for a formidable tennis player. Unfortunately, that’s not the way things work in life and each player must work with his own abilities. While many tennis observers feel that Roddick has to go back to relying on his big serve, those people ignore the fact that the men’s tour has adjusted to Roddick’s serve. That’s why it isn’t as effective anymore; it’s not because he isn’t hitting it. Andy’s going to have to make some tough choices in the next few months about the direction of his game. He’s no longer playing top ten level tennis and he won’t be able to get back there without some serious changes. The problem is that Roddick appears to be too stubborn to do just that.
· Roger Federer has an interesting couple of matches this week. First, he meets Thomas Berdych in the Fourth Round and if he gets through that, he will meet the winner of Mario Ancic and Novak Djokovic. Ancic was the last player to defeat Federer at the All England Club.
· My prediction earlier this year that the Williams Sisters wouldn’t win another Grand Slam title remains intact thanks to Jelena Jankovic of Serbia. Jankovic took down Venus in 3 sets on Saturday and advanced to a Fourth-Round match-up with Anastasia Myskina of Russia. Thanks Jelena!
In the spirit of full disclosure, I haven’t seen much of the tennis this past week, but I did catch the Andre Agassi – Rafael Nadal match twice yesterday (once on NBC and again on ESPN). Thanks to our friends at NBC, no one in the US saw the match live, but my wife and I decided to listen to the end of the match on Radio Wimbledon via Wimbledon.com. We heard Sue Barker’s interview with Nadal and Agassi live and it was an emotional moment. One could hear Agassi struggling to bottle up his emotions as he spoke to the Centre Court crowd for the final time in his career. The emotion of the moment may have been more discernible via the audio feed of Radio Wimbledon as we had no video to distract us from Agassi’s words.
As it turned out, Nadal was the perfect opponent for Agassi in his final Wimbledon match. The many contrasts between the 36 year-old and the 20 year-old showed everyone watching that Agassi had chosen well in making the summer of 2006 his swan song. While Agassi is still one of the best players in the world, Nadal showed him that his time for competing for Grand Slam championships has passed, and one gets the sense that Andre won’t want to compete under those circumstances, especially given his recent injuries and physical issues.
The departure of Andre Agassi from competitive tennis is a significant event for the game. He is the last of a great generation of American tennis players – a generation that included Pete Sampras, Jim Courier, Michael Chang and Todd Martin. It’s a generation that has yet to be succeeded. Andy Roddick teased American audiences for a while, but he’s been revealed to be a pretender to the legacy of Agassi’s generation. So with Andre’s departure, the face and buzz of American tennis will be gone by the end of the summer and we’ll be left with the reality that there is no one ready to replace him in the hearts of US tennis fans.
And while Agassi’s farewell tour is sad for tennis, it does create two interesting story lines for the men’s game over the summer that should bring plenty of media attention. The first is, of course, Agassi himself. The media coverage of his final tournaments in the next few months should be unprecedented and that will be a positive for the sport. The other story line is the continuing saga of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Is Nadal ready to reach a Wimbledon final and possibly challenge Federer on grass? What will happen when these two champions meet during the hard court season? Can Federer improve on his 1-6 record versus Rafa? These two stories have the potential to give tennis some of its greatest media exposure in the US in recent years.
Other Thoughts
· In my two viewings of the Agassi – Nadal match, I was quite impressed with Rafa on the grass. He’s made a few adjustments in his court positioning (closer to the baseline on service returns and during rallies) and he’s putting more velocity on his serves. The fact that Agassi did not have a single break point during the match is remarkable and a testament to how well Nadal played. Based on his current form, a run to the semi-finals and a potential date with Lleyton Hewitt is certainly attainable.
· Wimbledon 2006 is just the latest chapter in the descent of Andy Roddick. The tactically befuddled American got it all wrong again against anti-Englander Andy Murray, and he went down in straight sets. Murray’s been lauded as an intelligent player, and justifiably so. This was his second victory over Roddick in ’06 and he proved once again that brains can overcome brawn, even in tennis. The combination of Murray’s tactical awareness and Roddick’s physicality would make for a formidable tennis player. Unfortunately, that’s not the way things work in life and each player must work with his own abilities. While many tennis observers feel that Roddick has to go back to relying on his big serve, those people ignore the fact that the men’s tour has adjusted to Roddick’s serve. That’s why it isn’t as effective anymore; it’s not because he isn’t hitting it. Andy’s going to have to make some tough choices in the next few months about the direction of his game. He’s no longer playing top ten level tennis and he won’t be able to get back there without some serious changes. The problem is that Roddick appears to be too stubborn to do just that.
· Roger Federer has an interesting couple of matches this week. First, he meets Thomas Berdych in the Fourth Round and if he gets through that, he will meet the winner of Mario Ancic and Novak Djokovic. Ancic was the last player to defeat Federer at the All England Club.
· My prediction earlier this year that the Williams Sisters wouldn’t win another Grand Slam title remains intact thanks to Jelena Jankovic of Serbia. Jankovic took down Venus in 3 sets on Saturday and advanced to a Fourth-Round match-up with Anastasia Myskina of Russia. Thanks Jelena!
Sunday, June 11, 2006
French Open: The Warrior
Coming into today’s Men’s final at Roland Garros, the two combatants, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, were pursuing their own versions of history. Federer hadn’t lost a match in a major (don’t call it a Grand Slam or Bud Collins will spank you) since last year’s semifinal defeat at the hands of Nadal. With a win in the final, Federer would hold all four majors at one time, thus completing a “Roger Slam”. He would also capture the first 2 legs of the Grand Slam in this calendar year.
Federer’s record in Grand Slam finals was a remarkable 7-0 prior to today and not only was Roger going for his first French Open title, he would also surpass the half-way mark to Pete Sampras’ record 14 Grand Slam titles.
The man from Mallorca had a fairly impressive streak of finals victories entering today’s final – 13-0 in his last thirteen finals including 3 over the Mighty Fed this year. He was also trying to become the first man to defend his title at Roland Garros since Gustavo Kuerten did that in 2001. Nadal’s consecutive clay court win streak has been well publicized over the last two weeks with the eclipsing of Guillermo Vilas’ record of 53 match wins. The streak stood at 59 this morning. This evening it stands at 60.
There are several words that one could use to describe Rafa Nadal: tough, competitive, relentless, mature, physical, intimidating, exciting, enthusiastic. If we could use one word to sum the man up, it would be warrior. The man never gives up and in a sport that is “mano a mano”, he seldom comes out on the short side of the ledger. Today’s match was no different.
Nadal got off to a shaky start in the first set going down grimly at 6-1. Federer appeared to be in command at that point, but he let the match slip away early in the second set and seemingly, he never recovered his form. That small opening was all Nadal needed to get himself in the match and he slowly began to raise his level of play.
Meanwhile, Federer didn’t seem to be using the same game plan that he had employed effectively in Rome when he pounded Rafa’s backhand and ventured into the net dozens of times. Today, Roger appeared content to play a more traditional clay court style, rallying with Nadal from the baseline for the majority of the match. In the post-match interview with Bud Collins, Federer stated that the court in Paris was much slower than the one in Rome and therefore he found it harder to attack in the same manner.
The choice not to attack appeared to be Federer’s undoing. There was little chance of success over the course of a best of five set match against El Rey del Clay. In terms of quality of tennis, this might have been their worst played encounter of the four meetings this year, but with everything riding on this one, that’s somewhat understandable. Nerves certainly played a part and Federer admitted that the heat was also a factor.
As for Nadal, his streaks of victories on clay and in finals live on, as does his mastery over the world’s number one player. The brief grass court season will probably bring Rafa’s results back down to earth, but things should get interesting on the tour in mid-July when everyone hits the hardcourts in preparation for the US Open. Future encounters between these two will be the intrigue for the rest of the summer.
Federer’s record in Grand Slam finals was a remarkable 7-0 prior to today and not only was Roger going for his first French Open title, he would also surpass the half-way mark to Pete Sampras’ record 14 Grand Slam titles.
The man from Mallorca had a fairly impressive streak of finals victories entering today’s final – 13-0 in his last thirteen finals including 3 over the Mighty Fed this year. He was also trying to become the first man to defend his title at Roland Garros since Gustavo Kuerten did that in 2001. Nadal’s consecutive clay court win streak has been well publicized over the last two weeks with the eclipsing of Guillermo Vilas’ record of 53 match wins. The streak stood at 59 this morning. This evening it stands at 60.
There are several words that one could use to describe Rafa Nadal: tough, competitive, relentless, mature, physical, intimidating, exciting, enthusiastic. If we could use one word to sum the man up, it would be warrior. The man never gives up and in a sport that is “mano a mano”, he seldom comes out on the short side of the ledger. Today’s match was no different.
Nadal got off to a shaky start in the first set going down grimly at 6-1. Federer appeared to be in command at that point, but he let the match slip away early in the second set and seemingly, he never recovered his form. That small opening was all Nadal needed to get himself in the match and he slowly began to raise his level of play.
Meanwhile, Federer didn’t seem to be using the same game plan that he had employed effectively in Rome when he pounded Rafa’s backhand and ventured into the net dozens of times. Today, Roger appeared content to play a more traditional clay court style, rallying with Nadal from the baseline for the majority of the match. In the post-match interview with Bud Collins, Federer stated that the court in Paris was much slower than the one in Rome and therefore he found it harder to attack in the same manner.
The choice not to attack appeared to be Federer’s undoing. There was little chance of success over the course of a best of five set match against El Rey del Clay. In terms of quality of tennis, this might have been their worst played encounter of the four meetings this year, but with everything riding on this one, that’s somewhat understandable. Nerves certainly played a part and Federer admitted that the heat was also a factor.
As for Nadal, his streaks of victories on clay and in finals live on, as does his mastery over the world’s number one player. The brief grass court season will probably bring Rafa’s results back down to earth, but things should get interesting on the tour in mid-July when everyone hits the hardcourts in preparation for the US Open. Future encounters between these two will be the intrigue for the rest of the summer.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
French Open Preview
The men’s and women’s singles draws for the 2006 French Open were revealed yesterday, and it appears that the top two men’s seeds, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, avoided tricky early round encounters. Of course, with the state of men’s tennis today, there may not be a player out there who can derail the seemingly inevitable final between Federer and Nadal. The biggest surprise of this tournament might just be if Roger and Rafa don’t duel it out on June 11 for the title at Roland Garros.
Seriously, who’s going to step up and challenge one of these guys on clay? Peter Bodo has suggested in his blog that there are multiple players aside from Nadal who could take Federer down in Paris, but that’s hogwash. Federer’s performances in Monte Carlo and Rome proved that on clay, there is one and only one man who can beat him, and no one else. If it weren’t for the presence of Nadal in the draw, is there any doubt that Roger would be the overwhelming favorite for the 2006 French Open title? The one thing that everyone seems to agree on is that Nadal will be defending that title on the third Sunday of the tournament.
Aside from the top 2, much of the rest of the field appears to be limping into Paris, and for those players who are on form, they have no Grand Slam credentials. How about the Americans, Andy Roddick and James Blake? Roddick arrives in Paris with injuries on his mind. He hurt his foot in World Team Cup play this past week and he suffered a pinched nerve in his shoulder in Rome. His results at Roland Garros haven’t exactly been stellar when he’s been healthy so there’s no reason to suggest that he’s going to impress much in his current state of health. He may advance farther than Victor Hanescu, but that’s about it.
James Blake was drawn in Rafael Nadal’s quarter of the draw, and while the Spaniard would probably love to get his hands on Blake on the dirt to avenge his two consecutive losses to the American, Blake has a tough couple of rounds to get through first. He faces the big Thai, Paradorn Srichaphan, in the first round and then possibly one of the hotter players on tour, Spain’s Nicolas Almagro, in the second. We can’t see James getting past that second round match.
So tennis fans, get ready for our third Federer – Nadal final on clay of the spring of 2006. There may be some drama along the way, but the most drama will occur on June 11, when these two meet for the French Open title.
And what about the ladies you say? This is a hard race to pick. It’s like handicapping a race of invalids out of a Monty Python skit. The most in form player on the WTA Tour is …is … Nadia Petrova?! Can Petrova make the leap to Grand Slam winner? If she’s going to do it, this tournament is the perfect opportunity. Seemingly, no one else on the tour has been overly impressive over the last few months, so the opportunity is there for Petrova. We just have a hard time believing that she can pull it off.
Let’s look at some of the other challengers in brief.
Svetlana Kuznetsova appeared to have a statement victory at the Nasdaq-100 Open in Miami this March, but has come down a notch in her play since then.
Amelie Mauresmo, the 2006 Australian Open champ, has never come through in front of her home crowd at Roland Garros. She appeared to exorcise some demons in Melbourne, but the French demon is probably still lurking in her head.
Justine Henin-Hardenne is always a threat at the French Open. In a field that’s relatively even, she’s a solid bet. That is unless she gets a tummy ache.
Kim Clijsters has had a very up and down year with injuries so it’s difficult to predict what she’ll be able to do in Paris.
Martina Hingis has continued her ascent through the rankings and her victory in Rome was another milestone in her comeback. Can she break through for her first title at Roland Garros? Using the same logic that we did for Petrova, this could be a great opportunity for her.
Maria Sharapova’s game isn’t particularly well suited to clay so she doesn’t appear to be a serious contender for the title.
Venus Williams makes too many errors to win this title. If she never wins another Grand Slam title, it won’t be a surprise to us.
Based on the above, we have to give Henin-Hardenne the nod (as painful as that is). She’s got experience in big matches and she has clay court pedigree. There just doesn’t seem to be anyone on the tour who’s playing great tennis this spring. Maybe someone is saving her best performances for Paris in June.
Seriously, who’s going to step up and challenge one of these guys on clay? Peter Bodo has suggested in his blog that there are multiple players aside from Nadal who could take Federer down in Paris, but that’s hogwash. Federer’s performances in Monte Carlo and Rome proved that on clay, there is one and only one man who can beat him, and no one else. If it weren’t for the presence of Nadal in the draw, is there any doubt that Roger would be the overwhelming favorite for the 2006 French Open title? The one thing that everyone seems to agree on is that Nadal will be defending that title on the third Sunday of the tournament.
Aside from the top 2, much of the rest of the field appears to be limping into Paris, and for those players who are on form, they have no Grand Slam credentials. How about the Americans, Andy Roddick and James Blake? Roddick arrives in Paris with injuries on his mind. He hurt his foot in World Team Cup play this past week and he suffered a pinched nerve in his shoulder in Rome. His results at Roland Garros haven’t exactly been stellar when he’s been healthy so there’s no reason to suggest that he’s going to impress much in his current state of health. He may advance farther than Victor Hanescu, but that’s about it.
James Blake was drawn in Rafael Nadal’s quarter of the draw, and while the Spaniard would probably love to get his hands on Blake on the dirt to avenge his two consecutive losses to the American, Blake has a tough couple of rounds to get through first. He faces the big Thai, Paradorn Srichaphan, in the first round and then possibly one of the hotter players on tour, Spain’s Nicolas Almagro, in the second. We can’t see James getting past that second round match.
So tennis fans, get ready for our third Federer – Nadal final on clay of the spring of 2006. There may be some drama along the way, but the most drama will occur on June 11, when these two meet for the French Open title.
And what about the ladies you say? This is a hard race to pick. It’s like handicapping a race of invalids out of a Monty Python skit. The most in form player on the WTA Tour is …is … Nadia Petrova?! Can Petrova make the leap to Grand Slam winner? If she’s going to do it, this tournament is the perfect opportunity. Seemingly, no one else on the tour has been overly impressive over the last few months, so the opportunity is there for Petrova. We just have a hard time believing that she can pull it off.
Let’s look at some of the other challengers in brief.
Svetlana Kuznetsova appeared to have a statement victory at the Nasdaq-100 Open in Miami this March, but has come down a notch in her play since then.
Amelie Mauresmo, the 2006 Australian Open champ, has never come through in front of her home crowd at Roland Garros. She appeared to exorcise some demons in Melbourne, but the French demon is probably still lurking in her head.
Justine Henin-Hardenne is always a threat at the French Open. In a field that’s relatively even, she’s a solid bet. That is unless she gets a tummy ache.
Kim Clijsters has had a very up and down year with injuries so it’s difficult to predict what she’ll be able to do in Paris.
Martina Hingis has continued her ascent through the rankings and her victory in Rome was another milestone in her comeback. Can she break through for her first title at Roland Garros? Using the same logic that we did for Petrova, this could be a great opportunity for her.
Maria Sharapova’s game isn’t particularly well suited to clay so she doesn’t appear to be a serious contender for the title.
Venus Williams makes too many errors to win this title. If she never wins another Grand Slam title, it won’t be a surprise to us.
Based on the above, we have to give Henin-Hardenne the nod (as painful as that is). She’s got experience in big matches and she has clay court pedigree. There just doesn’t seem to be anyone on the tour who’s playing great tennis this spring. Maybe someone is saving her best performances for Paris in June.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Tennis and the Tiger Woods Factor
In the late ‘90s and early ‘00s, golf tournaments that did not involve world number one, Tiger Woods, suffered lower attendance, lower television ratings and less media attention. The other players on the PGA Tour appeared to play at a level a cut below Woods and thus were viewed as lesser players. Are we seeing a similar phenomenon in tennis with tournaments that don’t have Roger Federer and/or Rafael Nadal participating?
If we use the ATP Master Series event in Hamburg, Germany as a barometer, then the answer to that question has to be “yes”. The world’s number one and two players were slated to play in Hamburg, but both withdrew due to exhaustion and fatigue following their five-hour epic final in Rome. The problems with scheduling two Master Series events back-to-back have been well documented, so we won’t re-hash them here, but the point is that there’s a let-down in anticipation for this event without Federer and Nadal. The promotional posters for the tournament featured the top two players (and only them) so that tells you how important the event organizers believed that these men were to the success of the event.
Federer and Nadal have separated themselves from the rest of the tour in terms of class, and by comparison, the rest of the tour appears to be a seriously flawed group of individuals that fail to inspire the same excitement among fans that the top two do. Hardcore tennis fans may disagree with the premise, but even they would have to admit that tomorrow’s Hamburg final between Tommy Robredo and Radek Stepanek isn’t in the same league as a match involving either Federer or Nadal in terms of quality and drama.
So while the Federer-Nadal-less events may suffer some, there will be a boon to events in which one or both of these men play. Even the mainstream sports media in the United States briefly woke from its tennis slumber to discuss the dramatic final in Italy. Their next event should draw more attention in the US as ESPN2 has extensive coverage planned for Roland Garros. The network would be wise to promote these two men in the run-up to the French rather than the usual fascination with American players only. With Lindsay Davenport and Serena Williams skipping the event, and the absence of any Amercian male with a chance to win, ESPN may be left with no choice but to hype Roger and Rafa.
Although the rise of Tiger Woods created some resentment among his fellow PGA Tour members (at first), one of the by-products was an incredible surge in interest in the sport in America. As more attention begins to be paid to Federer and Nadal, let’s hope that tennis can experience the same rise in popularity and interest throughout the world that golf did in the United States.
If we use the ATP Master Series event in Hamburg, Germany as a barometer, then the answer to that question has to be “yes”. The world’s number one and two players were slated to play in Hamburg, but both withdrew due to exhaustion and fatigue following their five-hour epic final in Rome. The problems with scheduling two Master Series events back-to-back have been well documented, so we won’t re-hash them here, but the point is that there’s a let-down in anticipation for this event without Federer and Nadal. The promotional posters for the tournament featured the top two players (and only them) so that tells you how important the event organizers believed that these men were to the success of the event.
Federer and Nadal have separated themselves from the rest of the tour in terms of class, and by comparison, the rest of the tour appears to be a seriously flawed group of individuals that fail to inspire the same excitement among fans that the top two do. Hardcore tennis fans may disagree with the premise, but even they would have to admit that tomorrow’s Hamburg final between Tommy Robredo and Radek Stepanek isn’t in the same league as a match involving either Federer or Nadal in terms of quality and drama.
So while the Federer-Nadal-less events may suffer some, there will be a boon to events in which one or both of these men play. Even the mainstream sports media in the United States briefly woke from its tennis slumber to discuss the dramatic final in Italy. Their next event should draw more attention in the US as ESPN2 has extensive coverage planned for Roland Garros. The network would be wise to promote these two men in the run-up to the French rather than the usual fascination with American players only. With Lindsay Davenport and Serena Williams skipping the event, and the absence of any Amercian male with a chance to win, ESPN may be left with no choice but to hype Roger and Rafa.
Although the rise of Tiger Woods created some resentment among his fellow PGA Tour members (at first), one of the by-products was an incredible surge in interest in the sport in America. As more attention begins to be paid to Federer and Nadal, let’s hope that tennis can experience the same rise in popularity and interest throughout the world that golf did in the United States.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Masters Series Rome - Going the Distance
Today’s ATP Master Series Rome final between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal was worthy of being dubbed an “instant classic” and thus I would like to present my match notes in full rather than just the usual summary. After the notes, I’ll analyze the day’s events and what they mean for each player. On to the match …
· From the outset, it appears that Federer is directing his forehand almost exclusively to the Nadal backhand. One of Roger’s signature shots is his inside-out forehand, but that plays directly into Nadal’s forehand. It’s also the forehand shot that goes awry more often for Federer.
· In the first 4 games, Federer has only hit his forehand to Nadal’s forehand 4 times. Federer is patiently playing the forehand cross-court and he’s practically error free up to this point in the match. He’s broken Nadal for a 3-1 lead in the first set.
· Errors are starting to creep into the Federer game. He drops serve and Nadal now trails 2-3.
· Nadal serving at 3-4: Federer was up 15-30 on Nadal’s serve, but he commits two cross-court forehand errors on relatively easy balls. Nadal holds for 4-all.
· It must be some sort of Fila throwback day in Rome. The lines-people and ball-kids are wearing the Bjorn Borg Fila shirt from the late ‘70s and early ‘80s. The ball-girls are even wearing a similar headband to the one that Borg made so famous. Our chair umpire is wearing the Guillermo Vilas Fila shirt from the same time period.
· Federer goes down 15-30 on his serve, but manages to serve well on the remaining points and he holds for a 5-4 lead.
· We just got a view of John McEnroe in the crowd, sitting with Prince Albert of Monaco. Federer and Nadal just played in front of the Prince a few weeks ago in Monte Carlo.
· Nadal starting to show some frustration with his own errors. At 4-5, he’s down 15-30.
· Rafa surprises Fed with an ace up the T to get back to 30-all. The vast majority of Nadal’s serves have been directed at the Federer backhand. The Spaniard holds serve after playing 2 excellent points from 30-all.
· Nadal serving at 5-6: Again, Federer is up 15-30 on Nadal’s serve, but makes a couple of errors to let his opponent back in the game.
· Rafa saves a couple of set points against him to go to 6-all and force a tiebreaker.
· Roger jumps to a quick 3-0 lead in the breaker with some excellent aggressive play. He’s continuing to attack the Nadal backhand and Nadal hasn’t found the range on his backhand passing shot.
· The breaker is a blow-out – 7-0 for Federer. Federer has to be pleased with how he has been able to implement his game plan to take a one set to love lead in this Master Series Event final.
Second Set, Federer leads by 1 set to love: 7-6
· A rarity in tennis has just occurred – Nadal wins a point after hitting a between the legs shot. Federer tanked an easy volley to give Nadal the point.
· The level of tennis has come down in this set. Through the first six games, the receiver hasn’t offered much resistance.
· Nadal looking a little unsure of himself now. He’s backing up while hitting his backhand and the balls are landing short in the court.
· Federer puts some pressure on the Nadal serve in the seventh game of the set, but he hits a wild inside-out forehand error that was more characteristic of his effort in Monte Carlo.
· Federer serving at 4-5: Nadal playing a better receiving game and he earns a set point. However, the world’s number one saves the set point with a brilliant lunge backhand volley that’s just out of Nadal’s reach. Federer holds for 5-all in the second set.
· Nadal is picking up his level and he holds for a 6-5 lead.
· We’re two hours into the match and the second set will be decided in a tiebreaker. If this match goes 5 sets, we’re on course for a 5 hour match at the current pace. Last year’s final between Nadal and Guillermo Coria lasted 5 hours and 14 minutes.
· Nadal looks like he is feeling the pressure of the situation now. He’s got the match streak on the line and the expectations of the tennis world that he can beat Federer on clay at will. He makes a forehand error on the first point of the tiebreaker on his serve.
· Rafa was down 2-4 in the tiebreaker, but he’s just won 3 points in a row to take a 5-4 lead. The defending champion is showing a lot of heart out here.
· 5-5 in the tiebreaker: Federer blows an easy forehand over the baseline. Nadal hit a short ball that Federer should have put away, but instead Nadal is up 6-5 with a set point.
· Nadal takes the tiebreaker and the set! He really picked up his play from 2-4 down in the breaker to snatch the set away. Over two hours played now and we’re even at one set all.
Third set, One set all: 6-7, 7-6
· Federer faces an early break point at 1 all in the third, but he manages to save it. Early pressure being exhibited from the Spaniard.
· Roger is pounding the Nadal backhand in this game and he does it to his advantage as he holds for a 2-1 lead in the third.
· Nadal continues to put the pressure on Federer early in this set. He’s got a break point at 2-2.
· Nadal breaks for a 3- 2 lead. Federer was upset about something that occurred in that game, but we’re not sure what it was. Our match commentators don’t seem to be aware of what it was either.
· The world’s number two holds again for a 4-2 lead in the third. Federer continues to approach exclusively on the Nadal backhand.
· Great artistry from Federer – he hits a high backhand volley over his shoulder for a crosscourt winner. This guy can be a shot making machine when he is on.
· Rafa holds his serve easily for a 5-3 lead. It looks like he is going to take this set.
· Nadal serving at 5-4: Great first point of the game from Rafa as he dominates Federer with some heavy forehands. He wins the game and the set, 6-4, and is now up 2 sets to 1. His confidence has to be extremely high now especially after recovering from that first set loss.
Fourth Set, Nadal leads 2 sets to 1: 6-7, 7-6, 6-4
· Federer starts the set off with a hold under pressure. Nadal had a break point, but Fed saved it well with a forehand winner up the line.
· Nadal hasn’t been as effective with the backhand pass as we’ve seen him in the past. Federer’s game plan of not approaching to the forehand is working when he has the opportunity to hit an approach off a short ball.
· The Mighty Fed just approached to the Nadal forehand and he gets burned – loses the point. He probably won’t do that again for a while.
· Both players were challenged on serve in the first 2 games, but there were no breaks – one-all.
· I’m getting the feeling that Nadal will wrap this up in four sets. He’s moving Federer around very well.
· All of a sudden, Federer has raised his level and he’s got a break point on Nadal’s serve.
· Once again, Nadal serves an ace up the T on break point – good change of direction from the 19 year-old.
· Federer breaks! He’s up 3-1 and then 4-1 after a hold. He has played extremely well to get to this point. Maybe Nadal isn’t going to win this in four sets.
· Roger is dominating the play now. He wins the set 6-2 and he has the momentum and the crowd on his side. For the second year in a row, the Rome final is going 5 sets (and maybe 5 hours).
Fifth Set, 2 sets all: 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 2-6
· Federer starts off the fifth set playing brilliantly. He breaks Nadal early on and takes a 3-1 lead.
· Nadal is trying to pump himself up in order to get back in the match. He has break chances on Federer’s serve, but Roger comes up with winners to stave them off. Federer leads 4-1.
· A good service game from Nadal makes the score 4-2 in Federer’s favor.
· Rafa is really pumped up now. He’s showing Federer that he isn’t going to quit in this final set.
· Federer serving at 4-2: Fed looking a little tense with his play. He goes down love-30.
· An ace from Federer evens the game up at 30. The tension in the match is quite high now. The atmosphere is great. The drama of the fifth set is exactly what we all hoped for.
· Federer goes up 40-30, but Nadal does well to get it back to deuce with a huge forehand.
· Rafa has a break point chance now – he hit an inside-out forehand to win the previous point. Federer hasn’t made a first serve in a while.
· Rafa breaks! He’s back on serve in the fifth at 3-4.
· Nadal serving at 3-4: At 15-all, the players have an incredible point that is eventually won by the Swiss. The quality of tennis in this set is excellent.
· The Spaniard is hitting forehands as much as possible now so that he can keep the pressure on Federer. Roger isn’t finding Nadal’s backhand as easily any longer.
· A brilliant forehand pass by Nadal enables him to hold for 4-all. At 1-4 down, this didn’t look possible, but Nadal is a fighter. He will not give this match away. The question is can Federer hang tough and win it?
· Federer serving at 4-all: At 30-all, Nadal missed an easy return and he can’t believe it. He hasn’t missed one like that all match long. Federer holds for a 5-4 lead and Nadal serves to stay in the match.
· With the match reaching its climax, let’s go point by point until the end.
· Federer wins the first point on Nadal’s serve with an excellent backhand return that lands deep in the court and on the sideline. It forces an error from Nadal.
· 15-all: A Nadal forehand draws an error from the Federer backhand.
· 30-15: A long rally ends with Federer shanking a forehand long – very tense point.
· 40-15: A crosscourt backhand from Nadal sets up an inside-out forehand winner to take him to game point.
· Game 5-5: Another inside-out forehand winner from Nadal clinches the hold. New balls for the end of the match.
· 15-love: Federer hits a crosscourt forehand winner. He continues to pound away at the Nadal backhand. That’s been the biggest difference between today’s match and the final in Monte Carlo.
· 30-love: Nadal commits a forehand error over the baseline.
· 30-15: Now a Federer error brings Nadal back into the game. Again, Federer was going crosscourt with the forehand, but he hit it wide.
· 40-15: Federer with a service winner wide to the Nadal forehand.
· Game Fed: Rafa hits a forehand in the net and Federer now leads 6-5. Once again, Nadal must hold serve to stay in the match.
· 0-15: A very nervous looking error from Nadal. Could this be the end of the streak at one match short of Vilas’ record?
· 0-30: A double fault! The first of the match for either player brings Federer to 2 points away from the title.
· 15-30: A long and tense rally ends with a Federer backhand error. Both players were playing safe in that point.
· 15-40: Nadal was pounding at the Federer backhand and Roger withstood the pressure. When Nadal attempted to break the pattern by going up the line, he hit his forehand long. Federer has 2 championship points now.
· 30-40: Federer tries to play aggressively, but he misses a forehand long. It’s probably a good play for him to pressure Nadal at this point.
· Deuce: Roger goes for a big forehand up the line, but it’s not even close. Nadal has survived two match points. The kid refuses to lose.
· Advantage Nadal: Rafa does some great running and eventually hits a forceful crosscourt backhand that Federer can’t handle. Nadal has completely turned this game around.
· Game Nadal: Nadal punctuates the comeback with another forehand winner. For the second year in a row, this final will be decided by a tiebreaker in the fifth set.
· 1-0 Federer: Service winner gives Fed the early lead.
· 1-1: Federer commits an error on an easy forehand.
· 1-1: The players have to re-play a point as there was an errant call on the Federer baseline.
· 2-1 Federer: Federer attacks the Nadal second serve and is able to force a short reply that he then puts away. Mini-break for the top seed.
· 3-1 Federer: A short return by Nadal sets up the point for Federer. He wins it with a volley at the net.
· 3-2 Federer: Nadal is on the run for nearly the entire point, but manages to recover and hit a winner.
· 4-2 Federer: Roger hits a big inside-out forehand to end the rally. Federer is really going for his shots in this breaker. We have just hit the 5-hour mark. It’s amazing that these guys are playing so well after 5 hours of play.
· 4-3 Federer: Nadal plays an aggressive point and attacks the Federer backhand.
· 5-3 Federer: Is Nadal feeling the pressure? He misses a forehand pass wildly. It looked like he had time to set up for it and hit it by Federer, but instead commits the error.
· 5-4 Federer: An easy short ball for Federer, but he blows it. One gets the feeling that Nadal may capitalize on that mistake at this crucial time in the match.
· 5-5: Nadal was on top of Federer in the whole rally and eventually Federer mis-hits a forehand wide and long.
· 6-5 Nadal: Rafa takes his first lead in the breaker and it brings him to his first championship point. Federer missed a backhand return long. It was not a difficult shot for him to make.
· Game, Set, Match Nadal!: A Nadal shot lands right on the baseline during the rally and the crowd thinks it’s out. Federer hesitates, but Nadal doesn’t and he puts the next ball away to complete his comeback victory. It was simply an amazing fifth set – the kind you hope for in any major final. Rafa has now tied Vilas’ consecutive victory streak on clay at 53 matches. The time of the match: 5 hours and 5 minutes.
Quite simply, today’s final was an epic. The tennis in the first and fifth sets was the best, and Federer proved that he can compete with Nadal on clay. However, Nadal is the human embodiment of “refuse to lose”. When he was down a break in the fifth set at 1-4, he willed himself back into the match and he showed Federer that it would not be easy. Federer held match points, but couldn’t capitalize on them and that may haunt Roger for some time.
Federer’s game plan in this match was quite different from the one he employed in Monte Carlo. He eschewed his signature inside-out forehand in favor of going crosscourt to the Nadal backhand. That seemed to keep him in points longer and Nadal’s backhand isn’t nearly as difficult to deal with as his forehand. When the world’s number one chose to come to the net, he almost exclusively approached to the Nadal backhand. That strategy was highly effective when he was able to execute it.
However, he couldn’t execute it as much as required as Nadal managed to dictate enough of the play with his forehand when he needed it to turn the match in his favor. In the end, the King of Clay took out the Swiss Master for the third time this year and for the fifth time in their six career meetings. It was truly a final to remember and let’s hope that we can see a repeat at Roland Garros in June.
· From the outset, it appears that Federer is directing his forehand almost exclusively to the Nadal backhand. One of Roger’s signature shots is his inside-out forehand, but that plays directly into Nadal’s forehand. It’s also the forehand shot that goes awry more often for Federer.
· In the first 4 games, Federer has only hit his forehand to Nadal’s forehand 4 times. Federer is patiently playing the forehand cross-court and he’s practically error free up to this point in the match. He’s broken Nadal for a 3-1 lead in the first set.
· Errors are starting to creep into the Federer game. He drops serve and Nadal now trails 2-3.
· Nadal serving at 3-4: Federer was up 15-30 on Nadal’s serve, but he commits two cross-court forehand errors on relatively easy balls. Nadal holds for 4-all.
· It must be some sort of Fila throwback day in Rome. The lines-people and ball-kids are wearing the Bjorn Borg Fila shirt from the late ‘70s and early ‘80s. The ball-girls are even wearing a similar headband to the one that Borg made so famous. Our chair umpire is wearing the Guillermo Vilas Fila shirt from the same time period.
· Federer goes down 15-30 on his serve, but manages to serve well on the remaining points and he holds for a 5-4 lead.
· We just got a view of John McEnroe in the crowd, sitting with Prince Albert of Monaco. Federer and Nadal just played in front of the Prince a few weeks ago in Monte Carlo.
· Nadal starting to show some frustration with his own errors. At 4-5, he’s down 15-30.
· Rafa surprises Fed with an ace up the T to get back to 30-all. The vast majority of Nadal’s serves have been directed at the Federer backhand. The Spaniard holds serve after playing 2 excellent points from 30-all.
· Nadal serving at 5-6: Again, Federer is up 15-30 on Nadal’s serve, but makes a couple of errors to let his opponent back in the game.
· Rafa saves a couple of set points against him to go to 6-all and force a tiebreaker.
· Roger jumps to a quick 3-0 lead in the breaker with some excellent aggressive play. He’s continuing to attack the Nadal backhand and Nadal hasn’t found the range on his backhand passing shot.
· The breaker is a blow-out – 7-0 for Federer. Federer has to be pleased with how he has been able to implement his game plan to take a one set to love lead in this Master Series Event final.
Second Set, Federer leads by 1 set to love: 7-6
· A rarity in tennis has just occurred – Nadal wins a point after hitting a between the legs shot. Federer tanked an easy volley to give Nadal the point.
· The level of tennis has come down in this set. Through the first six games, the receiver hasn’t offered much resistance.
· Nadal looking a little unsure of himself now. He’s backing up while hitting his backhand and the balls are landing short in the court.
· Federer puts some pressure on the Nadal serve in the seventh game of the set, but he hits a wild inside-out forehand error that was more characteristic of his effort in Monte Carlo.
· Federer serving at 4-5: Nadal playing a better receiving game and he earns a set point. However, the world’s number one saves the set point with a brilliant lunge backhand volley that’s just out of Nadal’s reach. Federer holds for 5-all in the second set.
· Nadal is picking up his level and he holds for a 6-5 lead.
· We’re two hours into the match and the second set will be decided in a tiebreaker. If this match goes 5 sets, we’re on course for a 5 hour match at the current pace. Last year’s final between Nadal and Guillermo Coria lasted 5 hours and 14 minutes.
· Nadal looks like he is feeling the pressure of the situation now. He’s got the match streak on the line and the expectations of the tennis world that he can beat Federer on clay at will. He makes a forehand error on the first point of the tiebreaker on his serve.
· Rafa was down 2-4 in the tiebreaker, but he’s just won 3 points in a row to take a 5-4 lead. The defending champion is showing a lot of heart out here.
· 5-5 in the tiebreaker: Federer blows an easy forehand over the baseline. Nadal hit a short ball that Federer should have put away, but instead Nadal is up 6-5 with a set point.
· Nadal takes the tiebreaker and the set! He really picked up his play from 2-4 down in the breaker to snatch the set away. Over two hours played now and we’re even at one set all.
Third set, One set all: 6-7, 7-6
· Federer faces an early break point at 1 all in the third, but he manages to save it. Early pressure being exhibited from the Spaniard.
· Roger is pounding the Nadal backhand in this game and he does it to his advantage as he holds for a 2-1 lead in the third.
· Nadal continues to put the pressure on Federer early in this set. He’s got a break point at 2-2.
· Nadal breaks for a 3- 2 lead. Federer was upset about something that occurred in that game, but we’re not sure what it was. Our match commentators don’t seem to be aware of what it was either.
· The world’s number two holds again for a 4-2 lead in the third. Federer continues to approach exclusively on the Nadal backhand.
· Great artistry from Federer – he hits a high backhand volley over his shoulder for a crosscourt winner. This guy can be a shot making machine when he is on.
· Rafa holds his serve easily for a 5-3 lead. It looks like he is going to take this set.
· Nadal serving at 5-4: Great first point of the game from Rafa as he dominates Federer with some heavy forehands. He wins the game and the set, 6-4, and is now up 2 sets to 1. His confidence has to be extremely high now especially after recovering from that first set loss.
Fourth Set, Nadal leads 2 sets to 1: 6-7, 7-6, 6-4
· Federer starts the set off with a hold under pressure. Nadal had a break point, but Fed saved it well with a forehand winner up the line.
· Nadal hasn’t been as effective with the backhand pass as we’ve seen him in the past. Federer’s game plan of not approaching to the forehand is working when he has the opportunity to hit an approach off a short ball.
· The Mighty Fed just approached to the Nadal forehand and he gets burned – loses the point. He probably won’t do that again for a while.
· Both players were challenged on serve in the first 2 games, but there were no breaks – one-all.
· I’m getting the feeling that Nadal will wrap this up in four sets. He’s moving Federer around very well.
· All of a sudden, Federer has raised his level and he’s got a break point on Nadal’s serve.
· Once again, Nadal serves an ace up the T on break point – good change of direction from the 19 year-old.
· Federer breaks! He’s up 3-1 and then 4-1 after a hold. He has played extremely well to get to this point. Maybe Nadal isn’t going to win this in four sets.
· Roger is dominating the play now. He wins the set 6-2 and he has the momentum and the crowd on his side. For the second year in a row, the Rome final is going 5 sets (and maybe 5 hours).
Fifth Set, 2 sets all: 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 2-6
· Federer starts off the fifth set playing brilliantly. He breaks Nadal early on and takes a 3-1 lead.
· Nadal is trying to pump himself up in order to get back in the match. He has break chances on Federer’s serve, but Roger comes up with winners to stave them off. Federer leads 4-1.
· A good service game from Nadal makes the score 4-2 in Federer’s favor.
· Rafa is really pumped up now. He’s showing Federer that he isn’t going to quit in this final set.
· Federer serving at 4-2: Fed looking a little tense with his play. He goes down love-30.
· An ace from Federer evens the game up at 30. The tension in the match is quite high now. The atmosphere is great. The drama of the fifth set is exactly what we all hoped for.
· Federer goes up 40-30, but Nadal does well to get it back to deuce with a huge forehand.
· Rafa has a break point chance now – he hit an inside-out forehand to win the previous point. Federer hasn’t made a first serve in a while.
· Rafa breaks! He’s back on serve in the fifth at 3-4.
· Nadal serving at 3-4: At 15-all, the players have an incredible point that is eventually won by the Swiss. The quality of tennis in this set is excellent.
· The Spaniard is hitting forehands as much as possible now so that he can keep the pressure on Federer. Roger isn’t finding Nadal’s backhand as easily any longer.
· A brilliant forehand pass by Nadal enables him to hold for 4-all. At 1-4 down, this didn’t look possible, but Nadal is a fighter. He will not give this match away. The question is can Federer hang tough and win it?
· Federer serving at 4-all: At 30-all, Nadal missed an easy return and he can’t believe it. He hasn’t missed one like that all match long. Federer holds for a 5-4 lead and Nadal serves to stay in the match.
· With the match reaching its climax, let’s go point by point until the end.
· Federer wins the first point on Nadal’s serve with an excellent backhand return that lands deep in the court and on the sideline. It forces an error from Nadal.
· 15-all: A Nadal forehand draws an error from the Federer backhand.
· 30-15: A long rally ends with Federer shanking a forehand long – very tense point.
· 40-15: A crosscourt backhand from Nadal sets up an inside-out forehand winner to take him to game point.
· Game 5-5: Another inside-out forehand winner from Nadal clinches the hold. New balls for the end of the match.
· 15-love: Federer hits a crosscourt forehand winner. He continues to pound away at the Nadal backhand. That’s been the biggest difference between today’s match and the final in Monte Carlo.
· 30-love: Nadal commits a forehand error over the baseline.
· 30-15: Now a Federer error brings Nadal back into the game. Again, Federer was going crosscourt with the forehand, but he hit it wide.
· 40-15: Federer with a service winner wide to the Nadal forehand.
· Game Fed: Rafa hits a forehand in the net and Federer now leads 6-5. Once again, Nadal must hold serve to stay in the match.
· 0-15: A very nervous looking error from Nadal. Could this be the end of the streak at one match short of Vilas’ record?
· 0-30: A double fault! The first of the match for either player brings Federer to 2 points away from the title.
· 15-30: A long and tense rally ends with a Federer backhand error. Both players were playing safe in that point.
· 15-40: Nadal was pounding at the Federer backhand and Roger withstood the pressure. When Nadal attempted to break the pattern by going up the line, he hit his forehand long. Federer has 2 championship points now.
· 30-40: Federer tries to play aggressively, but he misses a forehand long. It’s probably a good play for him to pressure Nadal at this point.
· Deuce: Roger goes for a big forehand up the line, but it’s not even close. Nadal has survived two match points. The kid refuses to lose.
· Advantage Nadal: Rafa does some great running and eventually hits a forceful crosscourt backhand that Federer can’t handle. Nadal has completely turned this game around.
· Game Nadal: Nadal punctuates the comeback with another forehand winner. For the second year in a row, this final will be decided by a tiebreaker in the fifth set.
· 1-0 Federer: Service winner gives Fed the early lead.
· 1-1: Federer commits an error on an easy forehand.
· 1-1: The players have to re-play a point as there was an errant call on the Federer baseline.
· 2-1 Federer: Federer attacks the Nadal second serve and is able to force a short reply that he then puts away. Mini-break for the top seed.
· 3-1 Federer: A short return by Nadal sets up the point for Federer. He wins it with a volley at the net.
· 3-2 Federer: Nadal is on the run for nearly the entire point, but manages to recover and hit a winner.
· 4-2 Federer: Roger hits a big inside-out forehand to end the rally. Federer is really going for his shots in this breaker. We have just hit the 5-hour mark. It’s amazing that these guys are playing so well after 5 hours of play.
· 4-3 Federer: Nadal plays an aggressive point and attacks the Federer backhand.
· 5-3 Federer: Is Nadal feeling the pressure? He misses a forehand pass wildly. It looked like he had time to set up for it and hit it by Federer, but instead commits the error.
· 5-4 Federer: An easy short ball for Federer, but he blows it. One gets the feeling that Nadal may capitalize on that mistake at this crucial time in the match.
· 5-5: Nadal was on top of Federer in the whole rally and eventually Federer mis-hits a forehand wide and long.
· 6-5 Nadal: Rafa takes his first lead in the breaker and it brings him to his first championship point. Federer missed a backhand return long. It was not a difficult shot for him to make.
· Game, Set, Match Nadal!: A Nadal shot lands right on the baseline during the rally and the crowd thinks it’s out. Federer hesitates, but Nadal doesn’t and he puts the next ball away to complete his comeback victory. It was simply an amazing fifth set – the kind you hope for in any major final. Rafa has now tied Vilas’ consecutive victory streak on clay at 53 matches. The time of the match: 5 hours and 5 minutes.
Quite simply, today’s final was an epic. The tennis in the first and fifth sets was the best, and Federer proved that he can compete with Nadal on clay. However, Nadal is the human embodiment of “refuse to lose”. When he was down a break in the fifth set at 1-4, he willed himself back into the match and he showed Federer that it would not be easy. Federer held match points, but couldn’t capitalize on them and that may haunt Roger for some time.
Federer’s game plan in this match was quite different from the one he employed in Monte Carlo. He eschewed his signature inside-out forehand in favor of going crosscourt to the Nadal backhand. That seemed to keep him in points longer and Nadal’s backhand isn’t nearly as difficult to deal with as his forehand. When the world’s number one chose to come to the net, he almost exclusively approached to the Nadal backhand. That strategy was highly effective when he was able to execute it.
However, he couldn’t execute it as much as required as Nadal managed to dictate enough of the play with his forehand when he needed it to turn the match in his favor. In the end, the King of Clay took out the Swiss Master for the third time this year and for the fifth time in their six career meetings. It was truly a final to remember and let’s hope that we can see a repeat at Roland Garros in June.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Friday Night Musings
Yankees – Red Sox
The Red Sox and Yankees hooked up for a 3 game set this week, and the boys in pinstripes not only lost two of three, they also came out of the series with some serious questions that need to be addressed if the team is to reach its potential.
What’s wrong with Randy Johnson? Is it mechanics? Age? Confidence? All of these? Whatever the reason, the Big Unit hasn’t been the dominant pitcher that the Yankees thought they acquired in 2005. He was supposed to be New York’s answer to the 2004 version of Curt Schilling, and while his record in ’05 was very respectable, his game performances weren’t the intimidating masterpieces that fans had come to expect from Johnson. It’s possible that the Yankees can be successful with another ’05-like campaign from RJ, but with recent injuries to Hideki Matsui and Gary Sheffield, there’s more pressure on the pitching staff to keep runs down.
Who is going to play in the outfield? Hideki Matsui may not return from his broken wrist this season. Gary Sheffield is nursing a wrist injury. Johnny Damon possibly re-injured his ailing shoulder. And the remaining options aren’t for everyday use: Bernie Williams, Bubba Crosby and Melky Cabrera. While Sheffield may return to the lineup soon, the loss of Matsui hurts the team both in the field and at bat. He wasn’t the greatest left fielder around, but he was capable and reasonably dependable defensively. His bat will be missed more and it opens up a gap in the Yankee batting order.
Can the pitching staff keep this team in games? Thus far, the starting pitching for the Bombers has been quite good. I believe they led the American League in ERA for the month of April. With that said, the pitching staff is somewhat schizophrenic. Starting pitching has performed a little better than expected, but middle relief has been extremely disappointing. Without the link between the starters and closer Mariano Rivera, the Yanks could have a very tough time winning a majority of the contests with their dreaded rivals, the Red Sox.
Rome Masters
The semifinal matchups are set for the Tennis Master Series event in Rome, Italy this week, and Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are on course to meet again in another final. Before that happens, Federer will have to successfully deal with one of his demons from the past, David Nalbandian of Argentina. Nalbandian defeated Federer in 5 sets in their last meeting at the 2005 year-end Master Series Cup final, and he has always played with confidence versus the world’s number one. Federer’s form in Rome has been a little spotty. On paper, his scores look dominant, but his performances haven’t been flawless. I thought he looked better in Monte Carlo and he's going to have to play much better to beat Nalbandian and likely finalist, Rafael Nadal.
As I write this, I’m watching the replay of Federer’s quarterfinal match with Nicolas Almagro of Spain. Almagro has the look of a rising star. He’s currently ranked 54, but he’s number 20 in this year’s points race. His game is fun to watch. He’s solid off of both sides with an especially impressive one-handed backhand. Federer had to go the distance to win the match 7-5 in the third. One gets the feeling that Almagro could do some damage at the French Open later this month.
The Americans have been conspicuously absent from the European clay court season and Rome saw Andy Roddick’s debut on the dirt. As a group, the American players seem to treat the clay court season as an exercise in futility. With so little preparation on the surface, there isn’t a single American player that will make an impression on the draw at Roland Garros. Roddick did manage to reach the quarterfinals in Rome, but his draw was surprisingly devoid of any clay court specialists; no one is going to confuse Greg Rusedski with Sergi Bruguera. Tennis’ A-Rod did show me a new wrinkle in his game this week: a loopy two-handed backhand that he used effectively to get the ball up high on his opponents. It was encouraging to see Andy try something different to turn his year around and I think the change is good. His backhand is a known weakness and anything he can do to take some pressure off of it will be good for his results. Unfortunately for him, he still has no chance of doing anything significant at the French Open.
Other Thoughts
· My sports viewing habits aren’t exactly mainstream and Thursday evening was a challenge. Should I watch game 3 of the Sox-Yanks series, men’s tennis from the ATP Masters Series Rome or the Copa Libertadores match between Libertad of Paraguay and River Plate of Argentina? I started off watching the tennis, but the matches on the card weren’t capturing my attention. I switched to Yankees-Sox, but every time I tuned in, something bad happened to the Yanks. Do you ever get the feeling that your team does better when you don’t watch? I tried to use that strategy last night, but it didn’t work. At about 8:30, the River Plate – Libertad match started and that was the best event of the night, especially the last 20 minutes of the game.
· Rumor has it that Tennis Channel founder and CEO Steve Bellamy will be leaving the network soon. What does that mean for the fate of the fledgling network? The answer to that is unknown, but if the network goes adios, it will result in a serious change in my television viewing habits.
· I’m getting psyched up for the World Cup in Germany this June. I hope to publish my own preview of the tournament over the coming weeks.
The Red Sox and Yankees hooked up for a 3 game set this week, and the boys in pinstripes not only lost two of three, they also came out of the series with some serious questions that need to be addressed if the team is to reach its potential.
What’s wrong with Randy Johnson? Is it mechanics? Age? Confidence? All of these? Whatever the reason, the Big Unit hasn’t been the dominant pitcher that the Yankees thought they acquired in 2005. He was supposed to be New York’s answer to the 2004 version of Curt Schilling, and while his record in ’05 was very respectable, his game performances weren’t the intimidating masterpieces that fans had come to expect from Johnson. It’s possible that the Yankees can be successful with another ’05-like campaign from RJ, but with recent injuries to Hideki Matsui and Gary Sheffield, there’s more pressure on the pitching staff to keep runs down.
Who is going to play in the outfield? Hideki Matsui may not return from his broken wrist this season. Gary Sheffield is nursing a wrist injury. Johnny Damon possibly re-injured his ailing shoulder. And the remaining options aren’t for everyday use: Bernie Williams, Bubba Crosby and Melky Cabrera. While Sheffield may return to the lineup soon, the loss of Matsui hurts the team both in the field and at bat. He wasn’t the greatest left fielder around, but he was capable and reasonably dependable defensively. His bat will be missed more and it opens up a gap in the Yankee batting order.
Can the pitching staff keep this team in games? Thus far, the starting pitching for the Bombers has been quite good. I believe they led the American League in ERA for the month of April. With that said, the pitching staff is somewhat schizophrenic. Starting pitching has performed a little better than expected, but middle relief has been extremely disappointing. Without the link between the starters and closer Mariano Rivera, the Yanks could have a very tough time winning a majority of the contests with their dreaded rivals, the Red Sox.
Rome Masters
The semifinal matchups are set for the Tennis Master Series event in Rome, Italy this week, and Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are on course to meet again in another final. Before that happens, Federer will have to successfully deal with one of his demons from the past, David Nalbandian of Argentina. Nalbandian defeated Federer in 5 sets in their last meeting at the 2005 year-end Master Series Cup final, and he has always played with confidence versus the world’s number one. Federer’s form in Rome has been a little spotty. On paper, his scores look dominant, but his performances haven’t been flawless. I thought he looked better in Monte Carlo and he's going to have to play much better to beat Nalbandian and likely finalist, Rafael Nadal.
As I write this, I’m watching the replay of Federer’s quarterfinal match with Nicolas Almagro of Spain. Almagro has the look of a rising star. He’s currently ranked 54, but he’s number 20 in this year’s points race. His game is fun to watch. He’s solid off of both sides with an especially impressive one-handed backhand. Federer had to go the distance to win the match 7-5 in the third. One gets the feeling that Almagro could do some damage at the French Open later this month.
The Americans have been conspicuously absent from the European clay court season and Rome saw Andy Roddick’s debut on the dirt. As a group, the American players seem to treat the clay court season as an exercise in futility. With so little preparation on the surface, there isn’t a single American player that will make an impression on the draw at Roland Garros. Roddick did manage to reach the quarterfinals in Rome, but his draw was surprisingly devoid of any clay court specialists; no one is going to confuse Greg Rusedski with Sergi Bruguera. Tennis’ A-Rod did show me a new wrinkle in his game this week: a loopy two-handed backhand that he used effectively to get the ball up high on his opponents. It was encouraging to see Andy try something different to turn his year around and I think the change is good. His backhand is a known weakness and anything he can do to take some pressure off of it will be good for his results. Unfortunately for him, he still has no chance of doing anything significant at the French Open.
Other Thoughts
· My sports viewing habits aren’t exactly mainstream and Thursday evening was a challenge. Should I watch game 3 of the Sox-Yanks series, men’s tennis from the ATP Masters Series Rome or the Copa Libertadores match between Libertad of Paraguay and River Plate of Argentina? I started off watching the tennis, but the matches on the card weren’t capturing my attention. I switched to Yankees-Sox, but every time I tuned in, something bad happened to the Yanks. Do you ever get the feeling that your team does better when you don’t watch? I tried to use that strategy last night, but it didn’t work. At about 8:30, the River Plate – Libertad match started and that was the best event of the night, especially the last 20 minutes of the game.
· Rumor has it that Tennis Channel founder and CEO Steve Bellamy will be leaving the network soon. What does that mean for the fate of the fledgling network? The answer to that is unknown, but if the network goes adios, it will result in a serious change in my television viewing habits.
· I’m getting psyched up for the World Cup in Germany this June. I hope to publish my own preview of the tournament over the coming weeks.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Champions Cup Boston
The Outback Champions Tour made a stop in the Boston area this weekend at the Bosse Sports Club in Sudbury, and by all accounts, the event was a big hit with both players and fans. The Champions Tour is made up of players who have participated in a Grand Slam final and/or have been ranked in the top 5 in the world. Former world number one and multiple Grand Slam winner Jim Courier is the driving force behind this tour, and other notable players are John McEnroe, Mats Wilander, Goran Ivanisevic, Todd Martin, and Pat Cash, all of whom were present for the Champions Cup Boston event.
We decided to check out the action with another couple on Saturday night and beginning with our arrival on the grounds, we were thoroughly impressed with everything we encountered from the VIP tents and concessions, to the intimate setting of the venue, to the quality of the tennis. It was immediately obvious that this event was being run in a first-rate manner.
Before the match began, Wayne Bryan (father of the Bryan twins) got the crowd revved up for the arrival of Courier and Martin, and he also did the player introductions. Bryan has a great voice and the perfect personality for his role as ringmaster on this tour.
The quality of the match was high from the outset. Todd Martin is 6’6” and has a good first serve that he uses to help him dictate points. Martin would prefer not to be on the defensive in points as his movement on court is not a strength. Jim Courier is one of the most solid baseline players of the last 20 years. His main strengths are his inside-out forehand along with solid serving.
Early on in the match, Martin was moving around well and was making an impact on Courier’s serve. He was the beneficiary of a bad call at 2 all in the first set and went on to break Courier for a 3-2 lead. If there was one detraction for the entire event, it was the number of bad calls. Martin served well throughout the first set with several aces and he closed it out at 6-2.
In the first game of the second set, Martin had a couple of chances to break right away, but Courier held on to his serve. After he pulled that game out, we got the sense that Courier, one of the most tenaciously competitive players ever, was going to claw his way back into the match. The former world number one made an impression in several of Martin’s service games in the second set, but the tall man from Michigan managed to play the big points well and hold on to serve. Before the match, Courier had told TV commentators Leif Shiras and Jimmy Arias that he wanted to attack the Martin second serve, and we could see that he was trying that, but Martin wasn’t buckling under the pressure – not yet at least.
There were no breaks of serve in the second set, so it went to a tie-break to settle it. Martin took a 5-4 lead in the breaker, but threw in a double fault at that point. His sometimes shaky second serve failed him at the wrong time. That buoyed Courier’s hopes and he took the next 2 points to win the tie-break and the set. Martin had to be sick with himself as he had the match on his racquet with 2 service points at 5-4 ahead in the tie-break only to lose both of them.
To decide the match, a super tie-break is used in lieu of a third set. The format of the super tie-break is first player to reach 10 points with a margin of 2. Courier had the momentum going into the super tie-break and Martin had to pick up his spirits after blowing his late lead in the second set breaker.
The tennis in the super tie-break was exhilarating. Both players held match points at various times and Martin ended up triumphing with a 13-11 victory. The players received a thoroughly deserved standing ovation at the end. The quality of the tennis, the superb shot making, the rapport between the players and with the crowd all made the evening perfectly enjoyable for everyone involved. It was also great to be among so many friends from the New England tennis community.
Based on Boston’s reaction to this event, it’s hard to believe that some people think there isn’t a strong interest in tennis in the area. I think the players were impressed with the amount of support for the event and they appeared to be very appreciative of it. The fact that the event will be returning next year is very welcome news. My guess is that this will be a pretty tough ticket next year.
Other Thoughts
· We thoroughly enjoyed the television coverage on NESN HD with Leif Shiras and Jimmy Arias. We’re big fans of the under appreciated Arias as he has a great sense of humor that he incorporates into his top shelf analysis. We also enjoyed trying to find friends in the crowd as well as ourselves when we watched the taped broadcast of the Martin-Courier match.
· John McEnroe appears more cantankerous than ever. It’s hard to tell if that’s because he feels it’s expected as part of the entertainment or if he’s stalling and distracting his opponent simultaneously. Regardless, some of his behavior was rather boorish. We’ve never been fans of the mighty Mac, but his march to the final was impressive. He easily could have won the event and at 47 years old, that would have been remarkable indeed.
· It was nice to see Bud Collins taking in the action at the Bosse Sports Club. He had a nice article on the final in today’s Boston Globe.
We decided to check out the action with another couple on Saturday night and beginning with our arrival on the grounds, we were thoroughly impressed with everything we encountered from the VIP tents and concessions, to the intimate setting of the venue, to the quality of the tennis. It was immediately obvious that this event was being run in a first-rate manner.
Before the match began, Wayne Bryan (father of the Bryan twins) got the crowd revved up for the arrival of Courier and Martin, and he also did the player introductions. Bryan has a great voice and the perfect personality for his role as ringmaster on this tour.
The quality of the match was high from the outset. Todd Martin is 6’6” and has a good first serve that he uses to help him dictate points. Martin would prefer not to be on the defensive in points as his movement on court is not a strength. Jim Courier is one of the most solid baseline players of the last 20 years. His main strengths are his inside-out forehand along with solid serving.
Early on in the match, Martin was moving around well and was making an impact on Courier’s serve. He was the beneficiary of a bad call at 2 all in the first set and went on to break Courier for a 3-2 lead. If there was one detraction for the entire event, it was the number of bad calls. Martin served well throughout the first set with several aces and he closed it out at 6-2.
In the first game of the second set, Martin had a couple of chances to break right away, but Courier held on to his serve. After he pulled that game out, we got the sense that Courier, one of the most tenaciously competitive players ever, was going to claw his way back into the match. The former world number one made an impression in several of Martin’s service games in the second set, but the tall man from Michigan managed to play the big points well and hold on to serve. Before the match, Courier had told TV commentators Leif Shiras and Jimmy Arias that he wanted to attack the Martin second serve, and we could see that he was trying that, but Martin wasn’t buckling under the pressure – not yet at least.
There were no breaks of serve in the second set, so it went to a tie-break to settle it. Martin took a 5-4 lead in the breaker, but threw in a double fault at that point. His sometimes shaky second serve failed him at the wrong time. That buoyed Courier’s hopes and he took the next 2 points to win the tie-break and the set. Martin had to be sick with himself as he had the match on his racquet with 2 service points at 5-4 ahead in the tie-break only to lose both of them.
To decide the match, a super tie-break is used in lieu of a third set. The format of the super tie-break is first player to reach 10 points with a margin of 2. Courier had the momentum going into the super tie-break and Martin had to pick up his spirits after blowing his late lead in the second set breaker.
The tennis in the super tie-break was exhilarating. Both players held match points at various times and Martin ended up triumphing with a 13-11 victory. The players received a thoroughly deserved standing ovation at the end. The quality of the tennis, the superb shot making, the rapport between the players and with the crowd all made the evening perfectly enjoyable for everyone involved. It was also great to be among so many friends from the New England tennis community.
Based on Boston’s reaction to this event, it’s hard to believe that some people think there isn’t a strong interest in tennis in the area. I think the players were impressed with the amount of support for the event and they appeared to be very appreciative of it. The fact that the event will be returning next year is very welcome news. My guess is that this will be a pretty tough ticket next year.
Other Thoughts
· We thoroughly enjoyed the television coverage on NESN HD with Leif Shiras and Jimmy Arias. We’re big fans of the under appreciated Arias as he has a great sense of humor that he incorporates into his top shelf analysis. We also enjoyed trying to find friends in the crowd as well as ourselves when we watched the taped broadcast of the Martin-Courier match.
· John McEnroe appears more cantankerous than ever. It’s hard to tell if that’s because he feels it’s expected as part of the entertainment or if he’s stalling and distracting his opponent simultaneously. Regardless, some of his behavior was rather boorish. We’ve never been fans of the mighty Mac, but his march to the final was impressive. He easily could have won the event and at 47 years old, that would have been remarkable indeed.
· It was nice to see Bud Collins taking in the action at the Bosse Sports Club. He had a nice article on the final in today’s Boston Globe.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Wimbledon and Unequal Prize Money
There’s been a bit of an uproar in tennis circles this week as Wimbledon announced that the total prize money for the Men’s singles winner would be larger than that for the Ladies champion, and thus would be the only tennis Grand Slam that does not offer equal prize money. The difference between the two is only $53,000, so Wimbledon’s declaration of un-equal prize money appears to be symbolic and almost defiant of the current trend in tennis.
When I first read about this issue, I have to admit that I was conflicted. In tennis, we’ve been brainwashed to believe that the women deserve equal prize money without question. It’s not a question of why?, just that it must be that way. This latest controversy prodded me to move beyond the programming in my head and look at the issue more critically. Does Wimbledon have a point in not offering equal prize money to the women? What follows may anger most, if not all, of the females that I know, however, as usual, my logic is impeccable and undeniable. ;)
Wimbledon’s public rationale for this decision centered around the fact that the top ladies are able to play more events (singles, doubles, mixed doubles) because their singles matches are only the best of 3 sets, and thus they can earn more money across all of those events than the Men can earn in singles only. The Men play the best of 5 sets and the top players rarely play doubles or mixed doubles because of the rigors of the singles draw. Although this rationale is valid, I don’t know that it is actually a logical justification for not offering equal prize money. Even if the men played best of 3 sets in the early rounds, I’m not sure how many would play doubles or mixed.
Another argument against equal prize money, and one not proffered by Wimbledon, is also related to the best of 5 set format and how the men are on court longer and have to work much harder over the course of the fortnight. This argument is slightly more compelling, but prize money has never been paid out at an hourly rate. A Ladies match that goes deep into a third set could certainly last longer than a Men’s straight set victory. Yet, I think it would be fair to say that the top men have to work harder to advance through the draw than the top women. It’s not only length of match, but also quality and depth in the draw.
The true determinant in the question of offering equal prize money is value. Does the women’s game provide equal entertainment value as the men’s game? And is the quality of the product the same? Tennis is unique in this argument because it is the only sport in which a person might answer “yes” to those questions. The women’s versions of Golf, Basketball and Soccer don’t even come close to rivaling the value and quality of the men’s games, but in tennis, it doesn’t appear to be as clear-cut at the surface.
The other factor that confuses the issue for tennis is that the Grand Slams host the men’s and women’s events simultaneously. A ticket for the day gets you access to all of the action. In Golf, the men’s and women’s Grand Slams are held at different locations and on different weekends, and that keeps the value proposition of those two tours very separated. To my knowledge, there isn’t much of an uproar over the disparity of prize money between men’s and women’s golf even though the difference is obscene in comparison with the $53,000 deficit at Wimbledon.
At last year’s Men’s US Golf Open, Michael Campbell earned $1,170,000 for winning the tournament. Compare that to the $560,000 that Birdie Kim took home for her victory last year and you have a difference of $610,000. Not only did Birdie Kim earn less than half of Michael Campbell’s take, she also earned $140,000 less than Tiger Woods earned for finishing second. Where’s the outrage about this??? Perhaps I’m not listening hard enough. Of course, the fact that golf doesn’t pay women equally isn’t a justification for tennis to do the same thing. I’m simply pointing out the far larger disparity, with a far smaller amount of outrage, if any.
As I stated earlier, when you buy a ticket for the day to Wimbledon, you get access to all events, but what if Wimbledon decided to segregate the events and forced patrons to buy either a men’s ticket or a women’s ticket? Would one sex outsell the other? Well, during the first week, I guarantee that the men’s event would outsell the women’s because the quality of the matches in the early rounds is much higher in the men’s game because of the greater depth on the ATP Tour. The women’s tournament is a snooze-fest until the quarterfinals because the top players are simply not challenged. The increasing number of injuries and absences on the WTA Tour doesn’t help the boredom factor in the early rounds.
In my recent post on Tennis in America, I stated that the men’s game is more popular and interesting than the women’s right now because of the depth on the tour and because of Roger Federer’s quest for total dominance. Rafael Nadal’s clay court match winning streak is another interesting topic that has captured the attention of fans. Right now, the women’s tour has no similar story lines and it suffers for it. That’s not to say that there aren’t some interesting matches being played on the women’s tour. In fact, the Maria Sharapova – Tatiana Golovin match in Miami was highly entertaining tennis, but that type of match seems to occur on rare occasions only on the WTA Tour. Thus, if one had to judge the men’s singles and women’s singles events’ entertainment value from the first round through the final, the conclusion would be that the men are a better buy for the entertainment dollar.
Although rarely discussed publicly, the men play tennis better than the women. None of the top women can beat any man in the top 500 in the world, and it possibly goes beyond that. Is that possibly a justification for unequal pay? As noted earlier, the pay disparity in golf is much larger than it is in tennis, yet there’s a movement in golf to have ladies play in PGA Tour events. Guess what? If the women can succeed on the PGA Tour, they get access to the bigger dollars. In that respect, you could say that the PGA Tour is the top tier in golf, and the LPGA is a lower tier and subsequently has lower earning power. Although no woman has yet to make the cut at a PGA event, it appears to be within reach. Should we consider the WTA Tour to be a lower tier than the ATP Tour? I don’t know, but it’s an interesting question. The possibility of a woman playing on the ATP Tour is infinitesimally small.
To conclude, I’m not advocating that the Grand Slams that do offer equal prize money reverse those decisions. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with vilification of Wimbledon for maintaining a slight inequity in pay given that the quality and depth of the WTA doesn’t come close to that of the ATP. The outrage over $53,000 seems misplaced to me when prize money and pay differences are so much larger in every other sport. Maybe those that are up in arms about Wimbledon’s decision should take care of those other differences first.
When I first read about this issue, I have to admit that I was conflicted. In tennis, we’ve been brainwashed to believe that the women deserve equal prize money without question. It’s not a question of why?, just that it must be that way. This latest controversy prodded me to move beyond the programming in my head and look at the issue more critically. Does Wimbledon have a point in not offering equal prize money to the women? What follows may anger most, if not all, of the females that I know, however, as usual, my logic is impeccable and undeniable. ;)
Wimbledon’s public rationale for this decision centered around the fact that the top ladies are able to play more events (singles, doubles, mixed doubles) because their singles matches are only the best of 3 sets, and thus they can earn more money across all of those events than the Men can earn in singles only. The Men play the best of 5 sets and the top players rarely play doubles or mixed doubles because of the rigors of the singles draw. Although this rationale is valid, I don’t know that it is actually a logical justification for not offering equal prize money. Even if the men played best of 3 sets in the early rounds, I’m not sure how many would play doubles or mixed.
Another argument against equal prize money, and one not proffered by Wimbledon, is also related to the best of 5 set format and how the men are on court longer and have to work much harder over the course of the fortnight. This argument is slightly more compelling, but prize money has never been paid out at an hourly rate. A Ladies match that goes deep into a third set could certainly last longer than a Men’s straight set victory. Yet, I think it would be fair to say that the top men have to work harder to advance through the draw than the top women. It’s not only length of match, but also quality and depth in the draw.
The true determinant in the question of offering equal prize money is value. Does the women’s game provide equal entertainment value as the men’s game? And is the quality of the product the same? Tennis is unique in this argument because it is the only sport in which a person might answer “yes” to those questions. The women’s versions of Golf, Basketball and Soccer don’t even come close to rivaling the value and quality of the men’s games, but in tennis, it doesn’t appear to be as clear-cut at the surface.
The other factor that confuses the issue for tennis is that the Grand Slams host the men’s and women’s events simultaneously. A ticket for the day gets you access to all of the action. In Golf, the men’s and women’s Grand Slams are held at different locations and on different weekends, and that keeps the value proposition of those two tours very separated. To my knowledge, there isn’t much of an uproar over the disparity of prize money between men’s and women’s golf even though the difference is obscene in comparison with the $53,000 deficit at Wimbledon.
At last year’s Men’s US Golf Open, Michael Campbell earned $1,170,000 for winning the tournament. Compare that to the $560,000 that Birdie Kim took home for her victory last year and you have a difference of $610,000. Not only did Birdie Kim earn less than half of Michael Campbell’s take, she also earned $140,000 less than Tiger Woods earned for finishing second. Where’s the outrage about this??? Perhaps I’m not listening hard enough. Of course, the fact that golf doesn’t pay women equally isn’t a justification for tennis to do the same thing. I’m simply pointing out the far larger disparity, with a far smaller amount of outrage, if any.
As I stated earlier, when you buy a ticket for the day to Wimbledon, you get access to all events, but what if Wimbledon decided to segregate the events and forced patrons to buy either a men’s ticket or a women’s ticket? Would one sex outsell the other? Well, during the first week, I guarantee that the men’s event would outsell the women’s because the quality of the matches in the early rounds is much higher in the men’s game because of the greater depth on the ATP Tour. The women’s tournament is a snooze-fest until the quarterfinals because the top players are simply not challenged. The increasing number of injuries and absences on the WTA Tour doesn’t help the boredom factor in the early rounds.
In my recent post on Tennis in America, I stated that the men’s game is more popular and interesting than the women’s right now because of the depth on the tour and because of Roger Federer’s quest for total dominance. Rafael Nadal’s clay court match winning streak is another interesting topic that has captured the attention of fans. Right now, the women’s tour has no similar story lines and it suffers for it. That’s not to say that there aren’t some interesting matches being played on the women’s tour. In fact, the Maria Sharapova – Tatiana Golovin match in Miami was highly entertaining tennis, but that type of match seems to occur on rare occasions only on the WTA Tour. Thus, if one had to judge the men’s singles and women’s singles events’ entertainment value from the first round through the final, the conclusion would be that the men are a better buy for the entertainment dollar.
Although rarely discussed publicly, the men play tennis better than the women. None of the top women can beat any man in the top 500 in the world, and it possibly goes beyond that. Is that possibly a justification for unequal pay? As noted earlier, the pay disparity in golf is much larger than it is in tennis, yet there’s a movement in golf to have ladies play in PGA Tour events. Guess what? If the women can succeed on the PGA Tour, they get access to the bigger dollars. In that respect, you could say that the PGA Tour is the top tier in golf, and the LPGA is a lower tier and subsequently has lower earning power. Although no woman has yet to make the cut at a PGA event, it appears to be within reach. Should we consider the WTA Tour to be a lower tier than the ATP Tour? I don’t know, but it’s an interesting question. The possibility of a woman playing on the ATP Tour is infinitesimally small.
To conclude, I’m not advocating that the Grand Slams that do offer equal prize money reverse those decisions. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with vilification of Wimbledon for maintaining a slight inequity in pay given that the quality and depth of the WTA doesn’t come close to that of the ATP. The outrage over $53,000 seems misplaced to me when prize money and pay differences are so much larger in every other sport. Maybe those that are up in arms about Wimbledon’s decision should take care of those other differences first.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Monte Carlo Master Series
It hasn’t been very often that the numbers 1 and 2 players in the world confront each other in the final of the Monte Carlo event. The last time was 1985 when Ivan Lendl defeated Mats Wilander. Twenty-one years later, the fans at the Monte Carlo Country Club were treated to an excellent final between the world’s two best players, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, with Nadal prevailing in 4 sets, 6-2, 6-7, 6-3, 7-6.
The young man from Mallorca has been dubbed the King of Clay for his current 42 match win streak on the surface, and a victory over the world’s number 1, a man who had lost only once previously this year, further solidifies him as the man to beat for the French Championships at Roland Garros. Nadal’s goal coming into Monte Carlo was to reach the final and prove that he was playing well on clay since injury forced him to miss the start of this season. He achieved his goal and more. Beating Federer for the fourth time in five attempts cements his place in the game as Roger’s nemesis, and sends a message to the rest of the tour that no one can beat him on clay.
Prior to this year, Federer had never advanced beyond the quarterfinals of this event and therefore his goals for Monte Carlo were modest: play well, get used to playing on clay, and try to reach the final. Certainly, Roger can come away from today’s final saying “mission accomplished” as he was brilliant in his quarterfinal and semifinal victories, but one has to believe that he is disappointed with losing to the Spaniard a third consecutive time, including twice in ’06.
However, it’s obvious that the Swiss treats each encounter with Nadal as a learning experience. Coming into the final, he felt that he had learned a few things in their encounter in Dubai that he could use in today’s match to his advantage. While that didn’t pan out, after today’s match, he spoke again about how he feels he is learning the intricacies of Rafa’s game and how to adjust to that game. Not only is Federer the most brilliant shot maker on the tour, he might also be the best tactician. The question for him is can he execute a Nadal specific game plan well enough to win the French?
While watching today’s final, it occurred to me that very few players have the confidence to beat these two men, and in a sport like tennis, confidence is an extremely important factor in winning. In fact, without confidence, you simply can’t win. Based on that, I fully expect to see another Federer – Nadal final this June in Paris for the second Grand Slam of the year.
Match Thoughts
I joined the match a little late this morning as I overslept by about 30 minutes, and it was 5-2 for Nadal in the first set when I turned on the television. I was quickly able to ascertain that Federer was making a lot of unforced errors and that was making Nadal’s task much easier than expected. He comfortably served out the set for 6-2.
In the second, Federer’s game started to come back to him especially late in the set. Nadal served for the second set at 5-4 and even held a set point, but Federer was able to pressure Nadal enough to earn the crucial break of serve and even the set at 5. The sways in momentum and confidence were clearly visible to those watching. Each player held serve and brought the set to a tie-breaker where Federer was dominant throughout and evened up the match at a set apiece. Roger had to be pleased that the match was level after he was down a set and a break at 4-5 in the second.
The third set began with slight controversy as Nadal called for the trainer to reapply tape to his blistered fingers. Our match announcers noted that Nadal’s action was certainly within the rules, but that it was clearly a momentum breaker for Federer. However, to be fair to Nadal, it would have been very difficult for him to re-tape his fingers on his own within the allotted time of a changeover, so I don’t think the injury time-out was necessarily an abuse of the rule. Once play resumed, it appeared that Federer’s shots were off the mark again and Nadal was able to establish a dominant position in the set. Nadal survived break points at 3-all in the third and then managed to break Federer for a 5-3 lead. There would be no nerves on the part of the young Mallorcan this time and he served out the set for a 6-3 win.
Nadal extended his game-winning streak to six as he jumped to a 3-0 lead in the fourth set, but Federer was by no means finished. He managed to get the 2 breaks of serve back and evened the set at 5. As in the second set, each player held and the set would be decided in another tie-breaker. Federer jumped to a quick 3-0 lead by winning Nadal’s first two service points, and it appeared that a fifth set was inevitable. However, the 19 year-old struck right back and stole Federer’s two service points to bring the score to 3-2. Eventually the score reached 5-all and Nadal clearly decided that it was time to go for the win. He hit a screaming backhand up the line to take himself to match point and he then pounded a massive forehand into Federer’s backhand to win the set and the match.
Overall, it was a thoroughly enjoyable match to watch with some brilliant shot making on both sides of the net. The foot speed of the protagonists was also quite impressive as each man was forced to go corner-to-corner as well as chase down multiple drop shots. In the end, the statistics told a compelling story. Federer made 78 errors on the day and his winner to error ratio was –13. Those numbers weren’t totally unexpected as Federer was usually the more aggressive player, but 78 errors were too much. Over 50% of the Spaniard’s points were won as a result of Federer errors. Nadal’s winner to error ratio was +5 which is somewhat remarkable in a match of this length.
The next ATP Masters Series event is in Rome and Nadal is the defending champion at the Foro Italico by virtue of his 5 hour 14 minute victory over Guillermo Coria. Don’t be surprised if we see the numbers 1 and 2 go at it again in Italy.
The young man from Mallorca has been dubbed the King of Clay for his current 42 match win streak on the surface, and a victory over the world’s number 1, a man who had lost only once previously this year, further solidifies him as the man to beat for the French Championships at Roland Garros. Nadal’s goal coming into Monte Carlo was to reach the final and prove that he was playing well on clay since injury forced him to miss the start of this season. He achieved his goal and more. Beating Federer for the fourth time in five attempts cements his place in the game as Roger’s nemesis, and sends a message to the rest of the tour that no one can beat him on clay.
Prior to this year, Federer had never advanced beyond the quarterfinals of this event and therefore his goals for Monte Carlo were modest: play well, get used to playing on clay, and try to reach the final. Certainly, Roger can come away from today’s final saying “mission accomplished” as he was brilliant in his quarterfinal and semifinal victories, but one has to believe that he is disappointed with losing to the Spaniard a third consecutive time, including twice in ’06.
However, it’s obvious that the Swiss treats each encounter with Nadal as a learning experience. Coming into the final, he felt that he had learned a few things in their encounter in Dubai that he could use in today’s match to his advantage. While that didn’t pan out, after today’s match, he spoke again about how he feels he is learning the intricacies of Rafa’s game and how to adjust to that game. Not only is Federer the most brilliant shot maker on the tour, he might also be the best tactician. The question for him is can he execute a Nadal specific game plan well enough to win the French?
While watching today’s final, it occurred to me that very few players have the confidence to beat these two men, and in a sport like tennis, confidence is an extremely important factor in winning. In fact, without confidence, you simply can’t win. Based on that, I fully expect to see another Federer – Nadal final this June in Paris for the second Grand Slam of the year.
Match Thoughts
I joined the match a little late this morning as I overslept by about 30 minutes, and it was 5-2 for Nadal in the first set when I turned on the television. I was quickly able to ascertain that Federer was making a lot of unforced errors and that was making Nadal’s task much easier than expected. He comfortably served out the set for 6-2.
In the second, Federer’s game started to come back to him especially late in the set. Nadal served for the second set at 5-4 and even held a set point, but Federer was able to pressure Nadal enough to earn the crucial break of serve and even the set at 5. The sways in momentum and confidence were clearly visible to those watching. Each player held serve and brought the set to a tie-breaker where Federer was dominant throughout and evened up the match at a set apiece. Roger had to be pleased that the match was level after he was down a set and a break at 4-5 in the second.
The third set began with slight controversy as Nadal called for the trainer to reapply tape to his blistered fingers. Our match announcers noted that Nadal’s action was certainly within the rules, but that it was clearly a momentum breaker for Federer. However, to be fair to Nadal, it would have been very difficult for him to re-tape his fingers on his own within the allotted time of a changeover, so I don’t think the injury time-out was necessarily an abuse of the rule. Once play resumed, it appeared that Federer’s shots were off the mark again and Nadal was able to establish a dominant position in the set. Nadal survived break points at 3-all in the third and then managed to break Federer for a 5-3 lead. There would be no nerves on the part of the young Mallorcan this time and he served out the set for a 6-3 win.
Nadal extended his game-winning streak to six as he jumped to a 3-0 lead in the fourth set, but Federer was by no means finished. He managed to get the 2 breaks of serve back and evened the set at 5. As in the second set, each player held and the set would be decided in another tie-breaker. Federer jumped to a quick 3-0 lead by winning Nadal’s first two service points, and it appeared that a fifth set was inevitable. However, the 19 year-old struck right back and stole Federer’s two service points to bring the score to 3-2. Eventually the score reached 5-all and Nadal clearly decided that it was time to go for the win. He hit a screaming backhand up the line to take himself to match point and he then pounded a massive forehand into Federer’s backhand to win the set and the match.
Overall, it was a thoroughly enjoyable match to watch with some brilliant shot making on both sides of the net. The foot speed of the protagonists was also quite impressive as each man was forced to go corner-to-corner as well as chase down multiple drop shots. In the end, the statistics told a compelling story. Federer made 78 errors on the day and his winner to error ratio was –13. Those numbers weren’t totally unexpected as Federer was usually the more aggressive player, but 78 errors were too much. Over 50% of the Spaniard’s points were won as a result of Federer errors. Nadal’s winner to error ratio was +5 which is somewhat remarkable in a match of this length.
The next ATP Masters Series event is in Rome and Nadal is the defending champion at the Foro Italico by virtue of his 5 hour 14 minute victory over Guillermo Coria. Don’t be surprised if we see the numbers 1 and 2 go at it again in Italy.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Tennis in America
Last week, I was watching a local sports show and the state of professional tennis was a topic on the agenda. The discussion centered around what was wrong with the professional game in the US and what should be done about it. While many of the questions/issues put forth were legitimate, the treatment of them was superficial and, if anything, did more to promote popular misconceptions rather than address or answer the real issues.
Quite honestly, the discussion irked me enough to write a post on this subject, and with that introduction, let’s look at some of the popular misconceptions about tennis in America and the state of the professional game.
Misconception: American tennis needs another John McEnroe.
Reality: It’s strange to invoke the name of McEnroe as the prototype for American players when the most popular and charismatic American player in history, Andre Agassi, is still active on the tour. Granted, Agassi has had some injury issues in the last year or so, but his presence in a match generates more interest from American audiences than any other player in history. Case in point was last year’s US Open singles final between Agassi and world number one, Roger Federer. That match generated more buzz among the media and casual tennis fans than any in recent memory.
Of course, the point is that in order for tennis to be successful in America, there must be an American male at the top of the game who is charismatic and media friendly. American sports fans are tremendously provincial. In order for there to be any interest in any sport, there must be an American team or player at the top. I can think of no exceptions to this. However, having an American at the top of the game won’t necessarily guarantee success. Pete Sampras dominated men’s tennis in the ‘90s, but his personality wasn’t marketable. Sampras was one of the most exceptional athletes of our time, but in the pantheon of American sport, he goes largely unappreciated because of his lack of charisma and marketability.
With all of that being said, if Roger Federer were American, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Federer would be the Tiger Woods of tennis. He’s media friendly, personally engaging, well liked on the tour, and quite possibly the most brilliant tennis player in history. Unfortunately, American provincialism doesn’t allow us to fully embrace him and the sport he dominates.
Misconception: The ATP and WTA need to do more to develop tennis in America.
Reality: Plain and simple, the United States Tennis Association (USTA) is responsible for the development and promotion of tennis in America, not the professional tours. Certainly, the tours can do more to promote top American professionals, but there actually has to be a player near the top to promote. It’s the USTA’s job to help young Americans get to the top of the professional game, although this approach has only recently been adopted. In the past, American tennis players have basically been on their own in their quest to become top ranked professionals. This was in contrast with the approach of several national tennis federations in Europe, most notably Spain, in which young players with potential were identified and assisted in their pursuit of tennis greatness.
The USTA has now adopted this approach, but the fruits of the program may not be realized for some time. Community based programs have also been started, however the USTA faces an uphill battle in attracting young players to the game. Sports such as football, basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer and even lacrosse are far more organized at the local level and are readily able to recruit children into their programs, where tennis is still stigmatized as a sport for elites. Until quality, affordable coaching can be provided at the local level, tennis will most likely continue to struggle in its quest to attract top athletes to the game.
Misconception: Tennis should take a lesson from golf in terms of marketing (e.g., Tiger Woods).
Reality: There are two things to discuss here. First, golf is a sport dominated by American players. If in the last 30 years, there were only between 2 and 5 Americans in golf’s top 50 professional players, then the sport would be in the same place as tennis, so golf is not necessarily comparable. Second, Tiger Woods is the exception, not the rule when it comes to marketing. You can’t say that tennis should emulate the marketing done around Woods because Woods is more than a golfer. He’s an American sporting icon. In the last 40 years, only one other golfer has come close to receiving the kind of media attention and marketing dollars as Tiger, and that was Arnold Palmer. I can’t think of another golfer who even comes close to those two.
Again, if Roger Federer were American, he just might be the sporting and marketing icon that Tiger Woods is. However, it wouldn’t be accurate to say that tennis players aren’t marketed to the public. Let’s take Andy Roddick for example. In the last two days, I’ve seen Roddick in a Lacoste ad, an American Express ad and in a web banner on ESPN.com for a tennis video game (Maria Sharapova was also featured in the web banner). One could argue that the television ads should be run during non-tennis sporting events, but how much more marketing should we expect to be done to promote Roddick’s image? In reality, the best marketing that Roddick can do for himself and the sport in America is to start winning big titles. Unfortunately for him, he doesn’t seem to be able to do that.
Misconception: The ATP and WTA should market up and comers as they climb through the rankings, not just when they’ve reached the top.
Reality: The funny thing about this one is that the ATP actually tried this a few years ago and the campaign flopped in the US for two reasons. One, out of the 8 to 10 players promoted, only one was American (Roddick). Americans didn’t know who the international players were and a couple of them never really succeeded (ever hear of Mariano Zabaleta?). Second, Americans couldn’t understand why the ATP was solely promoting the young players and not Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras.
The other thing about this misconception is how can you possibly predict which players will make it and which won’t? Obviously, including Zabaleta in the ATP’s prior marketing attempt was a mistake, but how could they have known? There’s been some buzz around young American Donald Young, but he’s yet to win a set in eight ATP Tour matches. Should someone sink marketing dollars into him right now? What kind of return are you going to get on that investment? Ashley Harkelroad is a female example of the same thing. She had some sex appeal, but the results simply weren’t there.
How about James Blake? Part of the detail of this misconception was that Blake should have been promoted as he made his way back up the rankings. However, that suggestion is somewhat ridiculous as Blake was a mid-level player before his various injuries/illnesses occurred, so why would anyone believe that he could surpass his previous ranking? Sinking marketing dollars into players who haven’t made it yet, is not a wise financial decision. Sometimes spending dollars on established players doesn’t work either – remember the American Express ad campaign for Andy Roddick and his mojo during last year’s US Open? Roddick’s first round exit ensured disaster for that promotional idea.
Misconception: Women’s tennis is more popular than Men’s tennis.
Reality: A few years ago when the Williams sisters were at the top of their games, this was true, but not so anymore. While the casual male sports fan may tune into an occasional Maria Sharapova match, the fact is that men’s tennis is more popular now because the matches are interesting from the first round through the finals. On the women’s side, it’s rare to see one of the top seeds being challenged before the quarterfinals. The first 3 to 4 rounds of any women’s tournament produce a lot of boring tennis. The sex appeal factor can’t overcome that in a long-term view. The disappearance of the Williams sisters has also led to less interest in America, and quite simply, the women’s game needs more depth. From that perspective, it can’t thrive without the Sisters.
The men’s game is extremely intriguing right now because of Federer’s bid to completely dominate the sport (ala Tiger Woods) while the other top players try to knock him off. Rafael Nadal, when healthy, has emerged as a potential foil for Federer, and that budding rivalry has the potential to reach the same heights of the rivalries between Pete and Andre, and Borg and McEnroe. Unfortunately, neither Roger nor Rafael are American so the pairing seems to have less appeal in the US, but both players are supported strongly internationally.
Misconception: There are too many tournaments – 27 every weekend. Players are getting injured because there are too many tournaments.
Reality: There is an element of truth to this one, but not as presented above. Are there too many tournaments? No. The fact that there are anywhere between one and 3 events each week for each tour is not the problem.
The real problem is two-fold. First, the players need to manage their own schedules more effectively so that injuries and fatigue do not become a problem. With big dollar exhibitions and high-priced appearance fees for various tournaments, players find it hard to say no to event promoters. They must learn to do so.
Part two of the problem has more to do with scheduling rather than volume of tournaments. Too many big events are scheduled within a short time frame. For example, the tournaments at Indian Wells and Key Biscayne, two of the bigger events outside of the Grand Slams, are within a two-week span of each other and the top players are technically required to play both. This year, the Nasdaq-100 Open at Key Biscayne suffered for it by losing some players to injuries while others gave half-hearted efforts in first round losses. The Indian Wells event was far more intriguing.
The same problem could occur in upcoming weeks when there are 3 ATP Masters Series events scheduled in the run-up to the French Open.
Tennis is a fantastic sport that takes as much athleticism as any on the planet. The top professionals are among the greatest athletes in the world. However, that’s not enough to get tennis onto the agenda of the average American sports fan. In order to do that, America must start to produce champions at the Grand Slam level; champions that sports fans can identify with and be proud of consistently. McEnroe clones need not apply.
Quite honestly, the discussion irked me enough to write a post on this subject, and with that introduction, let’s look at some of the popular misconceptions about tennis in America and the state of the professional game.
Misconception: American tennis needs another John McEnroe.
Reality: It’s strange to invoke the name of McEnroe as the prototype for American players when the most popular and charismatic American player in history, Andre Agassi, is still active on the tour. Granted, Agassi has had some injury issues in the last year or so, but his presence in a match generates more interest from American audiences than any other player in history. Case in point was last year’s US Open singles final between Agassi and world number one, Roger Federer. That match generated more buzz among the media and casual tennis fans than any in recent memory.
Of course, the point is that in order for tennis to be successful in America, there must be an American male at the top of the game who is charismatic and media friendly. American sports fans are tremendously provincial. In order for there to be any interest in any sport, there must be an American team or player at the top. I can think of no exceptions to this. However, having an American at the top of the game won’t necessarily guarantee success. Pete Sampras dominated men’s tennis in the ‘90s, but his personality wasn’t marketable. Sampras was one of the most exceptional athletes of our time, but in the pantheon of American sport, he goes largely unappreciated because of his lack of charisma and marketability.
With all of that being said, if Roger Federer were American, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Federer would be the Tiger Woods of tennis. He’s media friendly, personally engaging, well liked on the tour, and quite possibly the most brilliant tennis player in history. Unfortunately, American provincialism doesn’t allow us to fully embrace him and the sport he dominates.
Misconception: The ATP and WTA need to do more to develop tennis in America.
Reality: Plain and simple, the United States Tennis Association (USTA) is responsible for the development and promotion of tennis in America, not the professional tours. Certainly, the tours can do more to promote top American professionals, but there actually has to be a player near the top to promote. It’s the USTA’s job to help young Americans get to the top of the professional game, although this approach has only recently been adopted. In the past, American tennis players have basically been on their own in their quest to become top ranked professionals. This was in contrast with the approach of several national tennis federations in Europe, most notably Spain, in which young players with potential were identified and assisted in their pursuit of tennis greatness.
The USTA has now adopted this approach, but the fruits of the program may not be realized for some time. Community based programs have also been started, however the USTA faces an uphill battle in attracting young players to the game. Sports such as football, basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer and even lacrosse are far more organized at the local level and are readily able to recruit children into their programs, where tennis is still stigmatized as a sport for elites. Until quality, affordable coaching can be provided at the local level, tennis will most likely continue to struggle in its quest to attract top athletes to the game.
Misconception: Tennis should take a lesson from golf in terms of marketing (e.g., Tiger Woods).
Reality: There are two things to discuss here. First, golf is a sport dominated by American players. If in the last 30 years, there were only between 2 and 5 Americans in golf’s top 50 professional players, then the sport would be in the same place as tennis, so golf is not necessarily comparable. Second, Tiger Woods is the exception, not the rule when it comes to marketing. You can’t say that tennis should emulate the marketing done around Woods because Woods is more than a golfer. He’s an American sporting icon. In the last 40 years, only one other golfer has come close to receiving the kind of media attention and marketing dollars as Tiger, and that was Arnold Palmer. I can’t think of another golfer who even comes close to those two.
Again, if Roger Federer were American, he just might be the sporting and marketing icon that Tiger Woods is. However, it wouldn’t be accurate to say that tennis players aren’t marketed to the public. Let’s take Andy Roddick for example. In the last two days, I’ve seen Roddick in a Lacoste ad, an American Express ad and in a web banner on ESPN.com for a tennis video game (Maria Sharapova was also featured in the web banner). One could argue that the television ads should be run during non-tennis sporting events, but how much more marketing should we expect to be done to promote Roddick’s image? In reality, the best marketing that Roddick can do for himself and the sport in America is to start winning big titles. Unfortunately for him, he doesn’t seem to be able to do that.
Misconception: The ATP and WTA should market up and comers as they climb through the rankings, not just when they’ve reached the top.
Reality: The funny thing about this one is that the ATP actually tried this a few years ago and the campaign flopped in the US for two reasons. One, out of the 8 to 10 players promoted, only one was American (Roddick). Americans didn’t know who the international players were and a couple of them never really succeeded (ever hear of Mariano Zabaleta?). Second, Americans couldn’t understand why the ATP was solely promoting the young players and not Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras.
The other thing about this misconception is how can you possibly predict which players will make it and which won’t? Obviously, including Zabaleta in the ATP’s prior marketing attempt was a mistake, but how could they have known? There’s been some buzz around young American Donald Young, but he’s yet to win a set in eight ATP Tour matches. Should someone sink marketing dollars into him right now? What kind of return are you going to get on that investment? Ashley Harkelroad is a female example of the same thing. She had some sex appeal, but the results simply weren’t there.
How about James Blake? Part of the detail of this misconception was that Blake should have been promoted as he made his way back up the rankings. However, that suggestion is somewhat ridiculous as Blake was a mid-level player before his various injuries/illnesses occurred, so why would anyone believe that he could surpass his previous ranking? Sinking marketing dollars into players who haven’t made it yet, is not a wise financial decision. Sometimes spending dollars on established players doesn’t work either – remember the American Express ad campaign for Andy Roddick and his mojo during last year’s US Open? Roddick’s first round exit ensured disaster for that promotional idea.
Misconception: Women’s tennis is more popular than Men’s tennis.
Reality: A few years ago when the Williams sisters were at the top of their games, this was true, but not so anymore. While the casual male sports fan may tune into an occasional Maria Sharapova match, the fact is that men’s tennis is more popular now because the matches are interesting from the first round through the finals. On the women’s side, it’s rare to see one of the top seeds being challenged before the quarterfinals. The first 3 to 4 rounds of any women’s tournament produce a lot of boring tennis. The sex appeal factor can’t overcome that in a long-term view. The disappearance of the Williams sisters has also led to less interest in America, and quite simply, the women’s game needs more depth. From that perspective, it can’t thrive without the Sisters.
The men’s game is extremely intriguing right now because of Federer’s bid to completely dominate the sport (ala Tiger Woods) while the other top players try to knock him off. Rafael Nadal, when healthy, has emerged as a potential foil for Federer, and that budding rivalry has the potential to reach the same heights of the rivalries between Pete and Andre, and Borg and McEnroe. Unfortunately, neither Roger nor Rafael are American so the pairing seems to have less appeal in the US, but both players are supported strongly internationally.
Misconception: There are too many tournaments – 27 every weekend. Players are getting injured because there are too many tournaments.
Reality: There is an element of truth to this one, but not as presented above. Are there too many tournaments? No. The fact that there are anywhere between one and 3 events each week for each tour is not the problem.
The real problem is two-fold. First, the players need to manage their own schedules more effectively so that injuries and fatigue do not become a problem. With big dollar exhibitions and high-priced appearance fees for various tournaments, players find it hard to say no to event promoters. They must learn to do so.
Part two of the problem has more to do with scheduling rather than volume of tournaments. Too many big events are scheduled within a short time frame. For example, the tournaments at Indian Wells and Key Biscayne, two of the bigger events outside of the Grand Slams, are within a two-week span of each other and the top players are technically required to play both. This year, the Nasdaq-100 Open at Key Biscayne suffered for it by losing some players to injuries while others gave half-hearted efforts in first round losses. The Indian Wells event was far more intriguing.
The same problem could occur in upcoming weeks when there are 3 ATP Masters Series events scheduled in the run-up to the French Open.
Tennis is a fantastic sport that takes as much athleticism as any on the planet. The top professionals are among the greatest athletes in the world. However, that’s not enough to get tennis onto the agenda of the average American sports fan. In order to do that, America must start to produce champions at the Grand Slam level; champions that sports fans can identify with and be proud of consistently. McEnroe clones need not apply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
