The number 7 has always been a special one in the world of sport, from the players who have worn it (Mantle, Elway, Beckham) to the seventh inning stretch to a Game 7 finale. On Sunday evening in Australia, Roger Federer reached seventh heaven as he captured his seventh Grand Slam title, and his second Australian Open title, with a four set victory over Marcos Baghdatis. Of course, no one expects Roger to stay on 7 very long and the talk will begin to center on Federer’s chances at a calendar year Grand Slam.
Before he had number 7 in the bag, the Bag Man, Marcos Baghdatis, had Federer worried and off-balance through the first set and a half. The unseeded 20 year old appeared comfortable from the start and managed to dictate much of the play in the first two sets as he refused to let Federer push him off the baseline. On the other side of the court, Federer appeared tight and was making uncharacteristic errors, and found himself down a set and a break early in the second. The number one seed managed to erase the break quickly and started imposing his will over the match mid-way through the second. By the time the second set was over, Baghdatis had succumbed to Roger’s pressure and the physical toll of a long road to the final.
The third and fourth sets were formalities on the way to crowning Federer as champion for the second time in Melbourne. Baghdatis was clearly finished, but he hung in there gamely until the end, unlike a certain women’s finalist.
What can we say about Federer that hasn’t already been said? He’s the best player we have seen and he is dominating men’s tennis at a time when the depth of the sport is at its greatest. His tennis is flowing and beautiful to watch, and his graciousness is second to none. It’s nearly impossible not to like the guy as he makes tennis history before our eyes. Chances are, we’ll have our eyes on him for quite awhile.
Wrap Up Thoughts
· For those fans who decided to watch the re-run of the Men’s final at Noon (ET) on ESPN2, they missed the emotional speech of Roger Federer upon receiving the trophy from Rod Laver. ESPN is infamous for timing matches out to the minute and today was no different as their video editors decided to cut out the trophy presentation even though it was good television. Fortunately, we decided to tape the live broadcast and watch it later in the morning so that we wouldn’t have to deal with ESPN’s editing whims.
· So what was Federer’s speech like? Well, we already have one request for our tape of the match. He appeared to be overcome with emotion at having received the trophy from the great Rod Laver. He was barely able to speak as he congratulated Baghdatis, the Baghdatis team and his own team. After thanking the sponsors, Roger wasn’t able to continue and he hugged Laver for support. It was a touching moment and it was indicative of how knowledgeable Federer is on the history of the game and the history he is making.
· Brad Gilbert’s comment about Federer putting on the “sleeper hold” after the second set was right on. It also brought back memories from junior high school of World Wrestling Federation star Adrian Adonis and his famous sleeper hold, “Goodnight Irene”. Adonis would invariably get behind his opponent (patsy) and wrap his arms around his head and neck, and then slowly lower him to the canvas as the hold took its toll. That was a perfect description of what Federer did late in the second set and early in the third as the Cypriot had the life sucked out of his game.
· While Brad Gilbert had his awkward moments on screen, his analysis over the fortnight was solidly on target and that makes him a keeper for ESPN and its Grand Slam coverage. Gilbert and Mary Joe Fernandez did themselves, and the network, proud by speaking out so strongly on Justine Henin-Hardenne’s retirement from the women’s final. Their feelings echoed the sentiments of many fans and it was refreshing to hear such candor from the two former players. Sometimes ex-players and coaches can be suck-ups; these two weren’t and the viewers were rewarded.
· Can Marcos Baghdatis keep the momentum going? The foundation of his game appears to be very solid as he’s capable off of both wings and his serve has improved since last year. If he can increase the level of his fitness, he could become a fixture in the tennis scene for years to come. Like Federer, Marcos is another guy who is easy to root for.
· Martina Hingis’ performance in Australia appeared to signal a successful return to the big time for the 25 year old who’s been missing for the last 3 years. Her groundstrokes have beefed up and she appears to be fitter now than ever. However, her serve, especially the second serve, still needs improvement. Too often in her matches, Hingis found herself on the defensive after trying to fend off screaming returns. In spite of the weak serve, Hingis managed a nice run to the quarterfinals where she hung tough with new number one, Kim Clijsters. In her three years away from the tour, Hingis has matured substantially and she has discovered her love for the game. Thankfully, she is still young enough to pursue it at the highest level. We’ll be rooting for her in 2006.
· And what’s the state of the rest of the women’s game after this tournament? Amelie Mauresmo was seemingly buoyed by the confidence of her year ending championship victory and that took her on her run to the title in Melbourne. Justine Henin-Hardenne leaves Australia in disgrace. Kim Clijsters announced that she will be out for the next couple of months with ligament damage in her ankle. Maria Sharapova had a remarkably good effort for someone who was on the cusp of pulling out of the tournament. And the Williams sisters appear to be going nowhere.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Aussie Open - No Más
In a conclusion reminiscent of boxer Roberto Duran’s declaration of “no más” in the 8th round of his 1980 bout with Sugar Ray Leonard, Justine Henin-Hardenne quit with a stomach ailment early in the second set of the title match for the 2006 Australian Open, thus giving Amelie Mauresmo her first Grand Slam title. However, let the record show that this title was no gift from Henin-Hardenne. Mauresmo came ready to play on Saturday, showing no signs of nerves that had plagued her on big occasions in the past. She muscled Henin-Hardenne around the court and forced the diminutive Belgian to go for more on her shots. The strategy drew numerous errors from Henin-Hardenne as she discovered that she had no answers for Mauresmo on this day.
Unfortunately, the ending of the match was shameful behavior from the Belgian woman. While she has been properly lauded in the past for being a great fighter, she is also a player of very questionable stature when it comes to sportsmanship. There have been occasions in the past when she has not conducted herself honorably on the tennis court. Two specific incidents come to mind:
At the semi-finals of Roland Garros in 2003, Henin-Hardenne put up her hand to ask for time during Serena Williams’ service motion and then said nothing of it after Williams missed the serve and asked the umpire for a let because of Henin-Hardenne’s action. The crowd heaped its rage upon Serena that day, but Justine dishonored herself and her victory by avoiding answering all questions on the incident after the match.
Another instance occurred at the 2003 Australian Open in which she used numerous injury time-outs in a match with Lindsay Davenport and ended up winning 9-7 in the third set. After the match, Davenport called out Henin-Hardenne for her abuse of the injury time-out rule and wondered aloud as to how an “injured” player could be moving so well at the end of the third set.
Based on these past incidents, calling the trainer at 0-2 in the second set of Saturday’s final reeked of gamesmanship on Henin-Hardenne’s part. While we have no evidence that she was not suffering some stomach discomfort, she was clearly suffering a common mental ailment for tennis players called “I’m getting my ass kicked and I want to go home now”-itis. After two points in the third game of the second set, Henin-Hardenne decided to pick up her toys and go home – she had had enough.
Mary Joe Fernandez and Brad Gilbert of ESPN2 echoed the feelings of many who felt that Henin-Hardenne had robbed Mauresmo of a proper victory and celebration for her first Slam title. Both Gilbert and Fernandez felt that Henin-Hardenne should have played the match out to its natural conclusion, noting that several other players in the past had done just that.
Although Mauresmo didn’t get to complete the match in a manner befitting her championship run, she should take solace in the fact that she beat her opponent so thoroughly that she forced her to quit. After Roberto Duran’s capitulation versus Sugar Ray Leonard in 1980, Leonard said “To make a man quit, to make a Roberto Duran quit, was better than knocking him out.” Let’s hope that Amelie Mauresmo will feel the same way.
Random Thoughts
· While we’re on the subject of poor sportsmanship, the name of Nicolas Kiefer comes to mind. His boorish behavior during his quarterfinal encounter with Sebastien Grosjean was fairly standard stuff for him, but he took it to the next level with a racquet toss that possibly distracted his opponent during a point late in the third set. Grosjean missed his next shot and claimed that he should be awarded the point because of the racquet toss. Inexplicably, both the umpire and the tournament referee ruled against the Frenchman. After the match, even Kiefer said that he thought that Grosjean should have been awarded the point. Apparently, it didn’t occur to the German that his racquet toss was a concession of the point and that even though the umpire had not awarded the point to Grosjean, he had it in his power to give the point to Grosjean himself.
· Marcos Baghdatis’ presence in the Men’s Final is a great story for tennis. Not only has he defeated 3 of the top 7 seeds on his way to the final, he handled the pressure of the 5th set better than both of his last two victims, Ivan Ljubicic and David Nalbandian. Ljubicic clearly tightened up on the big occasion by missing numerous forehands late in the match. After coming back from two sets to love down, it was somewhat sad to see the Croat throw it away in the fifth with tight play. Baghdatis deserves credit however for handling the pressure and playing well in the moment.
In the semi-final match, the level of tennis in the fourth and fifth sets wasn’t that high as both players made mistakes. Nalbandian was uncharacteristically error prone and appeared to be feeling the pressure of relinquishing a two sets to love lead in a Grand Slam semi-final. Shockingly, the ultra-confident Argentine was made to look like the player ranked in the mid-50s rather than his opponent.
Sunday’s final should be enjoyable to watch and Melbourne’s Greek population will make it a great atmosphere. Will the Baghdatis fairly tale have a happy ending? Regardless of the outcome of the match, Baghdatis will be happy with his effort at this tournament, so the answer is yes. However, look for Roger Federer to grab his seventh Grand Slam title on Sunday in Australia.
Unfortunately, the ending of the match was shameful behavior from the Belgian woman. While she has been properly lauded in the past for being a great fighter, she is also a player of very questionable stature when it comes to sportsmanship. There have been occasions in the past when she has not conducted herself honorably on the tennis court. Two specific incidents come to mind:
At the semi-finals of Roland Garros in 2003, Henin-Hardenne put up her hand to ask for time during Serena Williams’ service motion and then said nothing of it after Williams missed the serve and asked the umpire for a let because of Henin-Hardenne’s action. The crowd heaped its rage upon Serena that day, but Justine dishonored herself and her victory by avoiding answering all questions on the incident after the match.
Another instance occurred at the 2003 Australian Open in which she used numerous injury time-outs in a match with Lindsay Davenport and ended up winning 9-7 in the third set. After the match, Davenport called out Henin-Hardenne for her abuse of the injury time-out rule and wondered aloud as to how an “injured” player could be moving so well at the end of the third set.
Based on these past incidents, calling the trainer at 0-2 in the second set of Saturday’s final reeked of gamesmanship on Henin-Hardenne’s part. While we have no evidence that she was not suffering some stomach discomfort, she was clearly suffering a common mental ailment for tennis players called “I’m getting my ass kicked and I want to go home now”-itis. After two points in the third game of the second set, Henin-Hardenne decided to pick up her toys and go home – she had had enough.
Mary Joe Fernandez and Brad Gilbert of ESPN2 echoed the feelings of many who felt that Henin-Hardenne had robbed Mauresmo of a proper victory and celebration for her first Slam title. Both Gilbert and Fernandez felt that Henin-Hardenne should have played the match out to its natural conclusion, noting that several other players in the past had done just that.
Although Mauresmo didn’t get to complete the match in a manner befitting her championship run, she should take solace in the fact that she beat her opponent so thoroughly that she forced her to quit. After Roberto Duran’s capitulation versus Sugar Ray Leonard in 1980, Leonard said “To make a man quit, to make a Roberto Duran quit, was better than knocking him out.” Let’s hope that Amelie Mauresmo will feel the same way.
Random Thoughts
· While we’re on the subject of poor sportsmanship, the name of Nicolas Kiefer comes to mind. His boorish behavior during his quarterfinal encounter with Sebastien Grosjean was fairly standard stuff for him, but he took it to the next level with a racquet toss that possibly distracted his opponent during a point late in the third set. Grosjean missed his next shot and claimed that he should be awarded the point because of the racquet toss. Inexplicably, both the umpire and the tournament referee ruled against the Frenchman. After the match, even Kiefer said that he thought that Grosjean should have been awarded the point. Apparently, it didn’t occur to the German that his racquet toss was a concession of the point and that even though the umpire had not awarded the point to Grosjean, he had it in his power to give the point to Grosjean himself.
· Marcos Baghdatis’ presence in the Men’s Final is a great story for tennis. Not only has he defeated 3 of the top 7 seeds on his way to the final, he handled the pressure of the 5th set better than both of his last two victims, Ivan Ljubicic and David Nalbandian. Ljubicic clearly tightened up on the big occasion by missing numerous forehands late in the match. After coming back from two sets to love down, it was somewhat sad to see the Croat throw it away in the fifth with tight play. Baghdatis deserves credit however for handling the pressure and playing well in the moment.
In the semi-final match, the level of tennis in the fourth and fifth sets wasn’t that high as both players made mistakes. Nalbandian was uncharacteristically error prone and appeared to be feeling the pressure of relinquishing a two sets to love lead in a Grand Slam semi-final. Shockingly, the ultra-confident Argentine was made to look like the player ranked in the mid-50s rather than his opponent.
Sunday’s final should be enjoyable to watch and Melbourne’s Greek population will make it a great atmosphere. Will the Baghdatis fairly tale have a happy ending? Regardless of the outcome of the match, Baghdatis will be happy with his effort at this tournament, so the answer is yes. However, look for Roger Federer to grab his seventh Grand Slam title on Sunday in Australia.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Another Solid Prediction
Well, that prediction of Ivan Ljubicic advancing to the final of the Australian Open isn’t looking too good right now. Not only will Ljubicic not reach the final, he didn’t even reach the semifinal encounter with David Nalbandian that we had hoped for. Instead, Sanjit Korde look-a-like Marcos Baghdatis will oppose Nalbandian for a place in the final. Dare we choose a winner?
We hope that our prediction of Ljubicic reaching the final didn’t put too much pressure on the big man as he shouldered the load of trying to give us our first win on this site. Historically, Ljubicic hasn’t performed well in Grand Slams, but his expectations had to be higher based on his 2005 record, so he must be very disappointed to let this opportunity slip through his fingers. Alas, much like Vanderbilt football’s streak of no winning seasons since 1982, our streak of prognostication futility is still alive. Let’s see if we can change that.
Today’s picks:
Kiefer over Grosjean
Federer over Davydenko
Mauresmo over Schnyder
Clijsters over Hingis
We hope that our prediction of Ljubicic reaching the final didn’t put too much pressure on the big man as he shouldered the load of trying to give us our first win on this site. Historically, Ljubicic hasn’t performed well in Grand Slams, but his expectations had to be higher based on his 2005 record, so he must be very disappointed to let this opportunity slip through his fingers. Alas, much like Vanderbilt football’s streak of no winning seasons since 1982, our streak of prognostication futility is still alive. Let’s see if we can change that.
Today’s picks:
Kiefer over Grosjean
Federer over Davydenko
Mauresmo over Schnyder
Clijsters over Hingis
Monday, January 23, 2006
Roddick and Other Thoughts
What do you do if you’re Andy Roddick and you just made another early exit from a Grand Slam? Fire the coach? Maybe. Work harder? That doesn’t seem to be the problem. So what is the problem?
The problem for Roddick in his loss to number 54 ranked, Marcos Baghdatis, was his positioning with respect to the baseline. Patrick McEnroe on ESPN2 correctly pointed out that Roddick was playing many of his shots from behind the baseline, thus giving Baghdatis the chance to run more shots down. Certainly Baghdatis played well and that was demonstrated by his excellent winners to errors ratio. However, Roddick’s willingness to rally with the Cyrpiot rather than push him around led to his downfall.
At last year’s US Open, Gilles Muller mercilessly picked on the Roddick backhand by hitting all of his approach shots in that direction. Andy is very stiff on the backhand side and struggles to make the shot under pressure. One common thread between Roddick’s last 2 Grand Slam losses is the decreasing effectiveness of his serve. Both Baghdatis and Muller were able to get a read on the big first serve and return it effectively. In the same manner that the women’s tour adjusted to the physicality of the Williams sisters, the men’s tour is coping with the Roddick serve. Since that weapon has been defused a bit, does Roddick have enough game to stay near the top? That’s a question for Andy to answer in the next few months.
Other Thoughts
· What’s up with Tommy Haas’ clothes? Does Blackwell have a tennis worst dressed list? If so, Tommy is running away with the 2006 award.
· Note to ESPN: please stop inviting Dick Enberg to broadcast at Grand Slam events. His inane commentary is infuriating, and I still haven’t forgiven him for butchering the inaugural Breakfast at Wimbledon broadcast in 1979.
· Patrick Rafter and Gabriela Sabatini are 2 of the 2006 Tennis Hall of Fame inductees that were announced today. Are they deserving of enshrinement? The Hall’s criteria for entry are somewhat nebulous so I find it hard to argue for or against anyone with real vigor. If you compare the records of Rafter and Sabatini with prior inductees, they appear to be deserving candidates. Rafter achieved a number 1 ranking in singles and that in itself may merit Hall of Fame status. However, does that make Thomas Muster and Carolos Moya Hall of Famers?
· We have several friends who made the trek to Australia for this year’s Open and I’m definitely envious. I want to go next year, if for nothing else than to see how good Andy Roddick is at poker.
· Martina Hingis’ serve hasn’t improved enough to beat the likes of Kim Clijsters, even if Kim is injured. Samanth Stosur was outhitting the Swiss Miss from the baseline, but wasn’t consistent enough to pull off the upset. Clijsters won’t have that problem. She’ll push Hingis around the court and force a lot of short balls out of her, with which Kim won’t have any problems dealing.
The problem for Roddick in his loss to number 54 ranked, Marcos Baghdatis, was his positioning with respect to the baseline. Patrick McEnroe on ESPN2 correctly pointed out that Roddick was playing many of his shots from behind the baseline, thus giving Baghdatis the chance to run more shots down. Certainly Baghdatis played well and that was demonstrated by his excellent winners to errors ratio. However, Roddick’s willingness to rally with the Cyrpiot rather than push him around led to his downfall.
At last year’s US Open, Gilles Muller mercilessly picked on the Roddick backhand by hitting all of his approach shots in that direction. Andy is very stiff on the backhand side and struggles to make the shot under pressure. One common thread between Roddick’s last 2 Grand Slam losses is the decreasing effectiveness of his serve. Both Baghdatis and Muller were able to get a read on the big first serve and return it effectively. In the same manner that the women’s tour adjusted to the physicality of the Williams sisters, the men’s tour is coping with the Roddick serve. Since that weapon has been defused a bit, does Roddick have enough game to stay near the top? That’s a question for Andy to answer in the next few months.
Other Thoughts
· What’s up with Tommy Haas’ clothes? Does Blackwell have a tennis worst dressed list? If so, Tommy is running away with the 2006 award.
· Note to ESPN: please stop inviting Dick Enberg to broadcast at Grand Slam events. His inane commentary is infuriating, and I still haven’t forgiven him for butchering the inaugural Breakfast at Wimbledon broadcast in 1979.
· Patrick Rafter and Gabriela Sabatini are 2 of the 2006 Tennis Hall of Fame inductees that were announced today. Are they deserving of enshrinement? The Hall’s criteria for entry are somewhat nebulous so I find it hard to argue for or against anyone with real vigor. If you compare the records of Rafter and Sabatini with prior inductees, they appear to be deserving candidates. Rafter achieved a number 1 ranking in singles and that in itself may merit Hall of Fame status. However, does that make Thomas Muster and Carolos Moya Hall of Famers?
· We have several friends who made the trek to Australia for this year’s Open and I’m definitely envious. I want to go next year, if for nothing else than to see how good Andy Roddick is at poker.
· Martina Hingis’ serve hasn’t improved enough to beat the likes of Kim Clijsters, even if Kim is injured. Samanth Stosur was outhitting the Swiss Miss from the baseline, but wasn’t consistent enough to pull off the upset. Clijsters won’t have that problem. She’ll push Hingis around the court and force a lot of short balls out of her, with which Kim won’t have any problems dealing.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Australian Open - Week 1
Venus and Serena
Not unexpectedly, Venus and Serena Williams both lost in the first week of the Australian Open, thus making this their worst performance in a major as a tandem. While I’m not a fan of the Sisters Williams, it is hard to watch their spotty performances over the last year or two and not wonder what’s going through their heads.
After Venus’ first round loss and Serena’s third round loss, both sisters claimed to be well prepared and fit for the year’s first major, but the video evidence disputes this. Venus committed 65 unforced errors in her loss to number 94 ranked Tszvetana Pironkova of Bulgaria, and in her press conference she repeatedly referred to these errors as if there was some sort of magic switch that could turn the errors off and she couldn’t find it in time to win the match. The plain fact of the matter is that Venus’ game has been wracked with unforced errors for the greater part of the last 2 years and she’s done absolutely nothing about it. Winning Wimbledon last summer may have been the worst thing for her long-term career tennis plans as it validated her lackluster approach to preparation. The same could be said of Serena’s victory at the 2005 Australian Open. Many of the holes in Venus’ game today have been there since she started playing on the tour: forehand errors (although her backhand let her down this week), poor serving mechanics, and a tendency to tighten up under pressure. It’s hard to believe that not only has she not addressed these weaknesses, her game may be in worse shape now than it’s ever been.
When Serena arrived in Australia this January, the Australian press had a field day with the size of her back-side. When I saw Serena on court for myself, I have to admit that I was stunned. She is huge and I think her outfit may have accentuated that. Any claims by her of being fit for these championships are ludicrous. After watching her for ten minutes in her second round match versus Camille Pin, it was clear that she did not have the energy or movement that made her a dominant tennis player in the past. She, like sister Venus, also seemed to be fascinated with making as many unforced errors as possible. Apparently, she can’t find that magic unforced errors switch either.
The disturbing thing about the demise of the sisters is that they are lying to themselves. They are deluded in thinking that they are the most dominant players on the tour when in fact they are on the precipice of dropping off the radar completely. When they arrived on the tour, they took physicality and athleticism to a new level, and reaped the benefits of that. Now that much of the tour has caught up to them in that regard, Venus and Serena have little to fall back on. They haven’t been willing to work harder to continually raise the level of their abilities, both mental and physical. Instead, they have chosen to parlay their fame into other opportunities that demand much of their time. It’s difficult to be critical of them for capitalizing on their celebrity status, but the window of opportunity in a sport like tennis is short, and not to take that opportunity to leave a legacy in the game may be something that they regret at a later age. Short of a radical re-dedication to tennis, I expect that the performances of the Williams Sisters in Melbourne will be a portent of things to come for them in 2006.
Other Thoughts on Week 1
· One benefit of the Williams sisters being out of the tournament is that ESPN2 won’t subject us to watching their matches round the clock. While I’m very appreciative that ESPN2 dedicates so much time to their coverage, it’s still overly provincial with regard to American tennis. A case in point was on Sunday evening when number 4 seed, David Nalbandian, was in a 5th set, yet ESPN2 chose to show us the beginning of the Taylor Dent match. Surely, the drama of a 5th set should trump the beginning of a match involving a mid-level American player – one who is not even good enough to play Davis Cup for the US. Decisions like that tend to infuriate me because they overestimate the desire of the tennis viewing public to see American tennis players only. The majority of people that tune into the Australian Open are interested in watching quality, dramatic tennis, not just a name. Of course, that notion flies in the face of convention for sports television programming today.
· While the comeback of Martina Hingis is a very nice story, ESPN2’s Tim Ryan committed some serious over-hyping on Sunday when he claimed that Hingis was “one of the game’s most popular champions.” Honestly, I erupted when he said this, as it was blatantly untrue. How popular was she in Paris during her French Open final loss to Steffi Graf? Not very. Because of some of her outlandish statements and occasional on-court antics, she was a more villainous champion than a popular one. If Ryan had referred to her as one of the game’s most respected champions, I would have been on board. Tennis fans have missed her in the last three years because of her brand of efficient and intelligent tennis (an extremely rare commodity on the WTA Tour), not because of popularity.
· Is there anyone left in the tournament who can challenge Roger Federer? Federer is playing brilliant tennis again and the majority of players that have troubled him in the past aren’t in Melbourne (Rafael Nadal, Andre Agassi, Marat Safin). David Nalbandian has had success with Federer in the past, most recently at the ATP Masters Cup in Shanghai, but the Swiss master looks to be in better form than he was in China.
· I miss Rafael Nadal at this tournament. His enthusiasm and competitiveness are magnetic. Brad Gilbert was dead on when he commented that the field was fortunate that Nadal wasn’t there bringing his relentless heavy spin to the high bouncing Rebound Ace courts. If the heat is causing the courts to play like clay, no one would benefit more from that than Rafa.
· It’s hard to believe, but I don’t hear anyone talking about Ivan Ljubicic. Aside from Federer and Nadal, no one had a better 2005 than the big Croat. If he wins his next match versus Thomas Johansson, he has a potential date with Andy Roddick in the quarterfinals and I expect Ljubicic to come through that and reach the semis. Federer v. Ljubicic final???
· Is it time for the Australian Open to consider a change in surface as well as in tournament dates? The extreme heat is one thing, but the Rebound Ace courts seem to magnify it. As someone who has had heat issues in the past, I feel for the players because the conditions become the driving factor in the quality of tennis. While some players are lauded for being extremely fit – Dominik Hrbaty for example – it’s not always about fitness. Body chemistry is an important part of how one deals with heat and hydration. Yet a change in the schedule could alleviate the problem. If the tournament were moved to March, the heat wouldn’t be a factor and the players would have ample time to prepare for the first Grand Slam of the year. The Australian Tennis Federation hasn’t been open to such a change so far.
Check for other Aussie Open thoughts throughout Week 2.
Not unexpectedly, Venus and Serena Williams both lost in the first week of the Australian Open, thus making this their worst performance in a major as a tandem. While I’m not a fan of the Sisters Williams, it is hard to watch their spotty performances over the last year or two and not wonder what’s going through their heads.
After Venus’ first round loss and Serena’s third round loss, both sisters claimed to be well prepared and fit for the year’s first major, but the video evidence disputes this. Venus committed 65 unforced errors in her loss to number 94 ranked Tszvetana Pironkova of Bulgaria, and in her press conference she repeatedly referred to these errors as if there was some sort of magic switch that could turn the errors off and she couldn’t find it in time to win the match. The plain fact of the matter is that Venus’ game has been wracked with unforced errors for the greater part of the last 2 years and she’s done absolutely nothing about it. Winning Wimbledon last summer may have been the worst thing for her long-term career tennis plans as it validated her lackluster approach to preparation. The same could be said of Serena’s victory at the 2005 Australian Open. Many of the holes in Venus’ game today have been there since she started playing on the tour: forehand errors (although her backhand let her down this week), poor serving mechanics, and a tendency to tighten up under pressure. It’s hard to believe that not only has she not addressed these weaknesses, her game may be in worse shape now than it’s ever been.
When Serena arrived in Australia this January, the Australian press had a field day with the size of her back-side. When I saw Serena on court for myself, I have to admit that I was stunned. She is huge and I think her outfit may have accentuated that. Any claims by her of being fit for these championships are ludicrous. After watching her for ten minutes in her second round match versus Camille Pin, it was clear that she did not have the energy or movement that made her a dominant tennis player in the past. She, like sister Venus, also seemed to be fascinated with making as many unforced errors as possible. Apparently, she can’t find that magic unforced errors switch either.
The disturbing thing about the demise of the sisters is that they are lying to themselves. They are deluded in thinking that they are the most dominant players on the tour when in fact they are on the precipice of dropping off the radar completely. When they arrived on the tour, they took physicality and athleticism to a new level, and reaped the benefits of that. Now that much of the tour has caught up to them in that regard, Venus and Serena have little to fall back on. They haven’t been willing to work harder to continually raise the level of their abilities, both mental and physical. Instead, they have chosen to parlay their fame into other opportunities that demand much of their time. It’s difficult to be critical of them for capitalizing on their celebrity status, but the window of opportunity in a sport like tennis is short, and not to take that opportunity to leave a legacy in the game may be something that they regret at a later age. Short of a radical re-dedication to tennis, I expect that the performances of the Williams Sisters in Melbourne will be a portent of things to come for them in 2006.
Other Thoughts on Week 1
· One benefit of the Williams sisters being out of the tournament is that ESPN2 won’t subject us to watching their matches round the clock. While I’m very appreciative that ESPN2 dedicates so much time to their coverage, it’s still overly provincial with regard to American tennis. A case in point was on Sunday evening when number 4 seed, David Nalbandian, was in a 5th set, yet ESPN2 chose to show us the beginning of the Taylor Dent match. Surely, the drama of a 5th set should trump the beginning of a match involving a mid-level American player – one who is not even good enough to play Davis Cup for the US. Decisions like that tend to infuriate me because they overestimate the desire of the tennis viewing public to see American tennis players only. The majority of people that tune into the Australian Open are interested in watching quality, dramatic tennis, not just a name. Of course, that notion flies in the face of convention for sports television programming today.
· While the comeback of Martina Hingis is a very nice story, ESPN2’s Tim Ryan committed some serious over-hyping on Sunday when he claimed that Hingis was “one of the game’s most popular champions.” Honestly, I erupted when he said this, as it was blatantly untrue. How popular was she in Paris during her French Open final loss to Steffi Graf? Not very. Because of some of her outlandish statements and occasional on-court antics, she was a more villainous champion than a popular one. If Ryan had referred to her as one of the game’s most respected champions, I would have been on board. Tennis fans have missed her in the last three years because of her brand of efficient and intelligent tennis (an extremely rare commodity on the WTA Tour), not because of popularity.
· Is there anyone left in the tournament who can challenge Roger Federer? Federer is playing brilliant tennis again and the majority of players that have troubled him in the past aren’t in Melbourne (Rafael Nadal, Andre Agassi, Marat Safin). David Nalbandian has had success with Federer in the past, most recently at the ATP Masters Cup in Shanghai, but the Swiss master looks to be in better form than he was in China.
· I miss Rafael Nadal at this tournament. His enthusiasm and competitiveness are magnetic. Brad Gilbert was dead on when he commented that the field was fortunate that Nadal wasn’t there bringing his relentless heavy spin to the high bouncing Rebound Ace courts. If the heat is causing the courts to play like clay, no one would benefit more from that than Rafa.
· It’s hard to believe, but I don’t hear anyone talking about Ivan Ljubicic. Aside from Federer and Nadal, no one had a better 2005 than the big Croat. If he wins his next match versus Thomas Johansson, he has a potential date with Andy Roddick in the quarterfinals and I expect Ljubicic to come through that and reach the semis. Federer v. Ljubicic final???
· Is it time for the Australian Open to consider a change in surface as well as in tournament dates? The extreme heat is one thing, but the Rebound Ace courts seem to magnify it. As someone who has had heat issues in the past, I feel for the players because the conditions become the driving factor in the quality of tennis. While some players are lauded for being extremely fit – Dominik Hrbaty for example – it’s not always about fitness. Body chemistry is an important part of how one deals with heat and hydration. Yet a change in the schedule could alleviate the problem. If the tournament were moved to March, the heat wouldn’t be a factor and the players would have ample time to prepare for the first Grand Slam of the year. The Australian Tennis Federation hasn’t been open to such a change so far.
Check for other Aussie Open thoughts throughout Week 2.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Peyton Manning - None Better
· How about that Peyton Manning? Have you ever seen a quarterback operate better under pressure? With such leadership skills? He manages the clock so efficiently at the end of the game and everyone seems to know his blocking assignments at all times. Seriously, who is a better teammate than this guy? Wouldn’t it be great if the Patriots could somehow finagle a trade for Manning? No? Oh…
· Putting aside the family tragedy that Tony Dungy has had to endure in the last few weeks, when I saw shots of him on TV during the Steelers game, he had that “deer in the headlights” look. It doesn’t look like he knows what to do in pressure situations. I know Ron Borges thinks he’s the best coach in the NFL, but I think something is missing from his overall makeup. His confused look can’t be inspiring to his team, can it? I read today that he wants to return next season, but is also mulling over retiring. Colts fans have to be hoping for the latter. Otherwise, they will be sure to endure another heart-wrenching playoff loss next season.
· I don’t normally make predictions, but what the hell, let’s go for it. I don’t even know what the spreads are and I don’t care. I’m picking Carolina over Seattle. I’m not sold on Seattle and Carolina has that look that they had two years ago. As for the AFC, I’ll take Denver over Pittsburgh, but this feels like a pick ‘em. I guess I'll go with home field as my rationale. How psyched is Denver that they won’t have to go to Indy to get pounded for the 3rd straight year?
· Jake Delhomme seems to be at his best in the playoffs, but I can’t stand his antics. He seems to yell and run like a madman after every big play. Doesn’t he know he is embarrassing himself? I know that not everyone can be the picture of poise that is Tom Brady, but that doesn’t mean you have to act like a total goof whenever something good happens on the field. Give us a break Jake.
· A-Rod’s playing for the Dominican in the World Baseball Classic (or whatever it's called)? Maybe? Huh? And Nomar’s playing for Mexico, right? Since Hideki Matsui isn’t playing for Japan, can he play for Canada?
· Does Nick Cafardo moonlight as an employment agent for Patriots assistant coaches? He must be the happiest guy in Boston today as one of his “clients”, Eric Mangini, landed the head coaching job with the New York Jets. Cafardo seems to have a special mission at the Boston Globe: (in your best robotic voice) “I must work with all Patriots assistant coaches and secure them promotions with other organizations!” I’m sure Mangini was waiting for that job advice that Cafardo so gleefully gave him in Monday’s Globe.
· Putting aside the family tragedy that Tony Dungy has had to endure in the last few weeks, when I saw shots of him on TV during the Steelers game, he had that “deer in the headlights” look. It doesn’t look like he knows what to do in pressure situations. I know Ron Borges thinks he’s the best coach in the NFL, but I think something is missing from his overall makeup. His confused look can’t be inspiring to his team, can it? I read today that he wants to return next season, but is also mulling over retiring. Colts fans have to be hoping for the latter. Otherwise, they will be sure to endure another heart-wrenching playoff loss next season.
· I don’t normally make predictions, but what the hell, let’s go for it. I don’t even know what the spreads are and I don’t care. I’m picking Carolina over Seattle. I’m not sold on Seattle and Carolina has that look that they had two years ago. As for the AFC, I’ll take Denver over Pittsburgh, but this feels like a pick ‘em. I guess I'll go with home field as my rationale. How psyched is Denver that they won’t have to go to Indy to get pounded for the 3rd straight year?
· Jake Delhomme seems to be at his best in the playoffs, but I can’t stand his antics. He seems to yell and run like a madman after every big play. Doesn’t he know he is embarrassing himself? I know that not everyone can be the picture of poise that is Tom Brady, but that doesn’t mean you have to act like a total goof whenever something good happens on the field. Give us a break Jake.
· A-Rod’s playing for the Dominican in the World Baseball Classic (or whatever it's called)? Maybe? Huh? And Nomar’s playing for Mexico, right? Since Hideki Matsui isn’t playing for Japan, can he play for Canada?
· Does Nick Cafardo moonlight as an employment agent for Patriots assistant coaches? He must be the happiest guy in Boston today as one of his “clients”, Eric Mangini, landed the head coaching job with the New York Jets. Cafardo seems to have a special mission at the Boston Globe: (in your best robotic voice) “I must work with all Patriots assistant coaches and secure them promotions with other organizations!” I’m sure Mangini was waiting for that job advice that Cafardo so gleefully gave him in Monday’s Globe.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
The Day After
The Patriots 2005-2006 season came to an end last night in a performance that was uncharacteristic for our perception of Patriots football. However this season has been different and the Patriots’ performance in Denver was a lurking possibility in my mind. Patriots fans were justifiably buoyant about the team’s chances entering the playoffs based on their manhandling of the last few opponents, save for Miami. Even with those improved performances, the offense didn’t seem to be as efficient at scoring points as in the previous two seasons, and the running game was ineffective. Could this team overcome that? Well, pummeling Jacksonville last week seemed to indicate that they could, but I think we all realized that the Denver Broncos wouldn’t roll over so easily.
Playoff games on the road can be a tough assignment especially when the venue is Denver. Most everyone discounted the first meeting this season between the two teams when the Broncos built a huge lead before letting New England back in the game because of the numerous players who didn’t play for the Pats. As last night’s game progressed, it became clear that one thing you couldn’t dismiss from the first encounter was Denver’s ability to put pressure on Tom Brady. Brady was hurried and hit throughout the contest and that took an effect. Even when New England handled the blitz better in the second half, Denver’s pressure was the catalyst in Brady’s intercepted pass in the end zone, which Champ Bailey returned for 100 yards. In the end, the Patriots self-destructed with offensive turnovers and poor special teams play, and these errors were committed by veterans of Super Bowl success. One stat that possibly predicted this outcome was Tom Brady’s Touchdown/Interception ratio on the road: 12 TDs and 12 INTs. Compare that with Brady’s split at home of 17/2 and you can see that the offense struggled away from Gillette Stadium.
Given some time to reflect on the overall season, I think Patriots fans will realize that this team did well to get as far as it did. With the memory of the dominating Patriots of 2004-2005 in mind, it’s been tough for fans not to confuse that team’s accomplishments with the reality of this season’s performances. That led to an overly optimistic view of what could transpire in this season’s playoffs. The fact is that with each season there is a new team; this year’s team is not equivalent to last year’s. What’s happened in past seasons is not as relevant as fans would like to think.
With that in mind, it is a little early to declare the Patriots dynasty or era over as Cris Carter on Yahoo and Dan Shaughnessy in the Boston Globe did today. I’m sure that is the fashionable stance to take, especially for a doomsayer like Shaughnessy, but it is not out of the realm of possibility that the Patriots come back next season as strong as ever, and go for a fourth Super Bowl in their last 6 seasons. The Patriots organization has proven to be effective at salary cap management, free agent evaluation, and coaching. There is no reason to think that this team can’t come back next season and be successful again. Let’s hope that 2005-2006 will just be a hiccup on the way to more championships.
Other Thoughts
· I’m watching the Indy – Pittsburgh game at the moment and I don’t know for whom I should root. Rooting for either team feels like rooting for the old Soviet hockey team. At this point (14-3 Pitt in the 3rd), the Steelers have looked better and they are pressuring Peyton Manning well, which of course is the key ingredient in holding the Colts offense in check.
· Is Seattle the real deal or not? I’m not yet convinced. I have only seen them play a couple of times this season, but they don’t look ready to win the Super Bowl to me. I’m also not positive that Matt Hasselbeck is one of the elite quarterbacks in the league. However, in the weak NFC, it’s certainly plausible that the Seahawks reach the big game in February.
Playoff games on the road can be a tough assignment especially when the venue is Denver. Most everyone discounted the first meeting this season between the two teams when the Broncos built a huge lead before letting New England back in the game because of the numerous players who didn’t play for the Pats. As last night’s game progressed, it became clear that one thing you couldn’t dismiss from the first encounter was Denver’s ability to put pressure on Tom Brady. Brady was hurried and hit throughout the contest and that took an effect. Even when New England handled the blitz better in the second half, Denver’s pressure was the catalyst in Brady’s intercepted pass in the end zone, which Champ Bailey returned for 100 yards. In the end, the Patriots self-destructed with offensive turnovers and poor special teams play, and these errors were committed by veterans of Super Bowl success. One stat that possibly predicted this outcome was Tom Brady’s Touchdown/Interception ratio on the road: 12 TDs and 12 INTs. Compare that with Brady’s split at home of 17/2 and you can see that the offense struggled away from Gillette Stadium.
Given some time to reflect on the overall season, I think Patriots fans will realize that this team did well to get as far as it did. With the memory of the dominating Patriots of 2004-2005 in mind, it’s been tough for fans not to confuse that team’s accomplishments with the reality of this season’s performances. That led to an overly optimistic view of what could transpire in this season’s playoffs. The fact is that with each season there is a new team; this year’s team is not equivalent to last year’s. What’s happened in past seasons is not as relevant as fans would like to think.
With that in mind, it is a little early to declare the Patriots dynasty or era over as Cris Carter on Yahoo and Dan Shaughnessy in the Boston Globe did today. I’m sure that is the fashionable stance to take, especially for a doomsayer like Shaughnessy, but it is not out of the realm of possibility that the Patriots come back next season as strong as ever, and go for a fourth Super Bowl in their last 6 seasons. The Patriots organization has proven to be effective at salary cap management, free agent evaluation, and coaching. There is no reason to think that this team can’t come back next season and be successful again. Let’s hope that 2005-2006 will just be a hiccup on the way to more championships.
Other Thoughts
· I’m watching the Indy – Pittsburgh game at the moment and I don’t know for whom I should root. Rooting for either team feels like rooting for the old Soviet hockey team. At this point (14-3 Pitt in the 3rd), the Steelers have looked better and they are pressuring Peyton Manning well, which of course is the key ingredient in holding the Colts offense in check.
· Is Seattle the real deal or not? I’m not yet convinced. I have only seen them play a couple of times this season, but they don’t look ready to win the Super Bowl to me. I’m also not positive that Matt Hasselbeck is one of the elite quarterbacks in the league. However, in the weak NFC, it’s certainly plausible that the Seahawks reach the big game in February.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Rose Bowl Thoughts
Some random thoughts on the Rose Bowl after letting it all sink in:
· The USC – Texas match up was one of the most highly anticipated college games that I can remember, and it lived up to the hype. Neither set of fans could get comfortable with their team’s lead at any point in the game – except when it was over.
· Was there any doubt that Vince Young was going to drive the Texas offense for a touchdown after the Longhorns defense held on 4th down? Some people have criticized the decision by the USC coaching staff to go for it on 4th and 2 with slightly more than 2 minutes to play. Pete Carroll’s response to that was “that’s the way we play”, and he’s right. That is the way USC played all year, but the sub-text to that decision was “we don’t want to give the ball back to Vince Young if we don’t have to.” Knowing that Vince Young was going to score made going for it on 4th down the right decision.
· Someone told me yesterday that the reason LenDale White had such a good game was that the Texas defense was so focused on Reggie Bush and the two of them were on the field at the same time. That’s actually not true. I watched a lot of SC games this year and the norm for Bush and White is that one is in the game, and the other is on the sideline. That philosophy held true on Wednesday night. Of course, there were times when White was in the backfield and Bush was split-out wide, but those were exceptions. LenDale White had a good game because USC’s run blocking up the middle was more effective than running to the outside. I’m almost certain that Bush was on the bench for each of White’s touchdown runs.
· Speaking of Reggie Bush, people seemed to be down on his performance in this game. Looking at the stats, Bush had a very good game, but I’m wondering if the public’s expectation of Bush is now based on the myriad of highlights shown on ESPN of Reggie breaking loose for long runs. It’s not realistic to expect the guy to run roughshod over the defense on every single play.
· Is Vince Young the next Michael Vick? I would argue that he is better. Vick’s running style may be more explosive and exciting, but Young is just as effective with the legs. Young differentiates himself from Vick in the passing department. His efficiency is better; his touch is better and he appears more comfortable in the pocket. At times during Wednesday’s game, it was comical to watch the USC defenders attempting to tackle Young. He appeared to be a man playing among boys, and that’s one of the signs of an elite athlete. I don’t think he’ll be able to make NFL defenders look that silly, but I do think he is an improvement on the Michael Vick prototype.
· As for Matt Leinart, I have mixed feelings on his performance in the Rose Bowl and how he will do at the next level. As for his game performance, I think he made 2 critical mental mistakes. The first came in the first half on the 4th and 1 play where Leinart attempted a QB sneak when he was not supposed to snap the ball. It was obvious to me that Texas was in the correct defense for a quarterback sneak, so I don’t know why Leinart didn’t pick that up. Too cocky from his successful goal-line sneak versus Notre Dame? Perhaps. The other mistake came on the final play of the game although you could attribute the failure on that play to inadequate coaching as well. With 8 seconds left and 2 plays required, the first one has to be quick. If the play isn’t there, then you throw the ball away quickly so that you can at least go for a Hail Mary on the final play. In the end, Leinart lost track of the clock and took too long to finish the play. You would expect someone of Leinart’s experience to handle this situation, but this also should have been an opportunity for a coach to clarify and simplify the objectives. Neither of those things happened.
· Is Leinart an NFL quarterback? When I watch him, I see Chad Pennington arm strength and average mobility. Leinart’s ball seems to float and that’s dangerous with the speed of NFL defensive backs. I guess he could be an average quarterback in the NFL, but I don’t expect much more than that. As we all know, a Heisman Trophy is no guarantee of NFL stardom – remember Gino Torretta.
· Overall, I thought the quality of the broadcast was high, but I think Keith Jackson showed his age. He made several uncharacteristic mistakes and perhaps they were attributable to his vantage point. I’ve done some football play-by-play, and it can be tough to get the call correct on the first take so I don’t want to be overly critical. Also, Jackson’s on my next installment of Sports Broadcasters so he is a favorite of mine.
· The USC – Texas match up was one of the most highly anticipated college games that I can remember, and it lived up to the hype. Neither set of fans could get comfortable with their team’s lead at any point in the game – except when it was over.
· Was there any doubt that Vince Young was going to drive the Texas offense for a touchdown after the Longhorns defense held on 4th down? Some people have criticized the decision by the USC coaching staff to go for it on 4th and 2 with slightly more than 2 minutes to play. Pete Carroll’s response to that was “that’s the way we play”, and he’s right. That is the way USC played all year, but the sub-text to that decision was “we don’t want to give the ball back to Vince Young if we don’t have to.” Knowing that Vince Young was going to score made going for it on 4th down the right decision.
· Someone told me yesterday that the reason LenDale White had such a good game was that the Texas defense was so focused on Reggie Bush and the two of them were on the field at the same time. That’s actually not true. I watched a lot of SC games this year and the norm for Bush and White is that one is in the game, and the other is on the sideline. That philosophy held true on Wednesday night. Of course, there were times when White was in the backfield and Bush was split-out wide, but those were exceptions. LenDale White had a good game because USC’s run blocking up the middle was more effective than running to the outside. I’m almost certain that Bush was on the bench for each of White’s touchdown runs.
· Speaking of Reggie Bush, people seemed to be down on his performance in this game. Looking at the stats, Bush had a very good game, but I’m wondering if the public’s expectation of Bush is now based on the myriad of highlights shown on ESPN of Reggie breaking loose for long runs. It’s not realistic to expect the guy to run roughshod over the defense on every single play.
· Is Vince Young the next Michael Vick? I would argue that he is better. Vick’s running style may be more explosive and exciting, but Young is just as effective with the legs. Young differentiates himself from Vick in the passing department. His efficiency is better; his touch is better and he appears more comfortable in the pocket. At times during Wednesday’s game, it was comical to watch the USC defenders attempting to tackle Young. He appeared to be a man playing among boys, and that’s one of the signs of an elite athlete. I don’t think he’ll be able to make NFL defenders look that silly, but I do think he is an improvement on the Michael Vick prototype.
· As for Matt Leinart, I have mixed feelings on his performance in the Rose Bowl and how he will do at the next level. As for his game performance, I think he made 2 critical mental mistakes. The first came in the first half on the 4th and 1 play where Leinart attempted a QB sneak when he was not supposed to snap the ball. It was obvious to me that Texas was in the correct defense for a quarterback sneak, so I don’t know why Leinart didn’t pick that up. Too cocky from his successful goal-line sneak versus Notre Dame? Perhaps. The other mistake came on the final play of the game although you could attribute the failure on that play to inadequate coaching as well. With 8 seconds left and 2 plays required, the first one has to be quick. If the play isn’t there, then you throw the ball away quickly so that you can at least go for a Hail Mary on the final play. In the end, Leinart lost track of the clock and took too long to finish the play. You would expect someone of Leinart’s experience to handle this situation, but this also should have been an opportunity for a coach to clarify and simplify the objectives. Neither of those things happened.
· Is Leinart an NFL quarterback? When I watch him, I see Chad Pennington arm strength and average mobility. Leinart’s ball seems to float and that’s dangerous with the speed of NFL defensive backs. I guess he could be an average quarterback in the NFL, but I don’t expect much more than that. As we all know, a Heisman Trophy is no guarantee of NFL stardom – remember Gino Torretta.
· Overall, I thought the quality of the broadcast was high, but I think Keith Jackson showed his age. He made several uncharacteristic mistakes and perhaps they were attributable to his vantage point. I’ve done some football play-by-play, and it can be tough to get the call correct on the first take so I don’t want to be overly critical. Also, Jackson’s on my next installment of Sports Broadcasters so he is a favorite of mine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
