Finally, I've managed to finish the next installment of my Sports Broadcasters list. Here’s a link to Part 1 from early December, and just to refresh your memory, I’m listing the broadcasters, for better or worse, who have affected my experience as a sports fan.
Keith Jackson – When I hear Keith Jackson’s voice, I automatically think College Football and I don’t believe I’m alone in that. Back in the ‘80s, it just wasn’t a college football game for me unless Keith Jackson was doing the play-by-play. His folksy, down-home approach was the perfect complement to the pageantry on the field. To be honest, I was shocked when I learned that he was from the state of Washington. I thought he was from SEC country for sure.
I think Jackson was at his best during the ‘70s and ‘80s with Frank Broyles and the ‘90s with Bob Griese. He’s had other partners in the broadcast booth, but I think he achieved a level of fluidity with these two that he didn’t reach with others.
A few years ago, Jackson announced that he would be cutting his schedule back and would do mostly West Coast games. That was a shame for college football fans, but perhaps the time has come for Jackson to consider the next step in his career. This year’s Rose Bowl was not his best performance for describing the action on the field, and my initial thought was that it was his age that was hindering his ability to see the play. Regardless, Keith Jackson is a broadcast legend and will not be forgotten.
Tony Tirado – Although Andres Cantor gets all the credit for his “Gooooooooooooooooool” calls in soccer, Tony Tirado was probably the first to introduce this internationally recognized term to American television via the Spanish International Network (SIN), the pre-cursor to Univision.
I was in high school when I first encountered Tirado on Saturday afternoons showing international soccer matches, an interest that had started with “Soccer Made in Germany” on PBS. My interest in the Spanish language was also high so watching the games served a dual purpose, but Tirado took care of the viewer who wasn’t fluent in Spanish. For periods of time during the matches, he would switch to English to give a brief summary of what he had been discussing in Spanish. Granted, most of what he said was false or inaccurate, but back then, who knew? It was an endearing thing to do and it made him stick out in my mind. That and the “Goooooooooool” call were his hallmarks in my book.
Later on, Tirado moved to Telemundo and Univision hired Andres Cantor who went on to dominate the Spanish language soccer broadcasting scene in the United States for the next 15 years.
Bud Collins – If there is a sport that owes more to a journalist/broadcaster than tennis owes to Bud Collins, I don’t know what it is. He is a legend in the game and it seems like he has been with the sport for a hundred years. Today, sportswriters are all over television, but back in the ‘60s things were different. Bud Collins was probably the first cross-over from newspaper journalist to television broadcaster when he worked for WGBH in Boston as a commentator for a tennis tournament in 1963. Collins described his first effort as “awful”, but the broadcast received a good response so a television career was launched.
The WGBH tennis series helped fuel the tennis boom in America beginning in the early ‘70s. While I don’t remember those broadcasts very well (I thought tennis was boring to watch, but I loved playing), I do recall my parents watching them often. My first recollection of Collins in the broadcast booth is from NBC's initial Breakfast at Wimbledon broadcast in 1979. Collins was joined on the telecast by his long-time partner, Donald Dell, and by host Dick Enberg, who was awful.
That was my first introduction to the characters of Bud’s world: Uncle Studley and Fingers Fortiscue. And of course, who could forget those signature pants that looked like they were made from some discarded, old drapes. Eventually, it seemed as if Bud’s eccentricities became less welcome to NBC and he has been relegated to the roll of sideline reporter since the late 1980’s.
Today, Collins is still a force in the tennis journalism world and here’s hoping that he sticks around for a long time to come.
Dan Kelly – Two of the most famous calls in hockey were courtesy of the legendary hockey broadcaster, Dan Kelly. The first is known to everyone in New England as Kelly was at the mic on May 10, 1970 when Bobby Orr scored the Stanley Cup winning goal in overtime versus the St. Louis Blues and then soared through the air in celebration. The audio of that goal is as special as the picture that adorns the walls of sports fans across North America.
The second important moment that Kelly described for viewers was Mario Lemieux’s game winning goal in Game 3 of the 1987 Canada Cup final versus the Soviet Union in what was possibly the greatest series of hockey games ever played. If you’re a hockey fan and you haven’t seen these games, then you haven’t seen hockey at it’s best.
Kelly’s style was solid, and his signature was “he shoots, he SCORES!” Who knew that someone could elevate that phrase to an art form – I can hear it in my head as I type this. Truly magical.
Kelly was hired to be the play-by-play man for the St. Louis Blues in 1968 and he continued with the team up until his death in 1989. He was posthumously inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame later that year. It’s safe to say that there hasn’t been anyone like him since.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Electronic Line Calling
The era of electronic line calling has arrived in tennis albeit on a selectively limited basis, and I for one, believe it is a good thing. The Nasdaq-100 open in Key Biscayne, Florida is the first official ATP and WTA tour event to employ the Hawk-Eye technology on its stadium courts which will allow players to “challenge” line calls. Players are allocated two challenges per set – sort of. If a player challenges and is correct, his number of available challenges remains at two. If a player challenges and is incorrect, the number of challenges is reduced by one. Players on non-stadium courts are still stuck with mere humans and won’t be able to challenge calls.
The tournament has been going on for just under a week and so far the players aren’t faring that well. Only 27% of player challenges have been correct although some challenges have clearly been done for novelty. Charles Bricker’s tennis blog for the South Florida Sun-Sentinel has some interesting quotes from James Blake on the new system. Blake thinks that some players may be challenging based on hope rather than confidence in a mistake. He also said that perhaps the players will realize that the lines-people are getting the calls right. I found that last comment interesting because if the lines-people were getting the calls right all of the time, the impetus for installing Hawk-Eye just wouldn’t be there. People are talking about using Hawk-Eye technology because some crucial line calls in big matches have been blown and television audiences around the world knew about it because of the technology. At the US Open, players were looking up to the television broadcast location to get an indication of whether a call was correct or not because they knew the TV guys had the definitive answer.
Surprisingly, the world’s number one men’s tennis player, Roger Federer, seems dead against the new challenge system. He prefers the human element and believes that throughout the course of a match and tournament, the calls will even out. This week in Key Biscayne, he has further railed against the new system because it encourages the fans to get involved by spurring on players to make challenges. All of Federer’s arguments seem weak to me. Clearly, the calls don’t even themselves out. One only need remember the 2004 US Open quarterfinal between Serena Williams and Jennifer Capriati to understand that this simply isn’t true. Just ask Serena – she got screwed at least 3 times in that match.
Federer’s latest objection to crowd involvement seems irrational as that is actually a benefit of the challenge system. Tennis needs crowds to be more engaged and this will help do it. Showing the replay on large video screens was a brilliant idea. It lets everyone in the stadium see the result of the challenge and feel a part of the process. I don’t think crowd involvement means the sport is headed down the path of becoming pro wrestling.
In Peter Bodo’s excellent Tennis World Blog, he posted an entry on the new system and I was surprised at the number of negative comments related to the use of Hawk-Eye. It seemed like three out of every four was against it. Most people were traditionalists, but a few disliked it because it can only be used on stadium courts and thus creates a class difference for players. Unfortunately, that argument doesn’t hold any water as there is already a class difference in tennis. From the Grand Slams to the Challenger circuit, the luxuries afforded players vary greatly. At the top of the game, players get to play on stadium courts and have Hawk-Eye. At the bottom, players might be lucky to have a ball boy on the court. Hawk-Eye is just another benefit of being a top player, at least for the moment. Once the technology becomes more streamlined, it’s certainly possible that it will get expanded to non-stadium courts, but that will probably take years.
The debut of the challenge system at the Hopman Cup in Australia this past January was very successful and that success has continued at the Nasdaq-100. So far, players have been wrong more often than right, but at least they have peace of mind for the next point. That alone might be the best argument from a player’s point of view.
The tournament has been going on for just under a week and so far the players aren’t faring that well. Only 27% of player challenges have been correct although some challenges have clearly been done for novelty. Charles Bricker’s tennis blog for the South Florida Sun-Sentinel has some interesting quotes from James Blake on the new system. Blake thinks that some players may be challenging based on hope rather than confidence in a mistake. He also said that perhaps the players will realize that the lines-people are getting the calls right. I found that last comment interesting because if the lines-people were getting the calls right all of the time, the impetus for installing Hawk-Eye just wouldn’t be there. People are talking about using Hawk-Eye technology because some crucial line calls in big matches have been blown and television audiences around the world knew about it because of the technology. At the US Open, players were looking up to the television broadcast location to get an indication of whether a call was correct or not because they knew the TV guys had the definitive answer.
Surprisingly, the world’s number one men’s tennis player, Roger Federer, seems dead against the new challenge system. He prefers the human element and believes that throughout the course of a match and tournament, the calls will even out. This week in Key Biscayne, he has further railed against the new system because it encourages the fans to get involved by spurring on players to make challenges. All of Federer’s arguments seem weak to me. Clearly, the calls don’t even themselves out. One only need remember the 2004 US Open quarterfinal between Serena Williams and Jennifer Capriati to understand that this simply isn’t true. Just ask Serena – she got screwed at least 3 times in that match.
Federer’s latest objection to crowd involvement seems irrational as that is actually a benefit of the challenge system. Tennis needs crowds to be more engaged and this will help do it. Showing the replay on large video screens was a brilliant idea. It lets everyone in the stadium see the result of the challenge and feel a part of the process. I don’t think crowd involvement means the sport is headed down the path of becoming pro wrestling.
In Peter Bodo’s excellent Tennis World Blog, he posted an entry on the new system and I was surprised at the number of negative comments related to the use of Hawk-Eye. It seemed like three out of every four was against it. Most people were traditionalists, but a few disliked it because it can only be used on stadium courts and thus creates a class difference for players. Unfortunately, that argument doesn’t hold any water as there is already a class difference in tennis. From the Grand Slams to the Challenger circuit, the luxuries afforded players vary greatly. At the top of the game, players get to play on stadium courts and have Hawk-Eye. At the bottom, players might be lucky to have a ball boy on the court. Hawk-Eye is just another benefit of being a top player, at least for the moment. Once the technology becomes more streamlined, it’s certainly possible that it will get expanded to non-stadium courts, but that will probably take years.
The debut of the challenge system at the Hopman Cup in Australia this past January was very successful and that success has continued at the Nasdaq-100. So far, players have been wrong more often than right, but at least they have peace of mind for the next point. That alone might be the best argument from a player’s point of view.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Indian Wells - Finals Weekend
Finals weekend at Indian Wells was on the anti-climactic side with only one truly competitive match out of the four that were played on Saturday and Sunday. Also disappointing was the fact that our reporter in California, Patrick, didn’t stick around for the last two days of the tournament, and instead returned to the frigid Northeast just in time to catch the women’s final on ESPN2. Apparently, the lavish budget we bestowed upon him wasn’t quite enough to secure two more nights at the local trailer park. Regardless, Patrick taped the Blake – Nadal semi-final and got up early on Sunday morning to watch it so that we could have his expert analysis on what transpired.
We spoke about the match late this morning and here are some highlights:
“I finally got one prediction right!” Patrick had been picking against Nadal for the whole tournament and felt vindicated finally.
“Blake took the ball early and kept Nadal on his heels.”
“Blake is as quick, if not quicker, than Nadal. That was a factor in this match.”
“Blake matches up well versus Nadal. Nadal can't dictate against him.”
Patrick and I were in agreement on why Blake seems to handle Nadal better than the rest of the boys on tour. He is intent on taking Nadal’s ball very early especially when Rafa leaves it short in the court. Blake’s flat forehand is probably the hardest forehand in the men’s game today and Nadal has a hard time chasing it down when Blake is hitting it from inside the baseline. With most players, Nadal is able to use his heavy topspin to give himself time to recover and get back in position - not so with Blake. James steps in and takes Nadal’s ball on the rise, and hits it through the court. His flat, powerful forehand negates the Nadal running game.
Blake’s ability to deal with Nadal’s heavy forehand is a lesson for the rest of the tour. It remains to be seen if they can implement it with the same success as Blake has, but certainly Roger Federer will take notice. The challenge for everyone will be to create the kind of pace that Blake is able to on his forehand. It’s going to be interesting to see how things go in Miami.
Patrick and I also discussed today’s final and we were both confident that Federer would emerge victorious. Neither one of us could see Federer allowing Blake to dictate points in the same way that he was able to versus Nadal. Of course, for the first five games of the final, Blake did exactly what we thought he couldn’t do. He was returning well and crushing his forehand for winners, but then something went awry in the sixth game. He basically broke himself with some careless errors and then was never really the same player after that.
Federer started hitting a lot of backhands up the line including some low sliced ones and this seemed to disturb Blake’s rhythm. Blake wasn’t getting into attacking positions with his forehand nearly as much as he was in the beginning of the match. Errors started to creep into his game and possibly the pressure of the moment affected him at times when he committed especially silly mistakes. Give Federer credit though – he’s the master of figuring out how to win matches. He constantly probes his opponent looking for weaknesses and he never lets him get comfortable. Once they reached the closing stages of the first set, you knew that a Federer clinic was in session. The final two sets were completely routine for the Mighty Fed.
As for the ladies final, there isn’t much to say about it. Maria Sharapova was the deserving winner over a tired Elena Dementieva in extremely windy conditions. Sharapova played the wind well and didn’t have to do much spectacular to come out on top.
The next big event for both tours is the Nasdaq in Miami. The women should have a stronger field than they did in IW as Venus Williams, Amelie Mauresmo and possibly Kim Clijsters will all be there. Serena Williams will not be there. Last week, she took time out in between Big Macs to announce that she wasn’t fully fit yet and that she was withdrawing from the Nasdaq. At this point, will anyone even miss her?
The men’s event will have some similar story lines with Indian Wells, namely the rise of James Blake, the descent of Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt, the saga of Andre Agassi, the determination of Rafael Nadal and the continued dominance of Roger Federer. Last year’s Nasdaq concluded with a dramatic five set final between Nadal and Federer and let’s hope for a repeat of that, at least in the drama category.
Well, that’s it for my Indian Well thoughts. Thanks to our reporter Patrick for his work throughout the week. Thank you for checking in and please continue to visit throughout the Nasdaq. I will also have Part 2 of my Team Canada – Soviet Union 1972 Summit Series soon, as I know a couple of you enjoyed Part 1.
We spoke about the match late this morning and here are some highlights:
“I finally got one prediction right!” Patrick had been picking against Nadal for the whole tournament and felt vindicated finally.
“Blake took the ball early and kept Nadal on his heels.”
“Blake is as quick, if not quicker, than Nadal. That was a factor in this match.”
“Blake matches up well versus Nadal. Nadal can't dictate against him.”
Patrick and I were in agreement on why Blake seems to handle Nadal better than the rest of the boys on tour. He is intent on taking Nadal’s ball very early especially when Rafa leaves it short in the court. Blake’s flat forehand is probably the hardest forehand in the men’s game today and Nadal has a hard time chasing it down when Blake is hitting it from inside the baseline. With most players, Nadal is able to use his heavy topspin to give himself time to recover and get back in position - not so with Blake. James steps in and takes Nadal’s ball on the rise, and hits it through the court. His flat, powerful forehand negates the Nadal running game.
Blake’s ability to deal with Nadal’s heavy forehand is a lesson for the rest of the tour. It remains to be seen if they can implement it with the same success as Blake has, but certainly Roger Federer will take notice. The challenge for everyone will be to create the kind of pace that Blake is able to on his forehand. It’s going to be interesting to see how things go in Miami.
Patrick and I also discussed today’s final and we were both confident that Federer would emerge victorious. Neither one of us could see Federer allowing Blake to dictate points in the same way that he was able to versus Nadal. Of course, for the first five games of the final, Blake did exactly what we thought he couldn’t do. He was returning well and crushing his forehand for winners, but then something went awry in the sixth game. He basically broke himself with some careless errors and then was never really the same player after that.
Federer started hitting a lot of backhands up the line including some low sliced ones and this seemed to disturb Blake’s rhythm. Blake wasn’t getting into attacking positions with his forehand nearly as much as he was in the beginning of the match. Errors started to creep into his game and possibly the pressure of the moment affected him at times when he committed especially silly mistakes. Give Federer credit though – he’s the master of figuring out how to win matches. He constantly probes his opponent looking for weaknesses and he never lets him get comfortable. Once they reached the closing stages of the first set, you knew that a Federer clinic was in session. The final two sets were completely routine for the Mighty Fed.
As for the ladies final, there isn’t much to say about it. Maria Sharapova was the deserving winner over a tired Elena Dementieva in extremely windy conditions. Sharapova played the wind well and didn’t have to do much spectacular to come out on top.
The next big event for both tours is the Nasdaq in Miami. The women should have a stronger field than they did in IW as Venus Williams, Amelie Mauresmo and possibly Kim Clijsters will all be there. Serena Williams will not be there. Last week, she took time out in between Big Macs to announce that she wasn’t fully fit yet and that she was withdrawing from the Nasdaq. At this point, will anyone even miss her?
The men’s event will have some similar story lines with Indian Wells, namely the rise of James Blake, the descent of Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt, the saga of Andre Agassi, the determination of Rafael Nadal and the continued dominance of Roger Federer. Last year’s Nasdaq concluded with a dramatic five set final between Nadal and Federer and let’s hope for a repeat of that, at least in the drama category.
Well, that’s it for my Indian Well thoughts. Thanks to our reporter Patrick for his work throughout the week. Thank you for checking in and please continue to visit throughout the Nasdaq. I will also have Part 2 of my Team Canada – Soviet Union 1972 Summit Series soon, as I know a couple of you enjoyed Part 1.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Indian Wells - Water Torture
Friday was a jam-packed day of exciting tennis at Indian Wells with the women’s semi-finals and two of the men’s quarterfinals being played. Our intrepid reporter Patrick was in IW for all of the matches and we’ll get to his view on the events of the day a little further on, but first a review of the matches.
The first match of the day was a women’s semi-final encounter between Martina Hingis and Maria Sharapova. These two had already played twice this year coming into yesterday’s match with each player winning once. Sharapova won the last encounter and it appeared that she carried that momentum into this match as she handled Hingis comfortably 6-3, 6-3. Even though she lost on the day, Martina has to be happy with her progress on her return to the tour as she has proved to everyone that she’s a legitimate contender for titles. I’m very curious to see how she matches up with the top ladies in the upcoming clay court season in Europe.
As for Sharapova, she hasn’t won a tournament since the first half of 2005 so her motivation for winning in IW is high. She played extremely well versus Hingis and was simply too aggressive and powerful for the Swiss Miss.
The other women’s semi-final was between Elena Dementieva and 2006 Australian Open finalist, Justine Henin-Hardenne. Henin-Hardenne started off the match on fire and quickly broke Dementieva to take the lead in the first set. The match looked like it wasn’t going to be too competitive, so I decided to head for the gym and work out. I returned home over 90 minutes later to learn that not only was the match still going on, it was only in the second set! Henin-Hardenne was leading 6-2, 5-2 at one point, but it was now 5-5 in the second.
Give Dementieva credit – she never gives up and she’s a tremendous fighter. She’s like water torture on her opponents, and I mean that in a good way. She gets everything back in play and she’s relentless (drip…drip…drip). Her style of play forces her opponents to do something extra with the ball and that leads to more winners and more errors. If the number of errors starts to outnumber the winners, then Dementieva has her opponent right where she wants her. This is clearly what happened yesterday. Henin-Hardenne started playing it safe late in the second and that’s not her game. She’s at her best when she’s forcing the play and dictating to her opponent. Dementieva had gotten to her like a wrestler with a sleeper hold. She choked the aggressiveness out of Justine and laid her down to sleep. Elena won the final two sets 7-5, 7-5.
Of course, I wasn’t disappointed with the result as my membership dues for the JHH fan club are long past due, and I always enjoy her being forced to swallow the bitter pill of defeat, even if it does give her a tummy-ache.
The other two matches of the day were the remaining quarter-finals on the men’s side. First up were James Blake and Igor Andreev, the Russian conqueror of Andy Roddick. I only saw the last couple of games of this match and was impressed with the power of the forehands. Blake’s game has really taken off and one reason for that is renewed confidence in his backhand. He can return effectively off that side and he’s far more consistent in rallies with it than he used to be. Andreev wasn’t consistent enough with his forehand during the match to trouble Blake. With the victory, James enters the top 10 for the first time in his career.
The match that I most anticipated was the final one of the day between Rafael Nadal and Marcos Baghdatis. As the resident Rafael Nadal Kool-Aid drinker, this match-up worried me. Baghdatis is a quick player with a lethal forehand. The key for Rafa would be to dictate play as much as possible and keep the ball up high on the Cypriot’s backhand.
After the first game of the match, I was no longer worried. Although it was a long game, Nadal eventually held and he was playing the points exactly as I expected he would. Baghdatis would show moments of brilliance in the first set, but he couldn’t sustain it long enough to turn the match. At the end of the first set, Nadal came back from 0-30 on Baghdatis’ serve to win the set. He never lost another game as the Aussie Open finalist had no answers for the Raging Bull’s hustle and determination.
The semi-final between Blake and Nadal should be a great match. Blake handled Nadal fairly well in New York at the US Open winning in four sets, but that court was a lot quicker than the stadium court in Indian Wells. That fact will help Nadal today, but it doesn’t mean he’ll win. No player on the ATP Tour is riding the confidence wave right now like James Blake is and he’s going to be tough to beat. Unfortunately for tennis fans, the match won’t be broadcast live as ESPN has commitments to the Women’s NCAA Basketball tournament today. ESPN2 will be showing the best men’s semi-final at 2:30 am EST on Saturday evening/Sunday morning. I bet they show Blake – Nadal. Another option is to sign up for ATP Master Series TV at the Pacific Life Open website. It’s free this week and it should have match highlights loaded up shortly after the completion of each semi-final.
The Patrick Files
Our man in California called last night just after 10 pm Eastern time. I was getting a little worried about our correspondent as we had not heard from him in over 24 hours, and I was concerned that something went awry at the Federer - Ljubicic after-party that our boy most certainly crashed. Nevertheless, all seemed to be going well in IW and Patrick was just settling in for the Nadal – Baghdatis match when we spoke with him. We had last spoken just before the Federer – Ljubicic match, so we’ll begin with that.
Federer v. Ljubicic: “Best display of tennis I have ever seen. Federer made Ljubicic look like a high school kid”. We talked about Ljubicic’s quote that he sees himself as a top 5 player, but that doesn’t mean he’s close to Federer. Ljubo thinks that Nadal is the only one who can challenge the Mighty Fed and that’s only because he is a lefty. The Kool-Aid drinker in me didn’t entirely agree with that quote as there are plenty of leftys on tour who haven’t phased Federer, but there is an element of truth to it. Federer has now played two very clean matches in a row and he should have no trouble with Paradorn Srichaphan of Thailand. By the way, it’s nice to see the big Thai playing well again.
Martina Hingis v. Maria Sharapova: “Hingis simply couldn’t handle Sharapova’s power.” Just for the record, there’s no truth to the rumor that our reporter was the one who yelled out “Martina, she’s getting tired” in the second set. At least I hope that there is no truth to it as I just started it.
James Blake v. Igor Andreev: As I’m writing this, I don’t think we discussed this match. Oh well – sorry Mom.
Elena Dementieva v. Justine Henin- Hardenne: “I was really impressed with Dementieva. I was surprised at how big she was. I chatted up Henin-Hardenne’s coach, Carlos Rodriguez, during the match. He told me that the only guy he goes to watch on the men’s tour is Federer (Editor’s Note: do you see the Federer bias in our reporter?). I told him that his game plan for the Australian Open final versus Mauresmo was crap.”
Rafael Nadal v. Marcos Baghdatis (preview): “I think Baghdatis is going to take Nadal out.” Once again, our man’s pro-Federer, anti-Nadal bias clouded his ability to analyze this one. I have to think that Patrick will be a little more impressed with Nadal after last night’s match than he was previously. However, my guess is that he will be picking Blake in today’s semi-final.
Enjoy the women’s final and we’ll check back in again tomorrow and/or Monday for a tournament re-cap.
The first match of the day was a women’s semi-final encounter between Martina Hingis and Maria Sharapova. These two had already played twice this year coming into yesterday’s match with each player winning once. Sharapova won the last encounter and it appeared that she carried that momentum into this match as she handled Hingis comfortably 6-3, 6-3. Even though she lost on the day, Martina has to be happy with her progress on her return to the tour as she has proved to everyone that she’s a legitimate contender for titles. I’m very curious to see how she matches up with the top ladies in the upcoming clay court season in Europe.
As for Sharapova, she hasn’t won a tournament since the first half of 2005 so her motivation for winning in IW is high. She played extremely well versus Hingis and was simply too aggressive and powerful for the Swiss Miss.
The other women’s semi-final was between Elena Dementieva and 2006 Australian Open finalist, Justine Henin-Hardenne. Henin-Hardenne started off the match on fire and quickly broke Dementieva to take the lead in the first set. The match looked like it wasn’t going to be too competitive, so I decided to head for the gym and work out. I returned home over 90 minutes later to learn that not only was the match still going on, it was only in the second set! Henin-Hardenne was leading 6-2, 5-2 at one point, but it was now 5-5 in the second.
Give Dementieva credit – she never gives up and she’s a tremendous fighter. She’s like water torture on her opponents, and I mean that in a good way. She gets everything back in play and she’s relentless (drip…drip…drip). Her style of play forces her opponents to do something extra with the ball and that leads to more winners and more errors. If the number of errors starts to outnumber the winners, then Dementieva has her opponent right where she wants her. This is clearly what happened yesterday. Henin-Hardenne started playing it safe late in the second and that’s not her game. She’s at her best when she’s forcing the play and dictating to her opponent. Dementieva had gotten to her like a wrestler with a sleeper hold. She choked the aggressiveness out of Justine and laid her down to sleep. Elena won the final two sets 7-5, 7-5.
Of course, I wasn’t disappointed with the result as my membership dues for the JHH fan club are long past due, and I always enjoy her being forced to swallow the bitter pill of defeat, even if it does give her a tummy-ache.
The other two matches of the day were the remaining quarter-finals on the men’s side. First up were James Blake and Igor Andreev, the Russian conqueror of Andy Roddick. I only saw the last couple of games of this match and was impressed with the power of the forehands. Blake’s game has really taken off and one reason for that is renewed confidence in his backhand. He can return effectively off that side and he’s far more consistent in rallies with it than he used to be. Andreev wasn’t consistent enough with his forehand during the match to trouble Blake. With the victory, James enters the top 10 for the first time in his career.
The match that I most anticipated was the final one of the day between Rafael Nadal and Marcos Baghdatis. As the resident Rafael Nadal Kool-Aid drinker, this match-up worried me. Baghdatis is a quick player with a lethal forehand. The key for Rafa would be to dictate play as much as possible and keep the ball up high on the Cypriot’s backhand.
After the first game of the match, I was no longer worried. Although it was a long game, Nadal eventually held and he was playing the points exactly as I expected he would. Baghdatis would show moments of brilliance in the first set, but he couldn’t sustain it long enough to turn the match. At the end of the first set, Nadal came back from 0-30 on Baghdatis’ serve to win the set. He never lost another game as the Aussie Open finalist had no answers for the Raging Bull’s hustle and determination.
The semi-final between Blake and Nadal should be a great match. Blake handled Nadal fairly well in New York at the US Open winning in four sets, but that court was a lot quicker than the stadium court in Indian Wells. That fact will help Nadal today, but it doesn’t mean he’ll win. No player on the ATP Tour is riding the confidence wave right now like James Blake is and he’s going to be tough to beat. Unfortunately for tennis fans, the match won’t be broadcast live as ESPN has commitments to the Women’s NCAA Basketball tournament today. ESPN2 will be showing the best men’s semi-final at 2:30 am EST on Saturday evening/Sunday morning. I bet they show Blake – Nadal. Another option is to sign up for ATP Master Series TV at the Pacific Life Open website. It’s free this week and it should have match highlights loaded up shortly after the completion of each semi-final.
The Patrick Files
Our man in California called last night just after 10 pm Eastern time. I was getting a little worried about our correspondent as we had not heard from him in over 24 hours, and I was concerned that something went awry at the Federer - Ljubicic after-party that our boy most certainly crashed. Nevertheless, all seemed to be going well in IW and Patrick was just settling in for the Nadal – Baghdatis match when we spoke with him. We had last spoken just before the Federer – Ljubicic match, so we’ll begin with that.
Federer v. Ljubicic: “Best display of tennis I have ever seen. Federer made Ljubicic look like a high school kid”. We talked about Ljubicic’s quote that he sees himself as a top 5 player, but that doesn’t mean he’s close to Federer. Ljubo thinks that Nadal is the only one who can challenge the Mighty Fed and that’s only because he is a lefty. The Kool-Aid drinker in me didn’t entirely agree with that quote as there are plenty of leftys on tour who haven’t phased Federer, but there is an element of truth to it. Federer has now played two very clean matches in a row and he should have no trouble with Paradorn Srichaphan of Thailand. By the way, it’s nice to see the big Thai playing well again.
Martina Hingis v. Maria Sharapova: “Hingis simply couldn’t handle Sharapova’s power.” Just for the record, there’s no truth to the rumor that our reporter was the one who yelled out “Martina, she’s getting tired” in the second set. At least I hope that there is no truth to it as I just started it.
James Blake v. Igor Andreev: As I’m writing this, I don’t think we discussed this match. Oh well – sorry Mom.
Elena Dementieva v. Justine Henin- Hardenne: “I was really impressed with Dementieva. I was surprised at how big she was. I chatted up Henin-Hardenne’s coach, Carlos Rodriguez, during the match. He told me that the only guy he goes to watch on the men’s tour is Federer (Editor’s Note: do you see the Federer bias in our reporter?). I told him that his game plan for the Australian Open final versus Mauresmo was crap.”
Rafael Nadal v. Marcos Baghdatis (preview): “I think Baghdatis is going to take Nadal out.” Once again, our man’s pro-Federer, anti-Nadal bias clouded his ability to analyze this one. I have to think that Patrick will be a little more impressed with Nadal after last night’s match than he was previously. However, my guess is that he will be picking Blake in today’s semi-final.
Enjoy the women’s final and we’ll check back in again tomorrow and/or Monday for a tournament re-cap.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Indian Wells - Collision Course
Both the WTA Tour and the ATP Tour are in Indian Wells this week for one of the two big hardcourt events of the American Spring season. Behind Enemy Lines has been following the tournament closely both on TV and via the Internet, and we also have a correspondent in California giving us first hand accounts of various matches and other happenings at the tournament site.
Thus far, the tournament has had some entertaining matches and high profile upsets. Andy Roddick continues his disappointing ride in 2006 with a third set implosion against Russian Igor Andreev that resulted in a 6-4, 6-7, 6-1 loss. Roddick hasn’t come close to winning a tournament this year and all of his losses have been to players ranked outside of the top 25. Changing coaches hasn’t helped his confidence nor his tactics. For some strange reason, he is still trying to rally from four feet behind the baseline. With his game, he won’t be successful from that position on the court.
Lleyton Hewitt is another player with disappointing results in 2006 and he’s sliding down the rankings. Hewitt was toppled by up-and-comer Thomas Berdych of the Czech Republic, and he’ll most likely drop out of the top 10 next week.
Martina Hingis’ comeback continues to move forward and she’s already earned a semi-final berth in Indian Wells. Her fourth round victory over Lindsay Davenport showed that she can certainly compete with the women in the top 5. Hingis will meet Maria Sharapova next and she’s 1-1 with her this year.
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal appear to be on a collision course to meet in the final. Federer was shaky against long-time nemesis from the juniors, Olivier Rochus, but he pulled it out in 3. Roger was far more dominating yesterday in his encounter with Richard Gasquet. I watched the highlights on ATP Master Series TV (free this week for Indian Wells) via the Pacific Life Open website, and Federer’s shot making was devastating. Gasquet beat the Swiss master at Monte Carlo last year, but didn’t come close to replicating that performance yesterday.
Nadal has quietly moved through the draw with straight set victories and will next face this year’s Australian Open finalist, Marcos Baghdatis. This should be a very interesting match-up. Baghdatis is just as quick as Nadal, but the key will be, as it is for any right hander playing Nadal, how he handles hitting high backhands off of Rafa’s topspin forehand. Sebastien Grosjean didn’t do very well with that shot yesterday and he went down weakly to the world’s number 2.
There’s been some speculation in the blogosphere that Federer doesn’t like playing Nadal specifically because his inside-out forehand weapon is blunted versus the Spaniard because it goes into Nadal’s forehand. If the two men advance to the final to meet each other for the second time in three weeks, I’m very interested to see what Federer tries to do tactically. He’s 1-3 versus Nadal and probably should be 0-4.
As stated earlier, we have a buddy, Patrick, in Indian Wells this week and he’s been checking in with us a couple of times a day to give us the lowdown. Before getting into Patrick’s take on various things, we should disclose the fact our correspondent is a Federer fan. In fact, fan may not be a strong enough word to describe Patrick’s devotion to the world’s number one. Worshipper is probably more appropriate. With that in mind, let’s recap some of our conversations from the last few days (in all cases, I’m either paraphrasing these conversations or making them up entirely).
· Andre Agassi v. Tommy Haas: Patrick called me from the stadium just as the match was starting. I could hear the crowd getting revved up for Agassi. Apparently, he is viewing from a luxury box and is about 40 feet from the players. The next day, we talked about Agassi’s new skin-tight muscle shirt. I didn’t think it was a good look for Agassi and I don’t think we’ll see it again. We also discussed Agassi’s collapse at 5-4, 40-15 in the first set. Patrick gave Haas credit for making Agassi work harder in that game. Agassi pressed and made errors. After that, Agassi continued to make errors throughout the second set and Haas sailed through.
· Olivier Rochus v. Roger Federer: This was a bit of a rough outing for the number 1 seed and it may have all started when Patrick’s cell phone went off early in the first set. That elicited an icy stare from the mighty Federer and probably shattered all of Patrick’s dreams of hanging out with his hero after the match. After Rochus won the first set, Patrick vacated the stadium and called me. He was distraught with his hero’s performance and his own possible contribution to it. Fleeing the stadium was the best thing he could do for Roger’s karma as Fed was shanking forehands all over the place. Once Patrick left, Federer righted the ship and won in three.
· Rafael Nadal v. Sebastien Grosjean: Going into this match, our correspondent thought Nadal would have a tough time with the Frenchman. That turned out to be a bad prediction. Nadal rolled through Grosjean, breaking him 5 times in the process. Patrick was surprised at how little fight Grosjean displayed. Our man in Indian Wells thinks that Baghdatis will give Nadal a sterner test in the next round. I think he’s right.
· Andy Roddick v. Igor Andreev: “Andreev simply outplayed Roddick. He’s got a huge forehand and a better backhand.”
· Today: Patrick went over to La Quinta to watch Federer practice before he meets Ivan Ljubicic in the quarters. Needless to say, our boy was impressed. The highlight of the practice session was when Federer’s coach, Tony Roche, winked at Patrick.
· On the tournament overall: “Indian Wells is great. The tournament facility is nice and not too crowded. I would definitely recommend coming to this tournament next year.” There’s a good chance that we’ll follow that suggestion next year.
· James Blake v. Tommy Haas: “Blake was the most impressive player so far. He was crushing his down the line forehand and Haas couldn’t handle it. Haas would hit a huge forehand and Blake would hit it back harder.” James Blake has a dangerous game on hard courts and he’s got a lot of confidence right now, so the top guys will have to be at their best when playing him. Remember how Blake handled Nadal at the US Open last fall?
That’s all we’ve got on Indian Wells at the moment. We’ll check in again sometime over the next few days with some more pearls of wisdom from our man Patrick in CA.
Thus far, the tournament has had some entertaining matches and high profile upsets. Andy Roddick continues his disappointing ride in 2006 with a third set implosion against Russian Igor Andreev that resulted in a 6-4, 6-7, 6-1 loss. Roddick hasn’t come close to winning a tournament this year and all of his losses have been to players ranked outside of the top 25. Changing coaches hasn’t helped his confidence nor his tactics. For some strange reason, he is still trying to rally from four feet behind the baseline. With his game, he won’t be successful from that position on the court.
Lleyton Hewitt is another player with disappointing results in 2006 and he’s sliding down the rankings. Hewitt was toppled by up-and-comer Thomas Berdych of the Czech Republic, and he’ll most likely drop out of the top 10 next week.
Martina Hingis’ comeback continues to move forward and she’s already earned a semi-final berth in Indian Wells. Her fourth round victory over Lindsay Davenport showed that she can certainly compete with the women in the top 5. Hingis will meet Maria Sharapova next and she’s 1-1 with her this year.
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal appear to be on a collision course to meet in the final. Federer was shaky against long-time nemesis from the juniors, Olivier Rochus, but he pulled it out in 3. Roger was far more dominating yesterday in his encounter with Richard Gasquet. I watched the highlights on ATP Master Series TV (free this week for Indian Wells) via the Pacific Life Open website, and Federer’s shot making was devastating. Gasquet beat the Swiss master at Monte Carlo last year, but didn’t come close to replicating that performance yesterday.
Nadal has quietly moved through the draw with straight set victories and will next face this year’s Australian Open finalist, Marcos Baghdatis. This should be a very interesting match-up. Baghdatis is just as quick as Nadal, but the key will be, as it is for any right hander playing Nadal, how he handles hitting high backhands off of Rafa’s topspin forehand. Sebastien Grosjean didn’t do very well with that shot yesterday and he went down weakly to the world’s number 2.
There’s been some speculation in the blogosphere that Federer doesn’t like playing Nadal specifically because his inside-out forehand weapon is blunted versus the Spaniard because it goes into Nadal’s forehand. If the two men advance to the final to meet each other for the second time in three weeks, I’m very interested to see what Federer tries to do tactically. He’s 1-3 versus Nadal and probably should be 0-4.
As stated earlier, we have a buddy, Patrick, in Indian Wells this week and he’s been checking in with us a couple of times a day to give us the lowdown. Before getting into Patrick’s take on various things, we should disclose the fact our correspondent is a Federer fan. In fact, fan may not be a strong enough word to describe Patrick’s devotion to the world’s number one. Worshipper is probably more appropriate. With that in mind, let’s recap some of our conversations from the last few days (in all cases, I’m either paraphrasing these conversations or making them up entirely).
· Andre Agassi v. Tommy Haas: Patrick called me from the stadium just as the match was starting. I could hear the crowd getting revved up for Agassi. Apparently, he is viewing from a luxury box and is about 40 feet from the players. The next day, we talked about Agassi’s new skin-tight muscle shirt. I didn’t think it was a good look for Agassi and I don’t think we’ll see it again. We also discussed Agassi’s collapse at 5-4, 40-15 in the first set. Patrick gave Haas credit for making Agassi work harder in that game. Agassi pressed and made errors. After that, Agassi continued to make errors throughout the second set and Haas sailed through.
· Olivier Rochus v. Roger Federer: This was a bit of a rough outing for the number 1 seed and it may have all started when Patrick’s cell phone went off early in the first set. That elicited an icy stare from the mighty Federer and probably shattered all of Patrick’s dreams of hanging out with his hero after the match. After Rochus won the first set, Patrick vacated the stadium and called me. He was distraught with his hero’s performance and his own possible contribution to it. Fleeing the stadium was the best thing he could do for Roger’s karma as Fed was shanking forehands all over the place. Once Patrick left, Federer righted the ship and won in three.
· Rafael Nadal v. Sebastien Grosjean: Going into this match, our correspondent thought Nadal would have a tough time with the Frenchman. That turned out to be a bad prediction. Nadal rolled through Grosjean, breaking him 5 times in the process. Patrick was surprised at how little fight Grosjean displayed. Our man in Indian Wells thinks that Baghdatis will give Nadal a sterner test in the next round. I think he’s right.
· Andy Roddick v. Igor Andreev: “Andreev simply outplayed Roddick. He’s got a huge forehand and a better backhand.”
· Today: Patrick went over to La Quinta to watch Federer practice before he meets Ivan Ljubicic in the quarters. Needless to say, our boy was impressed. The highlight of the practice session was when Federer’s coach, Tony Roche, winked at Patrick.
· On the tournament overall: “Indian Wells is great. The tournament facility is nice and not too crowded. I would definitely recommend coming to this tournament next year.” There’s a good chance that we’ll follow that suggestion next year.
· James Blake v. Tommy Haas: “Blake was the most impressive player so far. He was crushing his down the line forehand and Haas couldn’t handle it. Haas would hit a huge forehand and Blake would hit it back harder.” James Blake has a dangerous game on hard courts and he’s got a lot of confidence right now, so the top guys will have to be at their best when playing him. Remember how Blake handled Nadal at the US Open last fall?
That’s all we’ve got on Indian Wells at the moment. We’ll check in again sometime over the next few days with some more pearls of wisdom from our man Patrick in CA.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Canada - Soviet Series 1972 - Part 1
File this under “Who cares”, but in anticipation of the Olympic Hockey tournament, I recently read "Cold War" by Roy McSkimming, which is a review of the Team Canada – Soviet Hockey Series from 1972. I’ve read several books on this important chapter in Canadian Hockey history, and this one got me intrigued enough to invest in the 4 DVD set of the eight game series. I had seen some highlights of these games over the years, but I had never seen the games in their entirety.
For some background, the 1972 series between Canada and the Soviet Union was a groundbreaking event because it was the first time that Canada’s NHL stars would meet the world’s foremost “amateur” side, the Soviet hockey machine, and it occurred at a time when the West and the Soviet sphere of influence were diametrically opposed. The series consisted of 8 games – 4 in Canada and 4 in the USSR. The Canadian press and public were confident that their stars would have their way with the Soviets on the ice and that an 8-0 sweep was possible. The players weren’t so sure and the scheduling of the event meant that they wouldn’t be in the best possible shape as the series started in early September, several weeks before NHL camps were scheduled to open.
At this point, I’ve watched the first 4 games of the Series, which were played in Canada and it was very interesting viewing. With that, let’s dive into Game 1.
Game 1 – Montreal Forum
· It’s nice to see a game from the Forum again – that was such a special building with so many historic moments.
· Our play-by-play announcer is Foster Hewitt, who was known in Canada as the father of hockey play-by-play. Hewitt is calling the game for both radio and TV simultaneously which I believe is one reason why hockey announcers on television today call the game as if they are working radio. It all goes back to Hewitt calling games for Hockey Night in Canada on both radio and TV.
· A lot of the Team Canada stars bring back memories for me – several are Hall of Famers: Phil Esposito, Tony Esposito, Ken Dryden, Bobby Clarke, Frank Mahovolich, Yvan Cournoyer, Brad Park, etc.
· Bobby Orr is not playing although he is on the roster. Orr is still recovering from knee surgery at this point. Bobby Hull isn’t playing either. He just signed with the Winnipeg Jets of the newly formed WHA and he has become persona non grata in this NHL endorsed event.
· Bruins fans will be very familiar with Team Canada’s head coach – Harry Sinden.
· The game’s just started and the Canadians have scored after 30 seconds. That will only fuel the over confidence of the Canadian fans and quite possibly some of the players.
· Canada’s up 2-0 after 7 minutes. The Soviets look a little tight at this point although they are starting to settle into their passing game.
· Anyone who has seen the movie Miracle will recognize the name of Boris Mikhailov, the so-called best Soviet player in 1980. I’m not sure where the movie got that from as Mikhailov was a good player, but by 1980 he was well past his best and was on the downside of his career. You would never know that from the actor that portrayed him in the movie. Nevertheless, Boris is playing in this series and he’s definitely one of the key contributors for the USSR.
· Soviets score their first. Canadians are starting to tire. They don’t look like they’re in shape yet and the Russians are starting to come at them in waves.
· At the end of one period, it’s tied 2-2, but the Soviets have turned this game in their favor.
· This is the first time I’ve heard a game called by Foster Hewitt, and with all due respect, he’s not in mid-season form either. He’s mispronouncing “Cournoyer” and the Soviet goalie “Tretiak”. He’s saying “Tretriak” instead. It’s not a good performance.
· The audio from this game is a little off. There was a 7 minute gap at one point and at other times the quality is poor. I read that these tapes were only re-discovered in 1998 and have been re-mastered as much as possible based on the quality of the tapes.
· Great quote – Team Canada defenseman Gary Bergman asked Brad Park after the first period what he thought. Park’s response: “We’re in big trouble.”
· Soviets really have it clicking in the second period. At this point, the Canadians have to be ruing the fact that they have taken this team lightly. The Soviets have been training together for months/years and the Canadians only got together a few weeks ago. It’s not surprising they are getting dominated physically.
· It’s 4-2 for the CCCP.
· Canada gets one back and is really energized as they try and tie the score. They have several chances, but the Soviets score again to end the threat. They score twice more to win the game 7-3. That’s pretty humbling for the NHLers.
Game 2 – Toronto Maple Leaf Gardens
· Another game and another building no longer used by NHL clubs.
· I forgot to mention this earlier, but there’s a disturbing production note about these broadcasts. Every time a player starts to take a shot on goal, the camera angle shown to the viewer is changed to one that is a close up on the net. I definitely remember this from the 70’s. Watching it now is a little jarring and I don’t like it at all. The viewer loses perspective when the switch in angle is done.
· Team Canada has made some changes for this game. Tony Esposito replaces Ken Dryden in goal. Dryden was decidedly shaky in Game 1. A couple of muscle guys are added to the lineup including former Bruin, Wayne Cashman. By the way, did Cashman ever score a goal with his stick? It seemed to me that he kicked all his goals in the net.
· Phil Esposito is easily Canada’s best player and their clear leader. I didn’t realize what a good passer he was.
· This game belongs to the Esposito brothers and the Mahovolich brothers. Tony is spectacular in goal and Phil scores Canada’s first. Frank and Peter Mahovolich each score a goal to help secure a 4- 1 Canada win.
· Team Canada was far more energized in Game 2. Soviets weren’t quite as sharp as they were in Montreal.
Game 3 – Winnipeg Arena – Series tied 1-1
· Every time I see a game from the Winnipeg Arena, I get a kick out of the huge portrait of Queen Elizabeth that hangs at one end of the arena. There must be some significance to why that picture hangs there and not in the arenas of other provinces, but I haven’t bothered to research it.
· The production quality of the Toronto broadcast was much better than the one from Montreal. This one is a step back, but it’s still better than Game 1.
· Both teams played well in this game and put on a good show for the fans. The Canadians were buoyed by their performance in Toronto and the Soviets made some adjustments to get themselves back in gear. The game ends in a tie which seems a fair result.
· The series stands at 1-1-1, which is a long way from the 8-0 sweep that many Canadians had predicted. Team Canada has to win the 4th game in Vancouver to win the series in Canada before the scene shifts to Moscow for the final 4 games.
Game 4 – Vancouver Pacific Coliseum – Series stands at 1-1-1
· Ken Dryden is back in goal for Canada after Tony Esposito played in games 3 and 4. Dryden was extremely shaky in Game 1 and it’s a little surprising to see him in the net again.
· In the first period, the Canadians look awful and the Soviets are skating and passing well. The USSR goes up 2-0 and you can hear some boos from the fans. On the days between games, the fans and press have been extremely critical of Team Canada’s performance in the series thus far. Based on that, it’s not surprising that the boo-birds have made an appearance in Vancouver.
· The Canadian performance is reminiscent of Game 1 in Montreal. They look tired and are not playing at all like a team. Dryden actually looks worse than he did in Game 1. He is so nervous every time the puck comes near him. It’s surprising that he only lets in four goals.
· The final score of the game is 4-1 although it could have been much worse. The score somewhat belies the dominant performance of the Soviets in this game.
· The most newsworthy event of this game is the post-game on-ice interview with Phil Esposito. He’s incensed that the team is being booed by the fans and criticized by the press, when they are doing their best and playing for their country. One factor in the criticism of the players is that many of them earn their living in the United States and that somehow has affected their love for their country. Esposito addresses that topic too and states that the players love their country and wouldn’t be playing in this series if they didn’t. Many of the players point to Esposito’s statements as the beginning of this team coming together as a cohesive unit. They’ll need that when they get to Moscow and it will really be an us versus them mentality.
· The Soviets lead the series 2-1-1 and are heading home for the last 4 games. With the performance in Vancouver, it’s possible that they began to get a little over confident in their ability to win the series, which is interesting as before the series started most of the Soviet players didn’t think they would win it.
· Team Canada has a couple of games in Stockholm, Sweden before traveling to Moscow. The games are an opportunity to get used to the change in time zone and the larger ice surface found in European arenas.
For some background, the 1972 series between Canada and the Soviet Union was a groundbreaking event because it was the first time that Canada’s NHL stars would meet the world’s foremost “amateur” side, the Soviet hockey machine, and it occurred at a time when the West and the Soviet sphere of influence were diametrically opposed. The series consisted of 8 games – 4 in Canada and 4 in the USSR. The Canadian press and public were confident that their stars would have their way with the Soviets on the ice and that an 8-0 sweep was possible. The players weren’t so sure and the scheduling of the event meant that they wouldn’t be in the best possible shape as the series started in early September, several weeks before NHL camps were scheduled to open.
At this point, I’ve watched the first 4 games of the Series, which were played in Canada and it was very interesting viewing. With that, let’s dive into Game 1.
Game 1 – Montreal Forum
· It’s nice to see a game from the Forum again – that was such a special building with so many historic moments.
· Our play-by-play announcer is Foster Hewitt, who was known in Canada as the father of hockey play-by-play. Hewitt is calling the game for both radio and TV simultaneously which I believe is one reason why hockey announcers on television today call the game as if they are working radio. It all goes back to Hewitt calling games for Hockey Night in Canada on both radio and TV.
· A lot of the Team Canada stars bring back memories for me – several are Hall of Famers: Phil Esposito, Tony Esposito, Ken Dryden, Bobby Clarke, Frank Mahovolich, Yvan Cournoyer, Brad Park, etc.
· Bobby Orr is not playing although he is on the roster. Orr is still recovering from knee surgery at this point. Bobby Hull isn’t playing either. He just signed with the Winnipeg Jets of the newly formed WHA and he has become persona non grata in this NHL endorsed event.
· Bruins fans will be very familiar with Team Canada’s head coach – Harry Sinden.
· The game’s just started and the Canadians have scored after 30 seconds. That will only fuel the over confidence of the Canadian fans and quite possibly some of the players.
· Canada’s up 2-0 after 7 minutes. The Soviets look a little tight at this point although they are starting to settle into their passing game.
· Anyone who has seen the movie Miracle will recognize the name of Boris Mikhailov, the so-called best Soviet player in 1980. I’m not sure where the movie got that from as Mikhailov was a good player, but by 1980 he was well past his best and was on the downside of his career. You would never know that from the actor that portrayed him in the movie. Nevertheless, Boris is playing in this series and he’s definitely one of the key contributors for the USSR.
· Soviets score their first. Canadians are starting to tire. They don’t look like they’re in shape yet and the Russians are starting to come at them in waves.
· At the end of one period, it’s tied 2-2, but the Soviets have turned this game in their favor.
· This is the first time I’ve heard a game called by Foster Hewitt, and with all due respect, he’s not in mid-season form either. He’s mispronouncing “Cournoyer” and the Soviet goalie “Tretiak”. He’s saying “Tretriak” instead. It’s not a good performance.
· The audio from this game is a little off. There was a 7 minute gap at one point and at other times the quality is poor. I read that these tapes were only re-discovered in 1998 and have been re-mastered as much as possible based on the quality of the tapes.
· Great quote – Team Canada defenseman Gary Bergman asked Brad Park after the first period what he thought. Park’s response: “We’re in big trouble.”
· Soviets really have it clicking in the second period. At this point, the Canadians have to be ruing the fact that they have taken this team lightly. The Soviets have been training together for months/years and the Canadians only got together a few weeks ago. It’s not surprising they are getting dominated physically.
· It’s 4-2 for the CCCP.
· Canada gets one back and is really energized as they try and tie the score. They have several chances, but the Soviets score again to end the threat. They score twice more to win the game 7-3. That’s pretty humbling for the NHLers.
Game 2 – Toronto Maple Leaf Gardens
· Another game and another building no longer used by NHL clubs.
· I forgot to mention this earlier, but there’s a disturbing production note about these broadcasts. Every time a player starts to take a shot on goal, the camera angle shown to the viewer is changed to one that is a close up on the net. I definitely remember this from the 70’s. Watching it now is a little jarring and I don’t like it at all. The viewer loses perspective when the switch in angle is done.
· Team Canada has made some changes for this game. Tony Esposito replaces Ken Dryden in goal. Dryden was decidedly shaky in Game 1. A couple of muscle guys are added to the lineup including former Bruin, Wayne Cashman. By the way, did Cashman ever score a goal with his stick? It seemed to me that he kicked all his goals in the net.
· Phil Esposito is easily Canada’s best player and their clear leader. I didn’t realize what a good passer he was.
· This game belongs to the Esposito brothers and the Mahovolich brothers. Tony is spectacular in goal and Phil scores Canada’s first. Frank and Peter Mahovolich each score a goal to help secure a 4- 1 Canada win.
· Team Canada was far more energized in Game 2. Soviets weren’t quite as sharp as they were in Montreal.
Game 3 – Winnipeg Arena – Series tied 1-1
· Every time I see a game from the Winnipeg Arena, I get a kick out of the huge portrait of Queen Elizabeth that hangs at one end of the arena. There must be some significance to why that picture hangs there and not in the arenas of other provinces, but I haven’t bothered to research it.
· The production quality of the Toronto broadcast was much better than the one from Montreal. This one is a step back, but it’s still better than Game 1.
· Both teams played well in this game and put on a good show for the fans. The Canadians were buoyed by their performance in Toronto and the Soviets made some adjustments to get themselves back in gear. The game ends in a tie which seems a fair result.
· The series stands at 1-1-1, which is a long way from the 8-0 sweep that many Canadians had predicted. Team Canada has to win the 4th game in Vancouver to win the series in Canada before the scene shifts to Moscow for the final 4 games.
Game 4 – Vancouver Pacific Coliseum – Series stands at 1-1-1
· Ken Dryden is back in goal for Canada after Tony Esposito played in games 3 and 4. Dryden was extremely shaky in Game 1 and it’s a little surprising to see him in the net again.
· In the first period, the Canadians look awful and the Soviets are skating and passing well. The USSR goes up 2-0 and you can hear some boos from the fans. On the days between games, the fans and press have been extremely critical of Team Canada’s performance in the series thus far. Based on that, it’s not surprising that the boo-birds have made an appearance in Vancouver.
· The Canadian performance is reminiscent of Game 1 in Montreal. They look tired and are not playing at all like a team. Dryden actually looks worse than he did in Game 1. He is so nervous every time the puck comes near him. It’s surprising that he only lets in four goals.
· The final score of the game is 4-1 although it could have been much worse. The score somewhat belies the dominant performance of the Soviets in this game.
· The most newsworthy event of this game is the post-game on-ice interview with Phil Esposito. He’s incensed that the team is being booed by the fans and criticized by the press, when they are doing their best and playing for their country. One factor in the criticism of the players is that many of them earn their living in the United States and that somehow has affected their love for their country. Esposito addresses that topic too and states that the players love their country and wouldn’t be playing in this series if they didn’t. Many of the players point to Esposito’s statements as the beginning of this team coming together as a cohesive unit. They’ll need that when they get to Moscow and it will really be an us versus them mentality.
· The Soviets lead the series 2-1-1 and are heading home for the last 4 games. With the performance in Vancouver, it’s possible that they began to get a little over confident in their ability to win the series, which is interesting as before the series started most of the Soviet players didn’t think they would win it.
· Team Canada has a couple of games in Stockholm, Sweden before traveling to Moscow. The games are an opportunity to get used to the change in time zone and the larger ice surface found in European arenas.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Roger and Rafa
Okay, I’ll admit it upfront – I’m a Rafael Nadal Kool-Aid drinker. That was probably obvious from my Vamos Rafael piece from last fall, but I thought it was important to disclose that fact especially in light of what transpired in Dubai today. In his first final of 2006, and in only his second event since returning from a foot injury, Nadal defeated world number 1, Roger Federer, 2-6, 6-4, 6-4 in a spectacular final.
With the win, Rafa takes his career head-to-head record with Federer to 3-1, two of the victories coming on hard courts. Today’s match started off with a quick start from Federer as he played brilliant tennis to take the first set 6-2, but Nadal started to get some rhythm in the second set and he broke Federer at love at 4-all which allowed him to serve out the set. The third set was filled with drama as both players were pummeling shots like heavyweight boxers throw punches. The key point of the match came at 30-all, 4-all in the third on Federer’s serve. Roger missed his first serve and was forced to hit a second; Nadal seized the moment and stepped inside the baseline to hit an inside-out forehand winner to take him to break point. Federer was clearly caught off-guard by Nadal’s move inside the baseline on the return as Rafa normally receives serve from an extremely deep position. On break point, Federer made a quick error to lose the game and subsequently, the match.
Although Federer has to be disappointed with the result of today’s final and the end of his 56 match win streak on hard courts, he now has someone on the tour to challenge his dominance over the tour and that should serve as some extra motivation as the 2006 season unfolds. A Federer-Nadal rivalry will be great for tennis. That duo may not be super appealing to Americans, it has a ton of international appeal with both players having legions of fans. Few of the other players on tour have consistently challenged Federer over the last few years in the way Nadal has. The contrast in styles makes for intriguing tennis with Federer’s smooth attacking game competing against Nadal’s grinding, punishing groundstrokes.
With both players solidly entrenched in their positions as 1 and 2 in the world, tennis fans can hopefully look forward to several important finals between these two great athletes in the coming months. Can this rivalry reach the excitement level of the one that Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi shared? It would be great for tennis if it could, especially since Andre Agassi, one of the game’s most popular players, is nearing the end of his career. The sport needs something that fans can be excited about and although Federer’s dominance of the sport is certainly historic and intriguing, the challenge of a strong rival to the world’s most dominant player will provide far more drama. Whether this new rivalry will have the longevity of Pete and Andre is unclear as both players have had various injuries in their careers and Nadal strikes me as the Earl Campbell of tennis. He put a lot of miles on his body in 2005 on his way to 11 tour titles, including a 5 hour, 14 minute final victory in the Italian Open. His game is so physical and so grinding that you have to wonder how long he can keep it up. At 19 years old, tennis fans have to hope that he, and Roger, will be around for a long time.
With the win, Rafa takes his career head-to-head record with Federer to 3-1, two of the victories coming on hard courts. Today’s match started off with a quick start from Federer as he played brilliant tennis to take the first set 6-2, but Nadal started to get some rhythm in the second set and he broke Federer at love at 4-all which allowed him to serve out the set. The third set was filled with drama as both players were pummeling shots like heavyweight boxers throw punches. The key point of the match came at 30-all, 4-all in the third on Federer’s serve. Roger missed his first serve and was forced to hit a second; Nadal seized the moment and stepped inside the baseline to hit an inside-out forehand winner to take him to break point. Federer was clearly caught off-guard by Nadal’s move inside the baseline on the return as Rafa normally receives serve from an extremely deep position. On break point, Federer made a quick error to lose the game and subsequently, the match.
Although Federer has to be disappointed with the result of today’s final and the end of his 56 match win streak on hard courts, he now has someone on the tour to challenge his dominance over the tour and that should serve as some extra motivation as the 2006 season unfolds. A Federer-Nadal rivalry will be great for tennis. That duo may not be super appealing to Americans, it has a ton of international appeal with both players having legions of fans. Few of the other players on tour have consistently challenged Federer over the last few years in the way Nadal has. The contrast in styles makes for intriguing tennis with Federer’s smooth attacking game competing against Nadal’s grinding, punishing groundstrokes.
With both players solidly entrenched in their positions as 1 and 2 in the world, tennis fans can hopefully look forward to several important finals between these two great athletes in the coming months. Can this rivalry reach the excitement level of the one that Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi shared? It would be great for tennis if it could, especially since Andre Agassi, one of the game’s most popular players, is nearing the end of his career. The sport needs something that fans can be excited about and although Federer’s dominance of the sport is certainly historic and intriguing, the challenge of a strong rival to the world’s most dominant player will provide far more drama. Whether this new rivalry will have the longevity of Pete and Andre is unclear as both players have had various injuries in their careers and Nadal strikes me as the Earl Campbell of tennis. He put a lot of miles on his body in 2005 on his way to 11 tour titles, including a 5 hour, 14 minute final victory in the Italian Open. His game is so physical and so grinding that you have to wonder how long he can keep it up. At 19 years old, tennis fans have to hope that he, and Roger, will be around for a long time.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
World Baseball Classic?
So who out there likes the idea of the World Baseball Classic? In a perfect world, it’s a great idea. To see the best players in the world giving their all for their country in a meaningful international tournament would be a great spectacle. Who wouldn’t want to see the stars from the US play the best from the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Venezuela and Japan? Unfortunately, that’s not what we’re getting out of the WBC, and there are a few reasons for that.
First of all, the timing of the event makes it nearly impossible for pitchers to throw meaningful innings without risking injury. Pitchers’ primary concern won’t be winning at all costs; it will be to get themselves ready for the regular season and not to get hurt. Without top quality, committed to winning pitching, the tournament becomes nothing more than spring training all-star games. Maybe that’s fine and acceptable to the Commissioner, but the WBC could be so much more. The ideal timing for the tournament would be July, but that would mean a serious interruption of the regular season schedule. However, that would at least insure that players are in shape when they take the field for their respective countries.
The event also doesn’t have the firm support of Major League Baseball owners and that’s a huge problem because the owners won’t exactly be encouraging their high priced stars to participate. Imagine George Steinbrenner’s reaction if one of his Yankee superstars goes down with an injury while participating in this year’s event. He will be apoplectic, and doubtless, he won’t be bashful with his remarks condemning the tournament.
It’s hard to envision this tournament being successful in the same way that soccer’s World Cup is. While soccer has similar issues now with clubs fighting country over players, the World Cup was established at a point in time where club football was not nearly the money making giant it is today. The tradition of national teams was also well established at the time of the first World Cup in 1930. Another factor in soccer’s favor is that the sport is ruled on a global level by a governing body (FIFA) concerned with the world game. FIFA actually has a say in how soccer is played throughout the world and to run afoul of FIFA could be costly for a national or regional federation. I’m not even sure if there is an international baseball federation, but if there is one, it has no power or jurisdiction to speak of.
Of course, soccer’s World Cup had a few hiccups at first as many of the stronger European nations didn’t participate in the first tournament and England didn’t make an appearance until 1950, when they were humiliated by the United States, 1-0. However, the tournament was able to establish a tradition over time, and it became extremely popular with the fans and the players. By the time club football became a serious business in the second half of the twentieth century, the World Cup was an established institution.
For baseball, the reverse is true. Major League Baseball is well established and the sport of baseball has no real tradition in terms of international play. Can international play become a baseball tradition? Without the support of MLB owners and proper scheduling, it’s unlikely that the World Baseball Classic will ever reach it’s potential.
First of all, the timing of the event makes it nearly impossible for pitchers to throw meaningful innings without risking injury. Pitchers’ primary concern won’t be winning at all costs; it will be to get themselves ready for the regular season and not to get hurt. Without top quality, committed to winning pitching, the tournament becomes nothing more than spring training all-star games. Maybe that’s fine and acceptable to the Commissioner, but the WBC could be so much more. The ideal timing for the tournament would be July, but that would mean a serious interruption of the regular season schedule. However, that would at least insure that players are in shape when they take the field for their respective countries.
The event also doesn’t have the firm support of Major League Baseball owners and that’s a huge problem because the owners won’t exactly be encouraging their high priced stars to participate. Imagine George Steinbrenner’s reaction if one of his Yankee superstars goes down with an injury while participating in this year’s event. He will be apoplectic, and doubtless, he won’t be bashful with his remarks condemning the tournament.
It’s hard to envision this tournament being successful in the same way that soccer’s World Cup is. While soccer has similar issues now with clubs fighting country over players, the World Cup was established at a point in time where club football was not nearly the money making giant it is today. The tradition of national teams was also well established at the time of the first World Cup in 1930. Another factor in soccer’s favor is that the sport is ruled on a global level by a governing body (FIFA) concerned with the world game. FIFA actually has a say in how soccer is played throughout the world and to run afoul of FIFA could be costly for a national or regional federation. I’m not even sure if there is an international baseball federation, but if there is one, it has no power or jurisdiction to speak of.
Of course, soccer’s World Cup had a few hiccups at first as many of the stronger European nations didn’t participate in the first tournament and England didn’t make an appearance until 1950, when they were humiliated by the United States, 1-0. However, the tournament was able to establish a tradition over time, and it became extremely popular with the fans and the players. By the time club football became a serious business in the second half of the twentieth century, the World Cup was an established institution.
For baseball, the reverse is true. Major League Baseball is well established and the sport of baseball has no real tradition in terms of international play. Can international play become a baseball tradition? Without the support of MLB owners and proper scheduling, it’s unlikely that the World Baseball Classic will ever reach it’s potential.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
