Wimbledon and Unequal Prize Money

There’s been a bit of an uproar in tennis circles this week as Wimbledon announced that the total prize money for the Men’s singles winner would be larger than that for the Ladies champion, and thus would be the only tennis Grand Slam that does not offer equal prize money. The difference between the two is only $53,000, so Wimbledon’s declaration of un-equal prize money appears to be symbolic and almost defiant of the current trend in tennis.

When I first read about this issue, I have to admit that I was conflicted. In tennis, we’ve been brainwashed to believe that the women deserve equal prize money without question. It’s not a question of why?, just that it must be that way. This latest controversy prodded me to move beyond the programming in my head and look at the issue more critically. Does Wimbledon have a point in not offering equal prize money to the women? What follows may anger most, if not all, of the females that I know, however, as usual, my logic is impeccable and undeniable. ;)

Wimbledon’s public rationale for this decision centered around the fact that the top ladies are able to play more events (singles, doubles, mixed doubles) because their singles matches are only the best of 3 sets, and thus they can earn more money across all of those events than the Men can earn in singles only. The Men play the best of 5 sets and the top players rarely play doubles or mixed doubles because of the rigors of the singles draw. Although this rationale is valid, I don’t know that it is actually a logical justification for not offering equal prize money. Even if the men played best of 3 sets in the early rounds, I’m not sure how many would play doubles or mixed.

Another argument against equal prize money, and one not proffered by Wimbledon, is also related to the best of 5 set format and how the men are on court longer and have to work much harder over the course of the fortnight. This argument is slightly more compelling, but prize money has never been paid out at an hourly rate. A Ladies match that goes deep into a third set could certainly last longer than a Men’s straight set victory. Yet, I think it would be fair to say that the top men have to work harder to advance through the draw than the top women. It’s not only length of match, but also quality and depth in the draw.

The true determinant in the question of offering equal prize money is value. Does the women’s game provide equal entertainment value as the men’s game? And is the quality of the product the same? Tennis is unique in this argument because it is the only sport in which a person might answer “yes” to those questions. The women’s versions of Golf, Basketball and Soccer don’t even come close to rivaling the value and quality of the men’s games, but in tennis, it doesn’t appear to be as clear-cut at the surface.

The other factor that confuses the issue for tennis is that the Grand Slams host the men’s and women’s events simultaneously. A ticket for the day gets you access to all of the action. In Golf, the men’s and women’s Grand Slams are held at different locations and on different weekends, and that keeps the value proposition of those two tours very separated. To my knowledge, there isn’t much of an uproar over the disparity of prize money between men’s and women’s golf even though the difference is obscene in comparison with the $53,000 deficit at Wimbledon.

At last year’s Men’s US Golf Open, Michael Campbell earned $1,170,000 for winning the tournament. Compare that to the $560,000 that Birdie Kim took home for her victory last year and you have a difference of $610,000. Not only did Birdie Kim earn less than half of Michael Campbell’s take, she also earned $140,000 less than Tiger Woods earned for finishing second. Where’s the outrage about this??? Perhaps I’m not listening hard enough. Of course, the fact that golf doesn’t pay women equally isn’t a justification for tennis to do the same thing. I’m simply pointing out the far larger disparity, with a far smaller amount of outrage, if any.

As I stated earlier, when you buy a ticket for the day to Wimbledon, you get access to all events, but what if Wimbledon decided to segregate the events and forced patrons to buy either a men’s ticket or a women’s ticket? Would one sex outsell the other? Well, during the first week, I guarantee that the men’s event would outsell the women’s because the quality of the matches in the early rounds is much higher in the men’s game because of the greater depth on the ATP Tour. The women’s tournament is a snooze-fest until the quarterfinals because the top players are simply not challenged. The increasing number of injuries and absences on the WTA Tour doesn’t help the boredom factor in the early rounds.

In my recent post on Tennis in America, I stated that the men’s game is more popular and interesting than the women’s right now because of the depth on the tour and because of Roger Federer’s quest for total dominance. Rafael Nadal’s clay court match winning streak is another interesting topic that has captured the attention of fans. Right now, the women’s tour has no similar story lines and it suffers for it. That’s not to say that there aren’t some interesting matches being played on the women’s tour. In fact, the Maria Sharapova – Tatiana Golovin match in Miami was highly entertaining tennis, but that type of match seems to occur on rare occasions only on the WTA Tour. Thus, if one had to judge the men’s singles and women’s singles events’ entertainment value from the first round through the final, the conclusion would be that the men are a better buy for the entertainment dollar.

Although rarely discussed publicly, the men play tennis better than the women. None of the top women can beat any man in the top 500 in the world, and it possibly goes beyond that. Is that possibly a justification for unequal pay? As noted earlier, the pay disparity in golf is much larger than it is in tennis, yet there’s a movement in golf to have ladies play in PGA Tour events. Guess what? If the women can succeed on the PGA Tour, they get access to the bigger dollars. In that respect, you could say that the PGA Tour is the top tier in golf, and the LPGA is a lower tier and subsequently has lower earning power. Although no woman has yet to make the cut at a PGA event, it appears to be within reach. Should we consider the WTA Tour to be a lower tier than the ATP Tour? I don’t know, but it’s an interesting question. The possibility of a woman playing on the ATP Tour is infinitesimally small.

To conclude, I’m not advocating that the Grand Slams that do offer equal prize money reverse those decisions. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with vilification of Wimbledon for maintaining a slight inequity in pay given that the quality and depth of the WTA doesn’t come close to that of the ATP. The outrage over $53,000 seems misplaced to me when prize money and pay differences are so much larger in every other sport. Maybe those that are up in arms about Wimbledon’s decision should take care of those other differences first.

Monte Carlo Master Series

It hasn’t been very often that the numbers 1 and 2 players in the world confront each other in the final of the Monte Carlo event. The last time was 1985 when Ivan Lendl defeated Mats Wilander. Twenty-one years later, the fans at the Monte Carlo Country Club were treated to an excellent final between the world’s two best players, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, with Nadal prevailing in 4 sets, 6-2, 6-7, 6-3, 7-6.

The young man from Mallorca has been dubbed the King of Clay for his current 42 match win streak on the surface, and a victory over the world’s number 1, a man who had lost only once previously this year, further solidifies him as the man to beat for the French Championships at Roland Garros. Nadal’s goal coming into Monte Carlo was to reach the final and prove that he was playing well on clay since injury forced him to miss the start of this season. He achieved his goal and more. Beating Federer for the fourth time in five attempts cements his place in the game as Roger’s nemesis, and sends a message to the rest of the tour that no one can beat him on clay.

Prior to this year, Federer had never advanced beyond the quarterfinals of this event and therefore his goals for Monte Carlo were modest: play well, get used to playing on clay, and try to reach the final. Certainly, Roger can come away from today’s final saying “mission accomplished” as he was brilliant in his quarterfinal and semifinal victories, but one has to believe that he is disappointed with losing to the Spaniard a third consecutive time, including twice in ’06.

However, it’s obvious that the Swiss treats each encounter with Nadal as a learning experience. Coming into the final, he felt that he had learned a few things in their encounter in Dubai that he could use in today’s match to his advantage. While that didn’t pan out, after today’s match, he spoke again about how he feels he is learning the intricacies of Rafa’s game and how to adjust to that game. Not only is Federer the most brilliant shot maker on the tour, he might also be the best tactician. The question for him is can he execute a Nadal specific game plan well enough to win the French?

While watching today’s final, it occurred to me that very few players have the confidence to beat these two men, and in a sport like tennis, confidence is an extremely important factor in winning. In fact, without confidence, you simply can’t win. Based on that, I fully expect to see another Federer – Nadal final this June in Paris for the second Grand Slam of the year.

Match Thoughts

I joined the match a little late this morning as I overslept by about 30 minutes, and it was 5-2 for Nadal in the first set when I turned on the television. I was quickly able to ascertain that Federer was making a lot of unforced errors and that was making Nadal’s task much easier than expected. He comfortably served out the set for 6-2.

In the second, Federer’s game started to come back to him especially late in the set. Nadal served for the second set at 5-4 and even held a set point, but Federer was able to pressure Nadal enough to earn the crucial break of serve and even the set at 5. The sways in momentum and confidence were clearly visible to those watching. Each player held serve and brought the set to a tie-breaker where Federer was dominant throughout and evened up the match at a set apiece. Roger had to be pleased that the match was level after he was down a set and a break at 4-5 in the second.

The third set began with slight controversy as Nadal called for the trainer to reapply tape to his blistered fingers. Our match announcers noted that Nadal’s action was certainly within the rules, but that it was clearly a momentum breaker for Federer. However, to be fair to Nadal, it would have been very difficult for him to re-tape his fingers on his own within the allotted time of a changeover, so I don’t think the injury time-out was necessarily an abuse of the rule. Once play resumed, it appeared that Federer’s shots were off the mark again and Nadal was able to establish a dominant position in the set. Nadal survived break points at 3-all in the third and then managed to break Federer for a 5-3 lead. There would be no nerves on the part of the young Mallorcan this time and he served out the set for a 6-3 win.

Nadal extended his game-winning streak to six as he jumped to a 3-0 lead in the fourth set, but Federer was by no means finished. He managed to get the 2 breaks of serve back and evened the set at 5. As in the second set, each player held and the set would be decided in another tie-breaker. Federer jumped to a quick 3-0 lead by winning Nadal’s first two service points, and it appeared that a fifth set was inevitable. However, the 19 year-old struck right back and stole Federer’s two service points to bring the score to 3-2. Eventually the score reached 5-all and Nadal clearly decided that it was time to go for the win. He hit a screaming backhand up the line to take himself to match point and he then pounded a massive forehand into Federer’s backhand to win the set and the match.

Overall, it was a thoroughly enjoyable match to watch with some brilliant shot making on both sides of the net. The foot speed of the protagonists was also quite impressive as each man was forced to go corner-to-corner as well as chase down multiple drop shots. In the end, the statistics told a compelling story. Federer made 78 errors on the day and his winner to error ratio was –13. Those numbers weren’t totally unexpected as Federer was usually the more aggressive player, but 78 errors were too much. Over 50% of the Spaniard’s points were won as a result of Federer errors. Nadal’s winner to error ratio was +5 which is somewhat remarkable in a match of this length.

The next ATP Masters Series event is in Rome and Nadal is the defending champion at the Foro Italico by virtue of his 5 hour 14 minute victory over Guillermo Coria. Don’t be surprised if we see the numbers 1 and 2 go at it again in Italy.

Tennis in America

Last week, I was watching a local sports show and the state of professional tennis was a topic on the agenda. The discussion centered around what was wrong with the professional game in the US and what should be done about it. While many of the questions/issues put forth were legitimate, the treatment of them was superficial and, if anything, did more to promote popular misconceptions rather than address or answer the real issues.

Quite honestly, the discussion irked me enough to write a post on this subject, and with that introduction, let’s look at some of the popular misconceptions about tennis in America and the state of the professional game.

Misconception: American tennis needs another John McEnroe.
Reality: It’s strange to invoke the name of McEnroe as the prototype for American players when the most popular and charismatic American player in history, Andre Agassi, is still active on the tour. Granted, Agassi has had some injury issues in the last year or so, but his presence in a match generates more interest from American audiences than any other player in history. Case in point was last year’s US Open singles final between Agassi and world number one, Roger Federer. That match generated more buzz among the media and casual tennis fans than any in recent memory.

Of course, the point is that in order for tennis to be successful in America, there must be an American male at the top of the game who is charismatic and media friendly. American sports fans are tremendously provincial. In order for there to be any interest in any sport, there must be an American team or player at the top. I can think of no exceptions to this. However, having an American at the top of the game won’t necessarily guarantee success. Pete Sampras dominated men’s tennis in the ‘90s, but his personality wasn’t marketable. Sampras was one of the most exceptional athletes of our time, but in the pantheon of American sport, he goes largely unappreciated because of his lack of charisma and marketability.

With all of that being said, if Roger Federer were American, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Federer would be the Tiger Woods of tennis. He’s media friendly, personally engaging, well liked on the tour, and quite possibly the most brilliant tennis player in history. Unfortunately, American provincialism doesn’t allow us to fully embrace him and the sport he dominates.

Misconception: The ATP and WTA need to do more to develop tennis in America.
Reality: Plain and simple, the United States Tennis Association (USTA) is responsible for the development and promotion of tennis in America, not the professional tours. Certainly, the tours can do more to promote top American professionals, but there actually has to be a player near the top to promote. It’s the USTA’s job to help young Americans get to the top of the professional game, although this approach has only recently been adopted. In the past, American tennis players have basically been on their own in their quest to become top ranked professionals. This was in contrast with the approach of several national tennis federations in Europe, most notably Spain, in which young players with potential were identified and assisted in their pursuit of tennis greatness.

The USTA has now adopted this approach, but the fruits of the program may not be realized for some time. Community based programs have also been started, however the USTA faces an uphill battle in attracting young players to the game. Sports such as football, basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer and even lacrosse are far more organized at the local level and are readily able to recruit children into their programs, where tennis is still stigmatized as a sport for elites. Until quality, affordable coaching can be provided at the local level, tennis will most likely continue to struggle in its quest to attract top athletes to the game.

Misconception: Tennis should take a lesson from golf in terms of marketing (e.g., Tiger Woods).
Reality: There are two things to discuss here. First, golf is a sport dominated by American players. If in the last 30 years, there were only between 2 and 5 Americans in golf’s top 50 professional players, then the sport would be in the same place as tennis, so golf is not necessarily comparable. Second, Tiger Woods is the exception, not the rule when it comes to marketing. You can’t say that tennis should emulate the marketing done around Woods because Woods is more than a golfer. He’s an American sporting icon. In the last 40 years, only one other golfer has come close to receiving the kind of media attention and marketing dollars as Tiger, and that was Arnold Palmer. I can’t think of another golfer who even comes close to those two.

Again, if Roger Federer were American, he just might be the sporting and marketing icon that Tiger Woods is. However, it wouldn’t be accurate to say that tennis players aren’t marketed to the public. Let’s take Andy Roddick for example. In the last two days, I’ve seen Roddick in a Lacoste ad, an American Express ad and in a web banner on ESPN.com for a tennis video game (Maria Sharapova was also featured in the web banner). One could argue that the television ads should be run during non-tennis sporting events, but how much more marketing should we expect to be done to promote Roddick’s image? In reality, the best marketing that Roddick can do for himself and the sport in America is to start winning big titles. Unfortunately for him, he doesn’t seem to be able to do that.

Misconception: The ATP and WTA should market up and comers as they climb through the rankings, not just when they’ve reached the top.
Reality: The funny thing about this one is that the ATP actually tried this a few years ago and the campaign flopped in the US for two reasons. One, out of the 8 to 10 players promoted, only one was American (Roddick). Americans didn’t know who the international players were and a couple of them never really succeeded (ever hear of Mariano Zabaleta?). Second, Americans couldn’t understand why the ATP was solely promoting the young players and not Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras.

The other thing about this misconception is how can you possibly predict which players will make it and which won’t? Obviously, including Zabaleta in the ATP’s prior marketing attempt was a mistake, but how could they have known? There’s been some buzz around young American Donald Young, but he’s yet to win a set in eight ATP Tour matches. Should someone sink marketing dollars into him right now? What kind of return are you going to get on that investment? Ashley Harkelroad is a female example of the same thing. She had some sex appeal, but the results simply weren’t there.

How about James Blake? Part of the detail of this misconception was that Blake should have been promoted as he made his way back up the rankings. However, that suggestion is somewhat ridiculous as Blake was a mid-level player before his various injuries/illnesses occurred, so why would anyone believe that he could surpass his previous ranking? Sinking marketing dollars into players who haven’t made it yet, is not a wise financial decision. Sometimes spending dollars on established players doesn’t work either – remember the American Express ad campaign for Andy Roddick and his mojo during last year’s US Open? Roddick’s first round exit ensured disaster for that promotional idea.

Misconception: Women’s tennis is more popular than Men’s tennis.
Reality: A few years ago when the Williams sisters were at the top of their games, this was true, but not so anymore. While the casual male sports fan may tune into an occasional Maria Sharapova match, the fact is that men’s tennis is more popular now because the matches are interesting from the first round through the finals. On the women’s side, it’s rare to see one of the top seeds being challenged before the quarterfinals. The first 3 to 4 rounds of any women’s tournament produce a lot of boring tennis. The sex appeal factor can’t overcome that in a long-term view. The disappearance of the Williams sisters has also led to less interest in America, and quite simply, the women’s game needs more depth. From that perspective, it can’t thrive without the Sisters.

The men’s game is extremely intriguing right now because of Federer’s bid to completely dominate the sport (ala Tiger Woods) while the other top players try to knock him off. Rafael Nadal, when healthy, has emerged as a potential foil for Federer, and that budding rivalry has the potential to reach the same heights of the rivalries between Pete and Andre, and Borg and McEnroe. Unfortunately, neither Roger nor Rafael are American so the pairing seems to have less appeal in the US, but both players are supported strongly internationally.

Misconception: There are too many tournaments – 27 every weekend. Players are getting injured because there are too many tournaments.
Reality: There is an element of truth to this one, but not as presented above. Are there too many tournaments? No. The fact that there are anywhere between one and 3 events each week for each tour is not the problem.

The real problem is two-fold. First, the players need to manage their own schedules more effectively so that injuries and fatigue do not become a problem. With big dollar exhibitions and high-priced appearance fees for various tournaments, players find it hard to say no to event promoters. They must learn to do so.

Part two of the problem has more to do with scheduling rather than volume of tournaments. Too many big events are scheduled within a short time frame. For example, the tournaments at Indian Wells and Key Biscayne, two of the bigger events outside of the Grand Slams, are within a two-week span of each other and the top players are technically required to play both. This year, the Nasdaq-100 Open at Key Biscayne suffered for it by losing some players to injuries while others gave half-hearted efforts in first round losses. The Indian Wells event was far more intriguing.

The same problem could occur in upcoming weeks when there are 3 ATP Masters Series events scheduled in the run-up to the French Open.


Tennis is a fantastic sport that takes as much athleticism as any on the planet. The top professionals are among the greatest athletes in the world. However, that’s not enough to get tennis onto the agenda of the average American sports fan. In order to do that, America must start to produce champions at the Grand Slam level; champions that sports fans can identify with and be proud of consistently. McEnroe clones need not apply.

Canada - Soviet Series 1972 - Part 3

We're back for our final installment of the Canada - Soviet Series of 1972. Here are the links to Part 1 and Part 2 if you haven't read them. This post includes the final 2 games of the Series in Moscow.

Game 7 – Moscow – Soviets lead series 3-2-1

· Some lineup notes for Game 7
Valery Kharlamov is out with an ankle injury courtesy of Bobby Clarke.
Tony Esposito is in net for Team Canada with Ed Johnston on the bench.
Bill Goldsworthy is also in the lineup for Canada. Until seeing these games, I had never seen Goldsworthy play before, but I was well acquainted with him because his hockey card seemed to be in every pack of hockey cards that I bought as a kid. I must have had 50 Goldsworthy cards while he was playing for the Minnesota North Stars.

· Obviously, this is another must win game for Canada if they are going to emerge victorious in the series.

· First period is off to a slow start, however the play isn’t nearly as rough as it was in Game 6. The players look sedated in comparison with the intensity of the previous game.

· Just over 4 minutes into the game and Phil Esposito scores a brilliant goal. If a hockey player can perform a spin move in the slot then Esposito just did it. Esposito’s intensity in this series is remarkable. In one of the interview segments in the DVD collection, he says, and I’m paraphrasing, “I wanted to win so badly that I would have killed them [Soviets]. I had never felt that way before, I haven’t felt that way since and I hope that I never feel that way again.” Now that’s intensity, and it tells you how important this series was to the players.

· The pace of play is picking up now and the Soviets are over-passing a bit.

· Soviets strike back on a quick break and tie the game on a slap shot from Alexander Yakushev. The Russian crowd roars with delight and it’s the loudest that I have heard them thus far. They must be learning from the Canadian fans.

· The USSR has taken over the game now and they score a power play goal. It’s a very pretty goal from Vladimir Petrov, one of the few right-handed players on the Soviet squad. Petrov pulled Tony Esposito out of his net and slid a backhand shot in behind him. 2-1 for the CCCP.

· Canada doesn’t look as sharp in this game up to this point. Soviets look better than they did at the end of Game 6, but I think they miss Kharlamov. His puck handling skills took a lot of the pressure off of his teammates.

· I just noticed that play-by-play man Foster Hewitt uses the term “goalkeeper” instead of “goaltender”. When did “goaltender” come into vogue? That’s the term that is used almost exclusively these days, and I don’t remember anyone using “goalkeeper” when I was watching hockey in the mid to late ‘70s.

· It’s near the end of the first period and Esposito scores again to tie the game at 2. Predictably, Espo is in the slot when he fires a wrist shot just inside the post to beat Tretiak.

· Period ends tied at 2. It was a decent period of play as the teams improved throughout and the effort became more spirited.

· Second period has started and the Soviets are on a power play. I know I keep harping on this, but they miss Kharlamov in these situations. So much of their offensive flow went through him and they don’t seem to have another player who can step into that role.

· It’s about six minutes into the period and the game is opening up nicely. Soviets are breaking through center ice a little too easily right now. Canada isn’t doing as good of a job defending in the neutral zone.

· The chanting of the Canadian fans is getting louder and louder. It’s still hard to believe that there are only 3,000 of them in the arena. The rest of the crowd must be sitting on their hands.

· Tony Esposito is being called upon to make some good saves in this period. As I stated in an earlier post, his performance in this series impressed me greatly. He moves and reacts in a more athletic way than some of the other goalies of his time. When I was a kid, I wanted to be a goalie so I read about all of the famous goaltenders in hockey history. The one thing that sticks in my mind about Tony Esposito is that he believed that the goalie should be the best skater on the team. That might be why he is so athletic on the ice.

· The Soviet passing game is looking better in this game and their control of the puck is limiting the number of chances that Team Canada is getting.

· A very bizarre play just occurred. J.P. Parise was on a breakaway and then he passed the puck back to a trailing player! The Soviet defender broke up the pass at that point. Was he afraid to shoot?

· The video is losing horizontal control. Brings back such sweet memories of pre-cable video problems.

· Here’s another interesting terminology difference for me. Soviets are on what I would call a 4 on 3 power play – Canada with 2 men in the penalty box and the Soviets with one. Foster Hewitt calls it a 5 on 4 power play.

· Soviets seem to have lost their rhythm. They’re losing the puck a lot and the crowd is whistling loudly as they seem very frustrated with their team.

· As the period winds down, the game is getting more physical. I’m surprised that it has taken this long. No scoring in the second period and the game remains tied at 2.

· Two minutes into the third and Rod Gilbert has scored to give Canada a 3-2 lead. He came around the net and backhanded it through Tretiak. Soviets had very poor defensive zone coverage on this play.

· Television analyst Brian Connacher has just told us that it is snowing in Moscow. It’s September!

· Soviets tie up the game at 3 on a sweet power play goal by Yakushev. It’s his second goal of the evening and he seems to be stepping up as the Soviets leader on the ice. Very nice passing on the part of the Soviets on the goal.

· I just noticed that Soviet television has spelled Harry Sinden’s name as “G. Sinden”. I wonder if they think his first name is Gary.

· Some real fisticuffs between the two teams with about 4 minutes remaining in the period. Once again, it seems like the Canadian players instigated the incident and then overreacted. I’m sure this kind of play was somewhat deliberate, as they wanted to knock the Soviets off their game.

· Paul Henderson has scored one of the best goals of the series to give Canada a 4-3 lead with two minutes remaining in the game. He was able to beat three defenders on his own and then lift the puck over Tretiak. It was a spectacular individual effort and one that you would never see a Soviet player make. If you look at the scorers from all of these games, the names Henderson and Esposito appear consistently.

· The game ends in desperate fashion for both teams, and Canada hangs on for the win, 4-3. The series is now tied at 3-3-1 and will go to a decisive Game 8.

Game 8 – Moscow – Series tied 3-3-1

· Lineup notes
Valery Kharlamov is back and gets his usual resounding ovation from the fans.

Ken Dryden is in goal for this decisive game.
Frank Mahovolich is in the lineup as well.

· During the pre-game introductions, Gary Bergman gives the “V” sign to the crowd. Very clever.

· Before each game, the teams exchange gifts between players. This evening, the Canadian players are giving their Soviet counterparts white Stetson hats. Aren’t the bad guys supposed to have black hats?

· The referee choices for this game were controversial. The Soviets wanted to use the 2 West German refs from Game 6 who were horrible. After that game, at the insistence of Team Canada, the Soviets had agreed not to use them again, but now with the series on the line they reneged on that agreement. Eventually, a compromise was reached as the Canadians threatened not to play the game at all. Only one of the West German referees will work the game. The other ref is from the Czech Republic and has done a credible job up to this point in the series.

· Kharlamov makes his first appearance of the game and he doesn’t appear to be skating at full strength, but he does look better than he did at the end of Game 6.

· Uh-oh – Soviets draw a penalty off of a lame dive. Peter Mahovolich takes another penalty shortly thereafter and Canada is down 2 men. Soviets score a power play goal to take a 1-0 lead early in the first. Yakushev is the villain again.

· Canada takes another penalty and this time it is J.P. Parise. Parise is incensed and is completely losing his cool. He skates up to the referee and fakes swinging his stick at him. He’s justifiably tossed from the game. Brian Connacher thinks the penalty call is marginal, but I disagree. Parise clearly stuck out his leg and tripped the Soviet player. Even under old NHL rules, that’s a penalty. This incident takes several minutes to clear up and delays the game.

· Canada kills off the penalty.

· Canada gets a power play and scores quickly to tie the game at 1. Esposito scores on a rebound of a Brad Park shot. That’s his 6th goal of the series.

· The tempers have chilled out a bit now and the play is settling down nicely. Canada is putting a lot of pressure on the Soviets in their zone.

· Against the run of play, the Soviets have scored again and take a 2-1 lead. Luchenko scores on a slap shot and is assisted by Kharlamov.

· Something funny just occurred with the video. The picture of the game disappeared and you could see the hand of a Soviet TV production assistant placing a black card with the name of a player in white lettering in front of the camera. That must have been how they displayed their graphics on screen.

· The fact that Valery Kharlamov assisted on that last goal must have been more than the Canadians could take from him as they appear to have gone after his ankle again. There’s a minor scrum as Kharlamov’s teammates come to his rescue, but the Soviet star has to limp off the ice.

· Soviets have a 2 on 1, but once again are guilty of over-passing and they never even get a shot on net.

· Canada ties the game at 2 on a beautiful exchange between New York Rangers (and later Boston Bruins) teammates Jean Ratelle and Brad Park. Park slots it home and the period ends tied.

· It’s early in the second period and the netting behind the goal has become a factor. A Soviet player took a long-range shot that went into the netting and bounced out in front of Dryden. Vladimir Shadrin collects it and puts it past Dryden for a 3-2 lead just 21 seconds into the period.

· The style of play is very different from the first period. Up and down action with chances for both teams. Tretiak has made a couple of impressive saves to preserve the Soviet lead. Play goes on for long stretches without whistles from the referees.

· Brian Connacher just noted that Kharlamov isn’t at 100%. No kidding!

· Mid-way through the period, Canada ties it up on a beautiful goal from Bill White. Rod Gilbert and Jean Ratelle (damn Rangers) assist on the play. White was left all alone in front of Tretiak and the Soviet goaltender had no chance. Game tied at 3 with 30 minutes to go.

· Both goalies are keeping their teams in the game. Dryden denies Boris Mikhailov on a 2 on 1, and Tretiak robs Gilbert from point blank range.

· Alexander Yakushev does it again – he scores after being left alone in front of Dryden, and gives the Soviets a 4-3 lead. Brian Connacher is lauding Yakushev as the Soviets best player, and at this point he is correct. He is the leading goal scorer in the series and has stepped up his play in the last 2 games. He’s kind of a strange looking fellow; he has a coat hanger looking frame and he’s quite tall for a hockey player.

· Phil Esposito does his best impersonation of brother Tony as he slides across the goal line to save the puck from going in after Mikhailov had faked Dryden out of the net. That might be the biggest save of the game and once again, Phil Esposito to the rescue.

· The first penalty of the period comes after about 15 minutes and it’s against Canada.

· Soviets score on the power play to take a 2 goal advantage, 5-3. Shadrin tips it in nicely. This is the first 2 goal advantage for either team since Game 6.

· Canadians draw a penalty with about two minutes remaining in the period. Unfortunately, the Team Canada power play has been poor for the duration of the series and this one is no exception. We go into the final period of the series with the Soviets leading 5-3.

· Early in the third period, Dryden comes up with a big save on a 2 on 1 break for the USSR. That man Yakushev is on the play again; he’s having a great game.

· Soviets are controlling the play thus far and have the territorial advantage.

· The Canadians have an opportunity in the Soviet zone and they take advantage of it. Phil Esposito knocks the puck down in the slot and takes a few whacks at it before he deposits it in the net behind Tretiak. It’s the quick goal that Canada needed to get back in the game. They are only down by one goal with about 17 minutes to play.

· Our first real fight of the series just happened between Gilbert and Mishakov. Actual punches were thrown and Gilbert got a couple of good ones in. The crowd is whistling the entire time – I don’t think they are used to such shenanigans. As the two players sit in their respective penalty boxes, they are yelling at each other. Surely, neither one understands the other. For some reason, they aren’t ejected from the game and I’m not sure why. Hewitt and Connacher don’t understand it either. They only get 5-minute major penalties.

· Canadians get a power play so they will have a 4 on 3 advantage.

· Only one good chance comes on the power play and it’s Jean Ratelle all alone in front and he misses the net completely with a backhand. Connacher can’t believe he didn’t score.

· Apparently Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet Premier, is in the crowd. Do you think he is reacting like the Gorbachev character in Rocky IV?

· We reach the 10-minute mark and the Soviets still lead 5-4. The play in this period has not been aesthetically pleasing. Neither team has any offensive flow and there are a lot of whistles. The Soviets are doing their best to kill the clock, but there’s a lot of time left.

· Canada has tied the game at 5! Esposito and Yvan Cournoyer both put in a great effort on this goal, and Cournoyer gets credit for it as he backhanded it past the Soviet goaltender. The goal light doesn’t go on, but the Canadians celebrate enthusiastically and the referees seem to award the goal. Looking at the replay, Esposito could have been called for batting the puck with a high stick, but the refs let it go.

· Now there is a scrum over on the far boards. The Canadian players are leaning over the boards and seemingly are taking on the Soviet Militia. In reality, they are rescuing Team Canada official Alan Eagleson from the police. After the goal light didn’t go on for the last goal, Eagleson went on a rampage and attempted to get to the scorer’s table to demand that the goal be given. The police intercepted him and that’s when the players came to his rescue. Harry Sinden and other members of Team Canada’s staff escort Eagleson back to the Canadian bench. Eagleson is flipping off the crowd and the Soviet militia. That’s great Cold War stuff. By the way, do you think those players would have rescued Eagleson if they knew then what they know now?

· It just occurred to me that I haven’t seen Valery Kharlamov since the second period.

· The Soviets are getting shooting opportunities in this period, but they are consistently missing the net.

· Three minutes to go in the game and Vladislav Tretiak comes out of his net to stop Gary Bergman. Nice play from Tretiak. One of the criticisms of Tretiak prior to the series was that he stayed deep in his net, but I’ve noticed several instances where he has come out and challenged shooters successfully.

· Under two minutes to go and now Dryden is forced to make an important save.

· Foster Hewitt says that this is one of the best games he has ever seen. I think Hewitt is jumping on the hyperbole bandwagon with that comment. The play in this period has been tough to watch, but the level of drama is certainly very high.

· There’s a face-off in the Canadian zone and Esposito gets his mates into a huddle. You rarely see that from North American hockey players. That’s just another demonstration of how good a leader Phil Esposito was for his team – great stuff.

· One minute to go and there’s no flow at all to this period.

· And there it is! Paul Henderson has just scored the most famous goal in Canadian hockey history with 34 seconds remaining in the period to give Canada a 6-5 lead. Henderson is mobbed by all of his teammates including Ken Dryden who skated the length of the ice to get to him. The replay of the goal shows that Phil Esposito’s effort to get the puck on goal is the key. Tretiak gives up a rebound, and Henderson is unmarked in front and scores the decider.

· It’s all over now – hugs everywhere for the Canadians! They’ve won the series by taking three out of four games in Moscow. I don’t think many people would have predicted that this team would be able to accomplish that after the performance in Game 4 in Vancouver.

· The stars of the game for Canada as voted for by the press (I think) are Brad Park and Paul Henderson. It’s hard to believe that Esposito wasn’t one of the stars chosen.

Concluding Thoughts

Team Canada’s best players for the series – Phil Esposito, Tony Esposito, Paul Henderson, 3,000 Canadian fans who made the trip to Moscow

Soviet Union’s best players for the series – Valery Kharlamov, Vladislav Tretiak, Alexander Yakushev, Boris Mikhailov

Watching these games in 2006, it’s hard to appreciate the political tension that existed in 1972 between the West and the Soviet Union, and why this series was so important on multiple levels. Not only was it seen as a showdown of two very different ways of life, but also it was the first clash of the 2 hockey societies at the highest level. The Canadians felt that they absolutely had to win this series or else it would have been a massive embarrassment. After the clash in ’72, the hockey styles of the 2 countries would never be the same and that was, and has been, a good thing.

Were these the greatest hockey games ever played? From a pure hockey standpoint, I would have to say no, but the various sub-plots of the Series raised the tension and drama to heights that hockey fans will probably never experience again. For Canadians, Paul Henderson’s goal was one of those rare “where were you when?” moments in history. It was that important and because of that, it isn’t surprising that this team was voted Team of the Century in Canada.

As a follow up to this series, I am going to blog the 1987 Canada Cup finals between the Soviet Union and Canada. Many may disagree, but in my opinion, those 3 games represent the best hockey games ever played. Thanks for checking in and any feedback that you have would be appreciated.

Little Ricky and The Meatball

In 1985, Providence College hired Rick Pitino to be to be the head coach for its Men’s Basketball program, replacing legendary coach Joe Mullaney. Mullaney had made Providence a New England and National hoop powerhouse, leading the Friars to NIT titles in 1961 and 1963, as well as nine 20 win seasons. Mullaney left Providence as its all-time winningest coach with 319 victories, but in the 1984-85 season, the Friars could only muster 11 wins versus 20 losses in his final season. One of the players on that ’84-85 team was Billy Donovan.

Billy Donovan arrived at Providence in 1983 as a player with good ball handling skills and a nice shot, but a bit on the chunky side. He looked like a meatball. I remember thinking to myself, why is Mullaney recruiting short, fat kids to play at Providence? He must be losing it. In his first two seasons at PC, Donovan averaged 2.3 and 3.2 points per game respectively. The kid didn’t seem to have much of a future and neither did the PC basketball program. That all changed when Rick Pitino was hired to be the head coach of the Friars.

Pitino was coming off a two-year stint as an assistant coach with the New York Knicks of the NBA, and prior to that was head coach at Boston University for five years. PC was definitely a step up for the young coach and it was an opportunity for him to demonstrate his ability at the Big East level. Pitino preached hard work and an up tempo style of basketball that soon became his trademark. A by-product of Pitino’s system was the transformation of Billy Donovan from meatball to serious basketball player. Seemingly for the first time in his basketball career, a coach challenged Donovan to work harder than he had ever worked before and to make himself into a real basketball player. Donovan accepted the challenge and the results were life changing. Billy the Kid was the main cog in Pitino’s two seasons at Providence, averaging 15.1 points per game in his junior year and 20.6 in his senior year, but the longer lasting impression was the one he made on his coach.

The 1986-87 college basketball season was the first in which the 3-point line became official for all NCAA games (some conferences had experimented with it prior to 1986). The 3-point shot became another hallmark of Rick Pitino coached teams and the ’86-87 Friars were well equipped to take advantage of the new rule. They did so to the tune of a Final Four appearance in New Orleans before they were derailed by Big East rival Syracuse. Donovan shot over 41% from beyond the 3-point arc and was the undisputed leader/star of the team. He was Pitino’s floor general and the coach must have known that the kid’s career in basketball would go far beyond his playing days; he had a coach in the making.

Now it’s 2006 and Billy Donovan’s Florida Gators are National Champions. After several years as an assistant coach under his mentor Rick Pitino, Donovan has risen to the summit of his profession. Of course, there were criticisms along the way, but the UF basketball program is in good hands. Billy the Kid learned the value of hard work during his playing days at PC and now everyone associated with Gator basketball is reaping the rewards. It’s safe to say that none of this would have happened if he hadn’t met a certain young coach in 1985.

Canada - Soviet Series - Part 2

Since there was such a positive response to my first post on the historic Canada - Soviet hockey series of 1972, I decided to expand my commentary and break up the last 4 games into 2 separate posts. This post will cover Games 5 and 6 in Moscow. The next post will cover Games 7 and 8, and some additional thoughts/observations on the series overall.

If you haven't read Part 1, you can read it here.

Game 5 – Moscow – Soviets lead series 2-1-1

· Originally, the series was going to be played in different cities in the Soviet Union like what was done in Canada, but the Soviets changed their minds on this and decided to play all of the games in Moscow. In some respects, this may have helped the Canadians as they were able to get used to the Luzhniki arena.

· The ice surface in Moscow looks like the ice you see on a pond. That’s because it’s over 2 inches thick. In contrast with that, ice surfaces in North American arena’s are less than an inch thick. The thickness of the ice surface in Russia will make for more bumpy ice.

· There are lots of technical difficulties with this broadcast. It’s shown exactly as it was to Canadians in 1972. The satellite transmission to Canada had to bounce around quite a bit before it eventually got to North America.

· It’s kind of fascinating to watch a broadcast originating from the now departed Soviet Union especially the playing of the Soviet national anthem. As it’s played, the camera pans over the faces of their heroes on the ice. There must be a lot of pressure on those guys.

· Figure skaters from Soviet youth programs deliver flowers to all of the players before they are introduced. Apparently that is a tradition in international hockey. As the players are introduced to the fans, Phil Esposito trips over the broken stem of one of the flowers and he falls to the ice. It’s a moment that lightens the entire atmosphere. Esposito the showman takes a bow to diffuse his embarrassment. Many of the Canadian players cited Esposito’s fall as a key in relieving their tension before the game.

· Canada is playing their best game of the series thus far. The two warm-up games in Sweden have helped to cement this collection of players into a team.

· J.P. Parise gives Canada a 1-0 lead late in the first period. Parise’s not usually a guy you look to for goals so it’s a huge bonus when he scores. The period ends with Canada on top.

· Canadians off to a quick start in the second – Bobby Clarke scores to make it 2-0. The Soviet crowd is getting a little restless. I don’t think this is what they expected after their boys did so well in North America.

· The up and down nature of this game is great to watch. This is the best game to watch so far from a fan’s perspective. The video problems are clearing up too.

· Paul Henderson puts Canada up 3-0 midway through the second. The Canadians need to stay on top of these guys though.

· Early in the third, the teams trade goals. Soviets score their first to cut the lead to 3-1, but Paul Henderson retaliates with a brilliant goal to give Team Canada a 4-1 lead. The Soviet crowd is starting to whistle at their heroes. They are not happy!

· Uh-oh, Soviets are playing much better and have just scored two goals in eight seconds to close the gap to 4-3. The television replay of the first goal had barely finished when the live feed showed Shadrin beating Tony Esposito on the far side. The crowd is roaring in approval. It’s 4-3 for Canada at the 10-minute break (teams switched ends in international hockey in those days).

· Canadians are reeling now. Bobby Clarke takes a penalty and the Soviets tie up the game on the power play. The good play of the first two periods has slipped away into a desperate defensive effort.

· The collapse/comeback is complete. The Russians score their fifth and take a 5-4 lead with just over 5 minutes to go. That’s the way it ends. Canada’s best performance of the series is turned upside down into a crushing defeat.

· One note on Tony Esposito – this guy is good. I didn’t get much of an opportunity to see him play in the 70’s and often thought of him just as Phil’s brother, but he showed me in this game why he is in the hall of fame. Frankly, he looks more in control and poised than Ken Dryden does.

Game 6 – Moscow – Soviets lead series 3-1-1

· This is a must win game for Canada. In fact, they need to win the remaining three games in order to take the series.

· Ken Dryden is back in goal. That’s a bit surprising after the Vancouver performance.

· A couple of interesting notes from the pre-game ceremonies. It was a stirring moment to hear 3,000 Canadian fans singing Oh Canada – an obvious emotional moment for the players.

· You can tell who the Soviet stars are from the volume of the ovation from the crowd: the goalie, Vladislav Tretiak and winger Valery Kharlamov. To this point in the series, Kharlamov has been the best player on the ice. He’s a strong skater with exceptional puck control. It’s too bad Bobby Orr couldn’t play; it would have been nice to see those 2 matched up.

· The game starts and the Canadians have turned up the intensity with a rough start. They are going after everyone and are really mixing it up after the whistle. It looks like goon hockey a little bit.

· Dryden has been tested a couple of times early in the first and he looks more comfortable. Perhaps he feels less pressure playing in Moscow.

· This game is really showing the contrast in styles of play. The Soviets are much more of a control, passing team. Canada has a lot of individual flair and speed. There are several players on the Canadian side that are faster skaters than anyone on the Soviet team.

· Another fascinating thing about watching these games from the Soviet Union is the graphics in the Cyrillic alphabet. When I was in high school, I was intrigued by their alphabet and decided to learn it. My wife just called me a geek for doing that. She’s probably right.

· Another difference about the arenas in the USSR is that there is no glass around the boards. There is only netting at each end of the ice. The puck can rebound in unexpected ways off of this netting.

· The game is being played with a good tempo in the first period. There are very few whistles. The referees for this game are from West Germany and they aren’t very good. They will be a source of controversy later in the series.

· Red Berenson just stepped on to the ice. College hockey fans may know him as the current head coach at the University of Michigan. It’s funny that he is wearing a white helmet and the only other player on Team Canada wearing a helmet, Paul Henderson, has a red one.

· Phil Esposito gets called for a marginal infraction, however he decides to completely deck someone afterwards and gets a double minor. Espo is fired up for this one.

· Things are getting tense in the crowd. The militia have moved in on the Canadian fans and have ejected some of them. The players are looking into the crowd with concerned faces.

· Dryden makes a huge save in the final minute of the period to keep the score level at zero. Period ends 0-0.

· Soviets score early in the second to take a 1-0 lead. A slap shot from the blue line beats Dryden. The Soviets use the slap shot a lot more than the Canadians were led to believe.

· Bobby Clarke and Gary Bergman are really roughing it up now behind the Soviet net. The Russians are looking at them like they are from another planet. It’s kind of funny to see the cultural difference in hockey societies.

· Canadians are putting a lot of pressure on Tretiak now and forcing him to come up with good saves. He robs Esposito right in front on a power play, but he can’t stop Dennis Hull from scoring a little later off of a rebound. Game is tied at 1 and the play is very exciting at this point in the game.

· The Canadian crowd is roaring as Yvan Cournoyer has given Canada the lead on a nice feed from Red Berenson. It’s amazing how the 3,000 fans from Canada can drown out the noise of the much larger Russian audience.

· Paul Henderson scores Canada’s third goal 15 seconds later. That’s three goals in about a minute and a half. This goal was a bad one for Tretiak.

· On that note, let’s talk about Tretiak. Before the series started, the Canadian press figured he would be a sieve. They poked fun at his “bird cage” mask which of course became standard in the NHL some years later. Once play started, everyone realized this guy could play, but that caused people to swing a little too far in the other direction when assessing his talent. Tretiak was a good goalie, but he was not the best goalie in the world as the Herb Brooks character in the movie Miracle stated. This Henderson goal showed that he was subject to giving up bad goals just like other goalies. Also, isn’t it interesting that as great as the Soviet hockey system was, it never produced another goalie who came close to Tretiak’s level?

· An ugly incident just occurred on the ice although it wasn’t captured on video and the announcers didn’t see it. Bobby Clarke has just viciously slashed the Soviets best player, Valery Kharlamov, in the ankle. Kharlamov doesn’t know it yet, but the ankle is fractured and his effectiveness in the series is over. The sad thing about this incident is that Clarke did this intentionally under orders from assistant coach, John Ferguson. Ferguson knew that Kharlamov was killing them and they couldn’t contain him. He obviously knew his players psychological makeup as well when he selected Clarke for the job. Not everyone in hockey is cut out for a hatchet job, but Bobby Clarke was. There’s ample discussion of this topic in the book and quite frankly, it’s a little disheartening to read. For me, the incident puts a stain on the series.

· Canadians are starting to draw a lot of penalties now. They’re playing well defensively and keeping the Soviet passing game in check. That ends quickly when the Soviets score a power play goal to cut the Canadian lead to 3-2.

· Canadians are now forced to kill a 2 man advantage for the USSR. Esposito took a 5 minute high sticking call for cutting Alexander Ragulin’s face. Period ends with Canada leading 3-2.

· Third period is supposed to be starting, but the Canadian team isn’t on the ice. The Soviets skate around for several minutes waiting for them. Some of them are doing drills. After about a five minute wait, Team Canada emerges from the dressing room. No explanation was ever given by Foster Hewitt, our play-by-play announcer.

· Kharlamov is really hobbled. When he is waiting for a face-off, he actually lifts his lame foot off of the ice so as not to put pressure on it. There was also a shot of him limping into the bench area. Every time he touches the puck, he quickly passes it to a teammate. He can’t make any moves whatsoever and it’s having an effect on his line’s performance. They can’t get their passing game going without his ability to skate and elude defenders while carrying the puck.

· For the first time in the series, I can clearly hear the new chant that the Canadian fans have coined: “Da Da Canada, Nyet Nyet Soviet”. Very clever indeed.

· Ken Dryden has put in a very solid effort in net in this game. I’m impressed that Sinden stuck with him given his atrocious performance in Game 4. Dryden was still a young goalie at this time in his career. In the spring of 1971, he came out of Cornell to help the Canadiens win the Stanley Cup, so the 1971-72 season was his first full campaign with Montreal.

· Remember Jimmy Chitwood from the movie Hoosiers? Peter Mahovolich looks just like him, just taller.

· The Soviets can’t get their game in gear in the third period and the game ends 3-2 for Canada. The Canadian players celebrate enthusiastically. They know they are still alive in the series. After this game, Team Canada management will insist that neither of the 2 West German referees be allowed to work again in the series. Keep that in mind when we get to Game 8.

Nasdaq-100 - Russians and Roger

The men’s and women’s finals at the Nasdaq-100 Open in Key Biscayne, Florida were relatively routine victories for Roger Federer and Svetlana Kuznetsova. Of course for Kuznetsova, winning a title of this magnitude is far from routine business as she’s only won one title since her 2004 US Open victory.

She admitted this week that perhaps that first Grand Slam title came too early in her career and she was unprepared for life as a Slam holder. The Nasdaq victory just might be her signal to the rest of the tour that she’s ready to challenge for the big titles, and from the form she demonstrated over the last week, few will dispute it. She took control of the final versus Maria Sharapova quickly by playing aggressively off the forehand side and attacking that wing of Sharapova’s game. Kuznetsova did have a couple of shaky moments in the first set, particularly when she tried to serve out the set at 5-3. While she lost that game she managed to come right back and break Sharapova to take the set 6-4.

Maria appeared to be a little flat from the start and there was some speculation from CBS commentator Mary Carillo that she could be feeling the after effects of the booing she received from the crowd during her semi-final with Tatiana Golovin. Sharapova certainly deserved the derision of the crowd on Thursday evening, but I don’t think that affected her performance on Saturday. If there is one thing that Papa Yuri has cemented into his daughter, it’s mental focus. In fact, her singular focus is probably what came across as so unsporting in her semi with Golovin and may be why she claims not to know what she did wrong.

Regardless of the reason for Sharapova’s flat start, Kuznetsova soon became Maria’s biggest problem as she was getting pushed all over the court by penetrating ground strokes. Sharapova is not at her best on the run and playing defense; she needs to dictate play in order to be successful. When Sharapova did attempt to go on the offense, she found her forehand had gone AWOL and she was hemorrhaging errors off that side. Kuznetsova, like a shark in the water, smelled the blood and kept pounding balls into that side and was duly rewarded. Maria’s forehand is a powerful weapon, but it’s mechanically unsound and can go astray. In yesterday’s final, Sharapova appeared to lose so much confidence in her forehand stroke that it affected her overall confidence in her game, but she continued to fight. If Kuznetsova had let up in any way in the second set, Sharapova might have been able to force a third. Instead, Sveta’s confidence began to soar as she started smacking powerful forehand winners and closed out the match comfortably.

A return to form by Kuznetsova is a good thing for the WTA Tour going into the European clay court season. I was most impressed by her forehand yesterday, and if she can manage to keep hitting that shot so well, she’s going to be a force for the rest of the season.

In the Men’s final, Roger Federer won in 3 tough tie-break sets versus Ivan Ljubicic. After his loss to Federer at Indian Wells, Ljubicic stated that he felt he was playing top 5 tennis, but that didn’t mean he could challenge Roger. As I watched today’s final, I couldn’t shake the feeling that Ljubicic’s statements regarding Federer are a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the first 2 tie-breakers, Ljubicic made silly errors that doomed him in both. His collapse in the second set tie-breaker was particularly egregious as he let a 4-1 advantage slip away with two quick errors, and then saw The Mighty Fed romp to a 7-4 breaker win.

If you don’t believe you can beat someone, chances are that you won’t. Ljubicic hasn’t demonstrated that he can perform in pressure situations and today was no different. At the Australian Open this past January, I had predicted that he would reach the final, but Ljubicic couldn’t get out of his quarterfinal match with Marcos Baghdatis when his forehand went into the tank after overcoming a 2 set to love deficit. It was kind of sad to watch the Croat choke that opportunity away with poor forehand errors. Like Sharapova, Ljubo has a powerful forehand, but the mechanics are subject to failure.

Coming into today’s final, no one really expected Federer to lose as he took his 2006 record to 28-1 with the victory. For the second year in a row, Roger captured the back-to-back Masters Series titles at Indian Wells and Key Biscayne. His current form should hold him in good stead as the clay court season begins soon and the specialists of that surface will start coming out of the woodwork. At this moment in time, The Mighty Fed has to be the favorite to win his first French Open title.