As sports fans, we all have our favorite sports, favorite events, favorite teams and favorite athletes. When one of our beloved events is happening or one of our revered athletes is in action, it’s usually a special day. For me, Sunday was one of those special days that a sports fan looks forward to as I (my favorite senior tennis player) was in the final of a local tennis tournament, Rafael Nadal was playing Roger Federer in the Wimbledon final, and the finale of the World Cup was taking place in Germany contested by Italy and France.
Such a day is all the sweeter when our rooting interests are served, and more bitter when they are not. It was a rough Sunday in that regard for yours truly; a day in which the karma of my allegiances seemed to be linked in such a way that none of us had a chance.
Not unexpectedly, I lost in my final. Although that result was predictable, it appeared to be the first domino to fall in a day of disappointments. Next up was the Wimbledon final with Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Anyone who has read this space before knows of my admiration for El Rey del Clay, Nadal. His presence in the final at the All England Club was unexpected, but his march through the draw was impressive especially his victories over Andre Agassi and Marcos Baghdatis.
Yesterday, Rafa faced the man who currently owns Wimbledon and is the standard bearer for grass-court tennis, Roger Federer. Before the tournament, Roger didn’t believe that Nadal was ready to progress to a Wimbledon final, but on Sunday, the three time Wimbledon Champion was forced to look into the eyes of his nemesis and deal with the psychological baggage of having lost four straight matches to the Mallorcan. If he could overcome that challenge, he would have his fourth straight Wimbledon title and a renewed stake in tennis’ best rivalry. If he failed, then his status as the world’s best tennis player would certainly be in jeopardy.
As we all know by now, the Swiss Master overcame some spirited competition from his 20 year-old foe to collect that fourth straight title at the Cathedral of Tennis. At this point in the day, I started to suspect that everything was interconnected and that it was all going wrong. Surely, my rooting interest in the World Cup final would lose too, right?
Right. I was rooting for France as much as I was rooting against Italy. Basically, it’s a preference in style. Since at least the early ‘80s, the French have exhibited an artistic flair in their soccer that is pleasing to watch. They have players with tremendous skill who are explosive and exciting. These qualities helped them to conquer the soccer world in 1998 as well as semifinal finishes in the World Cups of 1982 and 1986. While I enjoy watching French football, I don’t have a tremendous allegiance to their squad.
On the flip side, we have the Italians who play soccer in a way that is analogous to the trapping New Jersey Devils of the late ‘90s. Defense and a 1-0 score line are the order of the day. They also happen to be masters at diving, whining, cheating, faking injuries, brutal fouls, and did I say whining? While these qualities can be attributed to players from many different countries (Zinedine Zidane perhaps?), they are systemic in Italian football. Rooting for Italy is rooting for everything that is wrong in modern soccer. So of course, the bastards won. It was a victory for negative and cynical play, and for some reason, I knew it was going to happen before the match even started. Ever get that feeling? The feeling that there is something negative in the air and the team or player you’re rooting for isn’t going to win? Well, yesterday was one of those days for me and although the results didn’t go the way I wanted them to, it was still a great sporting Sunday.
Also, there was one consolation. At least the Red Sox lost.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
World Cup Thoughts - Part 2
To continue with our World Cup thoughts, let’s look at some of the teams that didn’t make the WC Final Four.
United States – The quarterfinal finish at the 2002 World Cup most likely created unrealistic expectations for the 2006 edition of the US National Team and that may explain the reaction of the media and the fans to the first round exit in Germany. Although the US has been ranked in the top ten of FIFA’s World Rankings for an extended period of time, that ranking system has been openly criticized as flawed and it does not accurately reflect the world order in soccer. The fact that FIFA doesn’t use it to seed the teams in the World Cup draw ought to tell us how much belief that organization has in its own system.
When the groups for the World Cup were selected last December, I knew the US wasn’t going to advance to the second round. Italy and the Czech Republic were horrible match-ups for the Red, White and Blue. The Italians are masters at limiting opponents’ chances on goal (as they did yesterday versus the Germans in Dortmund) and the USA’s conversion rate of chances to goals has historically been poor. I couldn’t see the Americans scoring a goal versus the Azzurri. As it turned out, the Italians decided to score one for them. To be fair, the US did play well in this match and unfortunately the referee decided to kill the game off with multiple red cards.
The Czechs’ advantages over the Americans are size, speed and skill. The US simply doesn’t have anyone who can cope with Jan Koller, Pavel Nedved, etc., and the American defenders are clearly out of their league. In reality, the early goal from Koller ended the contest. The US opened up the play and exposed themselves to dangerous counter-attacks. To have won this game, the US needed to score first.
Ghana was the wildcard in the group. You never know what you are going to get out of an African side. They tend to be physically imposing, but usually show their inexperience versus the traditional soccer powers. This was the final game for the US in group play, and I thought in all likelihood that the game would be meaningless. I was wrong on that account and the US did have a chance to advance out of the group stage with a victory (and some help) over Ghana. While another refereeing decision did contribute to the Americans’ downfall, the US was unable to muster enough chances on goal to win the game. US soccer hasn’t reached the maturity level in which it can exploit inexperienced sides like Ghana. In fact, Ghana always looked like the better team.
So should US soccer fans be disappointed with the first round exit in Germany? Sure, there were some disappointing aspects about the way the team went out including some dubious refereeing decisions, as well as poor performances in two of their three games. But to have expected the team to advance to the second round in the wake of the 2002 World Cup was unrealistic. Everything fell into place perfectly in ’02. In their first game, the Portuguese were caught sleeping and before they knew it, they were down 3-0. During the entire tournament (except against the Germans), every time the Americans had a chance on goal, it seemed as if they converted it. That high conversion rate was completely uncharacteristic of American soccer and that remains a central problem with the national team today. In the end, the US team couldn’t break down defenses well enough to create viable scoring opportunities. When they did get their chances, they couldn’t convert them.
The 2006 US National Team is a better team than the 2002 edition even though the results don’t bear that out. They are more skilled, better on the ball, and more able to control the tempo of a game than any American team in history. Because of that, I’m not as disappointed as some in what happened in Germany this summer. I think the progress of American soccer over the last 15 years is very impressive and what Bruce Arena has done with this collection of players is amazing. Let’s remember, outside of goalkeepers, there isn’t a single American player who has ever been close to being the best in the world at his position. Players like Landon Donovan, DaMarcus Beasley and Claudio Reyna may be close to household names in the US, but they are simply faces in the crowd on the world stage.
Due to the zonal system of qualification for the World Cup, the US basically has automatic entry into the finals every 4 years so it will be very interesting to measure the 2010 version of the US National Team with this year’s side.
England – The media hype about England’s chances of winning the World Cup was probably at an all-time high in recent months, but as usual, it was just hype. There was never any substance to the argument for England as tournament victors.
One of the main reasons that England is invariably discussed as a World Cup favorite every four years is that the English people see soccer (football) as a birthright of the nation and that England should simply be the best because they are England. Most of the media in the UK (except for The Fiver!) pick up on this and thus create expectations for their team that simply cannot be met by the current crop of players. An examination of England’s results over the last several years shows that the national side is clearly in a second tier of countries vying for World Cup glory. That notion isn’t acceptable to the English public, but a 4-1 thrashing at the hands of Norway in a friendly earlier this year and a 1-0 World Cup Qualifier loss to Northern Ireland last Fall cannot be overlooked. Can you imagine Brazil with those results? No, I didn’t think so.
Another contributing factor to the hype around the England team is the players themselves. Sure, they’re fine players, but they aren’t the superstar talents that the English media would have you believe they are. They are media created superstars, not soccer superstars. Players like David Beckham, Wayne Rooney, Steven Gerrard, etc. are lauded as superstars by the media simply because they are English and have achieved relative success in the English Premiership. As I said, they are good players, but they aren’t the best in the world. No matter how many times the media tells you they are (that includes Marcelo Balboa of ESPN), it doesn’t make it true.
Compare the talents of England to those of a country that plays in relative anonymity, Portugal. Not only did Portugal eliminate England from this World Cup, but also they eliminated them from the 2004 European Championships and humiliated them in Euro 2000. Most casual soccer fans know who Luis Figo is and maybe Cristiano Ronaldo, but the rest of the team is probably a mystery. However, that doesn’t mean they aren’t good. Some “experts” thought that the English midfield was one of the best in the tournament, but if one compares them to their counterparts from Portugal, one can see that they don’t match up well at all. Of course, the results on the field demonstrated this even further.
Regardless of the hype and unrealistic expectations, England never played up to their true abilities. They created very few offensive opportunities and seemed to play very slowly. English soccer is usually at its best when played at a frenetic pace, but perhaps the summer heat stifled their ability to play that way. The heat was certainly a factor in 2002 when they wilted versus the Brazilians so there’s no reason to think it wasn’t an issue this time around. Now that England is out of the tournament, team manager Sven Goran Eriksson is taking the heat and that’s a shame. He’s been acclaimed as one of the best managers in the world and the England team has done well under his stewardship, but there’s a segment of the English population that can’t accept a foreign born coach for their team. Let’s see if they get what they want with recently appointed, and second choice at least, manager Steve McLaren.
Part 2 of my World Cup Thoughts has turned out to be longer than I thought it would, so I guess there will be a Part 3 covering such teams as Argentina, Brazil, and Spain.
United States – The quarterfinal finish at the 2002 World Cup most likely created unrealistic expectations for the 2006 edition of the US National Team and that may explain the reaction of the media and the fans to the first round exit in Germany. Although the US has been ranked in the top ten of FIFA’s World Rankings for an extended period of time, that ranking system has been openly criticized as flawed and it does not accurately reflect the world order in soccer. The fact that FIFA doesn’t use it to seed the teams in the World Cup draw ought to tell us how much belief that organization has in its own system.
When the groups for the World Cup were selected last December, I knew the US wasn’t going to advance to the second round. Italy and the Czech Republic were horrible match-ups for the Red, White and Blue. The Italians are masters at limiting opponents’ chances on goal (as they did yesterday versus the Germans in Dortmund) and the USA’s conversion rate of chances to goals has historically been poor. I couldn’t see the Americans scoring a goal versus the Azzurri. As it turned out, the Italians decided to score one for them. To be fair, the US did play well in this match and unfortunately the referee decided to kill the game off with multiple red cards.
The Czechs’ advantages over the Americans are size, speed and skill. The US simply doesn’t have anyone who can cope with Jan Koller, Pavel Nedved, etc., and the American defenders are clearly out of their league. In reality, the early goal from Koller ended the contest. The US opened up the play and exposed themselves to dangerous counter-attacks. To have won this game, the US needed to score first.
Ghana was the wildcard in the group. You never know what you are going to get out of an African side. They tend to be physically imposing, but usually show their inexperience versus the traditional soccer powers. This was the final game for the US in group play, and I thought in all likelihood that the game would be meaningless. I was wrong on that account and the US did have a chance to advance out of the group stage with a victory (and some help) over Ghana. While another refereeing decision did contribute to the Americans’ downfall, the US was unable to muster enough chances on goal to win the game. US soccer hasn’t reached the maturity level in which it can exploit inexperienced sides like Ghana. In fact, Ghana always looked like the better team.
So should US soccer fans be disappointed with the first round exit in Germany? Sure, there were some disappointing aspects about the way the team went out including some dubious refereeing decisions, as well as poor performances in two of their three games. But to have expected the team to advance to the second round in the wake of the 2002 World Cup was unrealistic. Everything fell into place perfectly in ’02. In their first game, the Portuguese were caught sleeping and before they knew it, they were down 3-0. During the entire tournament (except against the Germans), every time the Americans had a chance on goal, it seemed as if they converted it. That high conversion rate was completely uncharacteristic of American soccer and that remains a central problem with the national team today. In the end, the US team couldn’t break down defenses well enough to create viable scoring opportunities. When they did get their chances, they couldn’t convert them.
The 2006 US National Team is a better team than the 2002 edition even though the results don’t bear that out. They are more skilled, better on the ball, and more able to control the tempo of a game than any American team in history. Because of that, I’m not as disappointed as some in what happened in Germany this summer. I think the progress of American soccer over the last 15 years is very impressive and what Bruce Arena has done with this collection of players is amazing. Let’s remember, outside of goalkeepers, there isn’t a single American player who has ever been close to being the best in the world at his position. Players like Landon Donovan, DaMarcus Beasley and Claudio Reyna may be close to household names in the US, but they are simply faces in the crowd on the world stage.
Due to the zonal system of qualification for the World Cup, the US basically has automatic entry into the finals every 4 years so it will be very interesting to measure the 2010 version of the US National Team with this year’s side.
England – The media hype about England’s chances of winning the World Cup was probably at an all-time high in recent months, but as usual, it was just hype. There was never any substance to the argument for England as tournament victors.
One of the main reasons that England is invariably discussed as a World Cup favorite every four years is that the English people see soccer (football) as a birthright of the nation and that England should simply be the best because they are England. Most of the media in the UK (except for The Fiver!) pick up on this and thus create expectations for their team that simply cannot be met by the current crop of players. An examination of England’s results over the last several years shows that the national side is clearly in a second tier of countries vying for World Cup glory. That notion isn’t acceptable to the English public, but a 4-1 thrashing at the hands of Norway in a friendly earlier this year and a 1-0 World Cup Qualifier loss to Northern Ireland last Fall cannot be overlooked. Can you imagine Brazil with those results? No, I didn’t think so.
Another contributing factor to the hype around the England team is the players themselves. Sure, they’re fine players, but they aren’t the superstar talents that the English media would have you believe they are. They are media created superstars, not soccer superstars. Players like David Beckham, Wayne Rooney, Steven Gerrard, etc. are lauded as superstars by the media simply because they are English and have achieved relative success in the English Premiership. As I said, they are good players, but they aren’t the best in the world. No matter how many times the media tells you they are (that includes Marcelo Balboa of ESPN), it doesn’t make it true.
Compare the talents of England to those of a country that plays in relative anonymity, Portugal. Not only did Portugal eliminate England from this World Cup, but also they eliminated them from the 2004 European Championships and humiliated them in Euro 2000. Most casual soccer fans know who Luis Figo is and maybe Cristiano Ronaldo, but the rest of the team is probably a mystery. However, that doesn’t mean they aren’t good. Some “experts” thought that the English midfield was one of the best in the tournament, but if one compares them to their counterparts from Portugal, one can see that they don’t match up well at all. Of course, the results on the field demonstrated this even further.
Regardless of the hype and unrealistic expectations, England never played up to their true abilities. They created very few offensive opportunities and seemed to play very slowly. English soccer is usually at its best when played at a frenetic pace, but perhaps the summer heat stifled their ability to play that way. The heat was certainly a factor in 2002 when they wilted versus the Brazilians so there’s no reason to think it wasn’t an issue this time around. Now that England is out of the tournament, team manager Sven Goran Eriksson is taking the heat and that’s a shame. He’s been acclaimed as one of the best managers in the world and the England team has done well under his stewardship, but there’s a segment of the English population that can’t accept a foreign born coach for their team. Let’s see if they get what they want with recently appointed, and second choice at least, manager Steve McLaren.
Part 2 of my World Cup Thoughts has turned out to be longer than I thought it would, so I guess there will be a Part 3 covering such teams as Argentina, Brazil, and Spain.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
World Cup Thoughts - Part 1
With the first of the World Cup semifinals taking place today (Italy vs. Germany), the time seems appropriate to comment on the tournament thus far. Let’s start by reviewing the progress of the four semi-finalists.
Germany – It’s been no secret in international soccer that the German national team has been in decline for several years despite their second place finish at the 2002 World Cup in Korea/Japan. As the host nation, the Germans were directly entered into the final 32 so it was difficult to gauge how much the team had progressed in the last few years. A poor showing versus the Italians in March (a 4-1 loss) seemed to indicate that national team manager, Juergen Klinsmann, had much work to do before their opening match on June 9 versus Costa Rica.
But as host nations often do, the Germans have raised the level of their performances in this tournament and have capitalized on the tremendous public support they’ve received, especially since their last second 1-0 victory versus Poland. The Germans don’t necessarily have the stars of some of the other semifinalists, but they do have their characteristically well-organized style of play working well. Coming into today’s match with Italy, Germany does not have a good record in World Cup play with their neighbors to the south. However, it’s always dangerous to bet against a host nation, especially one as good as Germany.
Italy – Coming into the 2006 World Cup, many soccer observers wondered if the team might be distracted by the match-fixing scandal surrounding some of Italy’s largest club teams. Of course, match fixing scandals are nothing new in Italy, this one just happens to involve some major figures in the Italian game, and the team hasn’t been phased by any of the events going on at home. Thus far, they’ve progressed in typical Italian fashion – solid defense and opportunistic offense combined with the usual flopping around on the pitch and incessant whining to the referees. If you detect some hostility toward the Azzurri, you’re correct, but it isn’t due to what occurred when the US played Italy earlier in this tournament. It goes way back to 1982 when I watched my first World Cup and I’ll detail more of that in my upcoming World Cup Memories posts.
In this tournament, the Italians came through group play extremely well and have entered the semi-finals with a controversial late penalty kick versus Australia and a comfortable victory over the Ukraine. The match-up with the Germans should be a classic clash of styles that may not translate into an enjoyable game to watch. Italy’s style often diffuses the creativity of its opponents and they’ll look to suffocate the energy of the Germans early in the match. If the Azzurri can get an early goal, look for the Italians to choke the life out of the game and to demonstrate why they are the masters of the 1-0 score-line. My pick: Italy 2-1.
France – Les Bleus have had a collective hangover since their Euro 2000 victory over the Italians, but there are signs in this tournament that they may be recovering in time to capture the 2006 World Cup. A round of 16 victory over Spain, a country that France has never lost a competitive match to, served as inspiration for their quarterfinal clash with reigning World Champions Brazil. The French have had good history with the Brazilians in World Cup play. Twenty years ago, France defeated Brazil in the quarterfinals in Mexico, and of course, in 1998, the French raised the trophy at the expense of the Samba Kings.
Although this team’s average age is close to 30, it’s a very talented group of players who have had success at the highest level. Now that they’ve started playing well again as a team, there’s an excellent chance that the French will raise the World Cup trophy for the second time on July 9 in Berlin.
Portugal – Perhaps the most talented soccer nation to never have won a major championship, the Portuguese have equaled their best progress at a World Cup, and they look to go further in an intriguing clash with France. Although history is not always an accurate predictor, history is not on the side of Portugal. The French have a decided advantage in head-to-head play including victories in their last seven encounters.
On the other hand, this team may be ready to take the next step toward conquering a World Cup. Led by “Big Phil” Felipe Scolari, a Brazilian who knows how to win, this Portuguese side looks to have the mental strength that their past brethren have not. At Euro 2004, they advanced to the final before succumbing to a Greek team that had no interest in playing attractive soccer. In this tournament, they’ve progressed to the semifinals in impressive fashion, most notably dispatching their old friends England on penalty kicks just as they did at Euro 2004.
Scolari’s challenge is to get his team ready to play a French side that can match them in technical skill on the ball and has a star-studded line-up. Given France’s talent, it’s not a huge surprise that they defeated a less than impressive Brazil, and the Portuguese will have to cope with a team that is growing in confidence. My pick: France 2-1.
In part 2, we’ll review the performances of some other nations of note, including the United States and England.
Germany – It’s been no secret in international soccer that the German national team has been in decline for several years despite their second place finish at the 2002 World Cup in Korea/Japan. As the host nation, the Germans were directly entered into the final 32 so it was difficult to gauge how much the team had progressed in the last few years. A poor showing versus the Italians in March (a 4-1 loss) seemed to indicate that national team manager, Juergen Klinsmann, had much work to do before their opening match on June 9 versus Costa Rica.
But as host nations often do, the Germans have raised the level of their performances in this tournament and have capitalized on the tremendous public support they’ve received, especially since their last second 1-0 victory versus Poland. The Germans don’t necessarily have the stars of some of the other semifinalists, but they do have their characteristically well-organized style of play working well. Coming into today’s match with Italy, Germany does not have a good record in World Cup play with their neighbors to the south. However, it’s always dangerous to bet against a host nation, especially one as good as Germany.
Italy – Coming into the 2006 World Cup, many soccer observers wondered if the team might be distracted by the match-fixing scandal surrounding some of Italy’s largest club teams. Of course, match fixing scandals are nothing new in Italy, this one just happens to involve some major figures in the Italian game, and the team hasn’t been phased by any of the events going on at home. Thus far, they’ve progressed in typical Italian fashion – solid defense and opportunistic offense combined with the usual flopping around on the pitch and incessant whining to the referees. If you detect some hostility toward the Azzurri, you’re correct, but it isn’t due to what occurred when the US played Italy earlier in this tournament. It goes way back to 1982 when I watched my first World Cup and I’ll detail more of that in my upcoming World Cup Memories posts.
In this tournament, the Italians came through group play extremely well and have entered the semi-finals with a controversial late penalty kick versus Australia and a comfortable victory over the Ukraine. The match-up with the Germans should be a classic clash of styles that may not translate into an enjoyable game to watch. Italy’s style often diffuses the creativity of its opponents and they’ll look to suffocate the energy of the Germans early in the match. If the Azzurri can get an early goal, look for the Italians to choke the life out of the game and to demonstrate why they are the masters of the 1-0 score-line. My pick: Italy 2-1.
France – Les Bleus have had a collective hangover since their Euro 2000 victory over the Italians, but there are signs in this tournament that they may be recovering in time to capture the 2006 World Cup. A round of 16 victory over Spain, a country that France has never lost a competitive match to, served as inspiration for their quarterfinal clash with reigning World Champions Brazil. The French have had good history with the Brazilians in World Cup play. Twenty years ago, France defeated Brazil in the quarterfinals in Mexico, and of course, in 1998, the French raised the trophy at the expense of the Samba Kings.
Although this team’s average age is close to 30, it’s a very talented group of players who have had success at the highest level. Now that they’ve started playing well again as a team, there’s an excellent chance that the French will raise the World Cup trophy for the second time on July 9 in Berlin.
Portugal – Perhaps the most talented soccer nation to never have won a major championship, the Portuguese have equaled their best progress at a World Cup, and they look to go further in an intriguing clash with France. Although history is not always an accurate predictor, history is not on the side of Portugal. The French have a decided advantage in head-to-head play including victories in their last seven encounters.
On the other hand, this team may be ready to take the next step toward conquering a World Cup. Led by “Big Phil” Felipe Scolari, a Brazilian who knows how to win, this Portuguese side looks to have the mental strength that their past brethren have not. At Euro 2004, they advanced to the final before succumbing to a Greek team that had no interest in playing attractive soccer. In this tournament, they’ve progressed to the semifinals in impressive fashion, most notably dispatching their old friends England on penalty kicks just as they did at Euro 2004.
Scolari’s challenge is to get his team ready to play a French side that can match them in technical skill on the ball and has a star-studded line-up. Given France’s talent, it’s not a huge surprise that they defeated a less than impressive Brazil, and the Portuguese will have to cope with a team that is growing in confidence. My pick: France 2-1.
In part 2, we’ll review the performances of some other nations of note, including the United States and England.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Wimbledon: Week One
Between a busier than usual work schedule and World Cup soccer viewing, it’s been a while since I posted. Now that Wimbledon has completed its first week, it’s time to share some thoughts on the happenings of Week One of the Championships.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I haven’t seen much of the tennis this past week, but I did catch the Andre Agassi – Rafael Nadal match twice yesterday (once on NBC and again on ESPN). Thanks to our friends at NBC, no one in the US saw the match live, but my wife and I decided to listen to the end of the match on Radio Wimbledon via Wimbledon.com. We heard Sue Barker’s interview with Nadal and Agassi live and it was an emotional moment. One could hear Agassi struggling to bottle up his emotions as he spoke to the Centre Court crowd for the final time in his career. The emotion of the moment may have been more discernible via the audio feed of Radio Wimbledon as we had no video to distract us from Agassi’s words.
As it turned out, Nadal was the perfect opponent for Agassi in his final Wimbledon match. The many contrasts between the 36 year-old and the 20 year-old showed everyone watching that Agassi had chosen well in making the summer of 2006 his swan song. While Agassi is still one of the best players in the world, Nadal showed him that his time for competing for Grand Slam championships has passed, and one gets the sense that Andre won’t want to compete under those circumstances, especially given his recent injuries and physical issues.
The departure of Andre Agassi from competitive tennis is a significant event for the game. He is the last of a great generation of American tennis players – a generation that included Pete Sampras, Jim Courier, Michael Chang and Todd Martin. It’s a generation that has yet to be succeeded. Andy Roddick teased American audiences for a while, but he’s been revealed to be a pretender to the legacy of Agassi’s generation. So with Andre’s departure, the face and buzz of American tennis will be gone by the end of the summer and we’ll be left with the reality that there is no one ready to replace him in the hearts of US tennis fans.
And while Agassi’s farewell tour is sad for tennis, it does create two interesting story lines for the men’s game over the summer that should bring plenty of media attention. The first is, of course, Agassi himself. The media coverage of his final tournaments in the next few months should be unprecedented and that will be a positive for the sport. The other story line is the continuing saga of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Is Nadal ready to reach a Wimbledon final and possibly challenge Federer on grass? What will happen when these two champions meet during the hard court season? Can Federer improve on his 1-6 record versus Rafa? These two stories have the potential to give tennis some of its greatest media exposure in the US in recent years.
Other Thoughts
· In my two viewings of the Agassi – Nadal match, I was quite impressed with Rafa on the grass. He’s made a few adjustments in his court positioning (closer to the baseline on service returns and during rallies) and he’s putting more velocity on his serves. The fact that Agassi did not have a single break point during the match is remarkable and a testament to how well Nadal played. Based on his current form, a run to the semi-finals and a potential date with Lleyton Hewitt is certainly attainable.
· Wimbledon 2006 is just the latest chapter in the descent of Andy Roddick. The tactically befuddled American got it all wrong again against anti-Englander Andy Murray, and he went down in straight sets. Murray’s been lauded as an intelligent player, and justifiably so. This was his second victory over Roddick in ’06 and he proved once again that brains can overcome brawn, even in tennis. The combination of Murray’s tactical awareness and Roddick’s physicality would make for a formidable tennis player. Unfortunately, that’s not the way things work in life and each player must work with his own abilities. While many tennis observers feel that Roddick has to go back to relying on his big serve, those people ignore the fact that the men’s tour has adjusted to Roddick’s serve. That’s why it isn’t as effective anymore; it’s not because he isn’t hitting it. Andy’s going to have to make some tough choices in the next few months about the direction of his game. He’s no longer playing top ten level tennis and he won’t be able to get back there without some serious changes. The problem is that Roddick appears to be too stubborn to do just that.
· Roger Federer has an interesting couple of matches this week. First, he meets Thomas Berdych in the Fourth Round and if he gets through that, he will meet the winner of Mario Ancic and Novak Djokovic. Ancic was the last player to defeat Federer at the All England Club.
· My prediction earlier this year that the Williams Sisters wouldn’t win another Grand Slam title remains intact thanks to Jelena Jankovic of Serbia. Jankovic took down Venus in 3 sets on Saturday and advanced to a Fourth-Round match-up with Anastasia Myskina of Russia. Thanks Jelena!
In the spirit of full disclosure, I haven’t seen much of the tennis this past week, but I did catch the Andre Agassi – Rafael Nadal match twice yesterday (once on NBC and again on ESPN). Thanks to our friends at NBC, no one in the US saw the match live, but my wife and I decided to listen to the end of the match on Radio Wimbledon via Wimbledon.com. We heard Sue Barker’s interview with Nadal and Agassi live and it was an emotional moment. One could hear Agassi struggling to bottle up his emotions as he spoke to the Centre Court crowd for the final time in his career. The emotion of the moment may have been more discernible via the audio feed of Radio Wimbledon as we had no video to distract us from Agassi’s words.
As it turned out, Nadal was the perfect opponent for Agassi in his final Wimbledon match. The many contrasts between the 36 year-old and the 20 year-old showed everyone watching that Agassi had chosen well in making the summer of 2006 his swan song. While Agassi is still one of the best players in the world, Nadal showed him that his time for competing for Grand Slam championships has passed, and one gets the sense that Andre won’t want to compete under those circumstances, especially given his recent injuries and physical issues.
The departure of Andre Agassi from competitive tennis is a significant event for the game. He is the last of a great generation of American tennis players – a generation that included Pete Sampras, Jim Courier, Michael Chang and Todd Martin. It’s a generation that has yet to be succeeded. Andy Roddick teased American audiences for a while, but he’s been revealed to be a pretender to the legacy of Agassi’s generation. So with Andre’s departure, the face and buzz of American tennis will be gone by the end of the summer and we’ll be left with the reality that there is no one ready to replace him in the hearts of US tennis fans.
And while Agassi’s farewell tour is sad for tennis, it does create two interesting story lines for the men’s game over the summer that should bring plenty of media attention. The first is, of course, Agassi himself. The media coverage of his final tournaments in the next few months should be unprecedented and that will be a positive for the sport. The other story line is the continuing saga of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Is Nadal ready to reach a Wimbledon final and possibly challenge Federer on grass? What will happen when these two champions meet during the hard court season? Can Federer improve on his 1-6 record versus Rafa? These two stories have the potential to give tennis some of its greatest media exposure in the US in recent years.
Other Thoughts
· In my two viewings of the Agassi – Nadal match, I was quite impressed with Rafa on the grass. He’s made a few adjustments in his court positioning (closer to the baseline on service returns and during rallies) and he’s putting more velocity on his serves. The fact that Agassi did not have a single break point during the match is remarkable and a testament to how well Nadal played. Based on his current form, a run to the semi-finals and a potential date with Lleyton Hewitt is certainly attainable.
· Wimbledon 2006 is just the latest chapter in the descent of Andy Roddick. The tactically befuddled American got it all wrong again against anti-Englander Andy Murray, and he went down in straight sets. Murray’s been lauded as an intelligent player, and justifiably so. This was his second victory over Roddick in ’06 and he proved once again that brains can overcome brawn, even in tennis. The combination of Murray’s tactical awareness and Roddick’s physicality would make for a formidable tennis player. Unfortunately, that’s not the way things work in life and each player must work with his own abilities. While many tennis observers feel that Roddick has to go back to relying on his big serve, those people ignore the fact that the men’s tour has adjusted to Roddick’s serve. That’s why it isn’t as effective anymore; it’s not because he isn’t hitting it. Andy’s going to have to make some tough choices in the next few months about the direction of his game. He’s no longer playing top ten level tennis and he won’t be able to get back there without some serious changes. The problem is that Roddick appears to be too stubborn to do just that.
· Roger Federer has an interesting couple of matches this week. First, he meets Thomas Berdych in the Fourth Round and if he gets through that, he will meet the winner of Mario Ancic and Novak Djokovic. Ancic was the last player to defeat Federer at the All England Club.
· My prediction earlier this year that the Williams Sisters wouldn’t win another Grand Slam title remains intact thanks to Jelena Jankovic of Serbia. Jankovic took down Venus in 3 sets on Saturday and advanced to a Fourth-Round match-up with Anastasia Myskina of Russia. Thanks Jelena!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
