Here are a few random thoughts on the first week of the US Open.
I remain surprised at the display of nerves from the top women's players when they are in winning situations. After winning eight games in a row and going up 2-0 in the third set in her third round match, I was shocked to hear Maria Sharapova say that she didn't like it was her day on the court.
While Andy Roddick may be playing well, his days in the top 3 are over. Novak Djokovic proved that in Montreal with a straight sets win and Roger Federer will hammer that point home in the quarterfinals this week.
Speaking of the Mighty Fed, I thought he looked good in his all black outfit in his first night session match of the tournament.
The odds of Donald Young making it to the top of the game are not high in my opinion. He's too erratic both physically and mentally, and he's almost beyond the age when most top players make their move. While Roger Federer is a notable exception to the rule of breaking through young, if you look at the top players over the last 30 years, the vast majority of them made their breakthrough inside the age of 20.
With ailing knees and talk of defaulting before the tournament, the draw is falling quite nicely for Rafael Nadal to get to the semifinals. That's good news for the tournament as Rafa has become a marquee product for tennis, even in the provincial USA. A Nadal - Federer final for the third consecutive Grand Slam would be a huge television ratings boost.
Call me unpatriotic if you wish, but I'm not rooting for any of the remaining American players to win the men's or women's tournaments.
Serena Williams is going to have to take her game up a notch if she is going to beat Justine Henin. Serena has won her opening matches in straight sets, but hasn't looked great doing it, and number 1 seed Henin is as athletic a player as there is on the ladies side. If Serena falls to Henin, it will be the third consecutive major in which she has lost to the Belgian in the quarterfinal round.
It's sad to see Ana Ivanovic out of the tournament.
Kudos to Agnieszka Radwanska for giving Maria Sharapova a little extra to think about on her second serve delivery in their Women's Third Round match. The 18 year-old Pole consistently moved inside the baseline and gave Sharapova several different looks on the Russian's shaky second serve. The result was 12 double faults for Maria and a huge boost to Radwanska's chances.
American John Isner comes across as a good guy, but not particularly good with the Challenge system. A couple of his challenges were so farcical that even he had to laugh. Look for his serve to carry him into the top 30, but he'll have to improve his movement and his ground game to climb further up the rankings.
While 2006 was a great comeback year for Martina Hingis, she's been anonymous in 2007. A hip injury forced her out of Roland Garros and that may have affected some of her prior results, but she's dropped down to number 17 in the WTA Rankings and hasn't made it beyond the Round of 16 in an event since early March. A Third Round loss to 18 year-old Victoria Azarenka of Belarus may have signaled the beginning of the end for the Swiss Miss.
It's remarkable how much Jo-Wilfried Tsonga looks like a young Muhammad Ali.
Another player whose ranking is dropping continuously is Ivan Ljubicic. Maybe he shouldn't have switched racquets from Babolat to Head? Disclaimer: I'm on Babolat's National Team program so I'm just giving the big Croat a hard time about switching. However, changing racquets after reaching a career high ranking is an odd thing to do. Juan Carlos Ferrero did the same when he switched from Prince to Head. He's back with his old Prince racquet now.
I'm usually fairly good at knowing who all of the players are, but I have to admit that I'm not familiar with Ernests Gulbis of Latvia. After he dismantled Tommy Robredo, perhaps we need to take a closer look at this guy.
Roger Federer looks in brilliant form through his first 3 matches and it will be shocking if he doesn't win his fourth consecutive US Open. The only players with a chance to stop that from happening are Djokovic and Nadal, although Rafa's knees may prevent him from mounting a real challenge if he gets that far because of having to play the semis and the finals on back-to-back days.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
Federer's Quest For Perfection
At what point in an athlete's career is it appropriate to have a book written about him or her? In the case of Roger Federer, one of the world's leading tennis journalists, Rene Stauffer of Zurich's Tages-Anzeiger and Sonntags-Zeitung, wanted to write a book on the Swiss genius soon after his first Wimbledon triumph in 2003, but the player and his family decided that it was too early in his career to embark on such a project. However, a few years later it became evident that Federer was entering the pantheon of tennis greatness and that his accomplishments should be documented. Thus was born the idea for "The Roger Federer Story - Quest For Perfection". Originally published in German in 2006 under the title Das Tennis Genie, the book has now been updated and translated into English for a worldwide audience.
The author, Rene Stauffer, first met Roger Federer in 1996 when the current world's number 1 player was only 15 years old. From that initial encounter, Stauffer appeared to be charmed by the young man and came away from the interview with a quote that served as inspiration for the title of his book. While explaining some of his bad behavior on the court, the young Federer revealed his philosophy on tennis. "One should just be able to play a perfect game." From then on, Stauffer understood what the Swiss superstar was trying to attain - perfection.
The book is separated into two parts. Part 1 deals with the rise of Federer and tracks him from his early days on the court through the 2007 Australian Open with almost encyclopedic detail. Part 2 examines Federer the man and what makes him special compared with other athletes and celebrities.
Two of the main themes that Stauffer introduces us to with respect to the rise of Roger Federer are his temper and the impressive variety of shots in his game. In order to ascend to Number 1 in the world, the young Swiss would have to learn to control both aspects. From an early age, it was apparent that Roger had a burning temper whether it had to do with tennis, school or board games. If he didn't get what he wanted, he could be very vocal about it. In tennis, this manifested itself into self destructive behavior on the court that affected his results all the way into his pro career.
As Federer progressed through the junior ranks in Switzerland, it was obvious to all that he had an amazing array of shots. However, he had no love for practice or training. He considered himself to be purely a match player. This would change over time as Federer learned that fitness was a huge part of attaining the results he wanted on tour. He would also become more and more comfortable with the sheer variety of shots in his repertoire. While many of the world's greatest players won their first Grand Slam titles at an early age - Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Mats Wilander, etc. - Federer did not. Stauffer explains that because of the number of weapons in the Federer arsenal, it took him longer to put his whole game together as opposed to some of the other players previously mentioned who were not quite as multi-dimensional as Federer. They had it easier as their games were more singular in focus. Once the Swiss superstar did put his game together and managed his temper, he became nearly unstoppable. The result was a veritable symphony of tennis that fans had never seen before.
In the process of becoming the world's best tennis player, Roger Federer remained true to himself. In Part 2 of his book, Stauffer describes a man who is comfortable being famous and enjoys the life he leads, yet he remains uncorrupted by the trappings of his fame. His commitment to friends, family and country demonstrate how truly grounded he is.
With Federer as the world's Number 1, the sport of tennis could hardly have a better representative. Federer understands his responsibility as Number 1 perhaps more than any of his predecessors in the Open Era. He is an ambassador of tennis to the world, and because of his multi-lingual abilities and his excellent rapport with the media, he is popular the world over.
While his popularity may be near a peak, the career of Roger Federer isn't over and one gets the sense that "The Roger Federer Story - Quest For Perfection" is simply the first book in a series. Federer continues to chase history. Part 1 of this book ended in January 2007 in Melbourne, Australia with another Aussie Open title for the world's best player. Federer has since ended Rafael Nadal's clay court winning streak at 81 matches, reached the French Open final for the second consecutive year, won his fifth consecutive Wimbledon title equalling the record of the great Bjorn Borg, and captured his 50th career title with a victory at the ATP Master Series in Cincinnati. With his Wimbledon victory, Federer's Grand Slam title count stands at 11, only 3 behind Pete Sampras. On the eve of the US Open where Federer will be going for this fourth consecutive title in New York, it's hard to fathom him not shattering Sampras' mark.
For the Federer fan, "The Roger Federer Story - Quest For Perfection" is a must read. It is an Encyclopedia Federer if you will, and the author's exclusive access to the player over the years gives the reader ample insight into the career and life of a man who may become the greatest tennis player of all-time.
"The Roger Federer Story - Quest For Perfection" is published by New Chapter Press. Go to www.rogerfedererbook.com for more information including links to where the book is available for purchase.
The author, Rene Stauffer, first met Roger Federer in 1996 when the current world's number 1 player was only 15 years old. From that initial encounter, Stauffer appeared to be charmed by the young man and came away from the interview with a quote that served as inspiration for the title of his book. While explaining some of his bad behavior on the court, the young Federer revealed his philosophy on tennis. "One should just be able to play a perfect game." From then on, Stauffer understood what the Swiss superstar was trying to attain - perfection.
The book is separated into two parts. Part 1 deals with the rise of Federer and tracks him from his early days on the court through the 2007 Australian Open with almost encyclopedic detail. Part 2 examines Federer the man and what makes him special compared with other athletes and celebrities.
Two of the main themes that Stauffer introduces us to with respect to the rise of Roger Federer are his temper and the impressive variety of shots in his game. In order to ascend to Number 1 in the world, the young Swiss would have to learn to control both aspects. From an early age, it was apparent that Roger had a burning temper whether it had to do with tennis, school or board games. If he didn't get what he wanted, he could be very vocal about it. In tennis, this manifested itself into self destructive behavior on the court that affected his results all the way into his pro career.
As Federer progressed through the junior ranks in Switzerland, it was obvious to all that he had an amazing array of shots. However, he had no love for practice or training. He considered himself to be purely a match player. This would change over time as Federer learned that fitness was a huge part of attaining the results he wanted on tour. He would also become more and more comfortable with the sheer variety of shots in his repertoire. While many of the world's greatest players won their first Grand Slam titles at an early age - Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Mats Wilander, etc. - Federer did not. Stauffer explains that because of the number of weapons in the Federer arsenal, it took him longer to put his whole game together as opposed to some of the other players previously mentioned who were not quite as multi-dimensional as Federer. They had it easier as their games were more singular in focus. Once the Swiss superstar did put his game together and managed his temper, he became nearly unstoppable. The result was a veritable symphony of tennis that fans had never seen before.
In the process of becoming the world's best tennis player, Roger Federer remained true to himself. In Part 2 of his book, Stauffer describes a man who is comfortable being famous and enjoys the life he leads, yet he remains uncorrupted by the trappings of his fame. His commitment to friends, family and country demonstrate how truly grounded he is.
With Federer as the world's Number 1, the sport of tennis could hardly have a better representative. Federer understands his responsibility as Number 1 perhaps more than any of his predecessors in the Open Era. He is an ambassador of tennis to the world, and because of his multi-lingual abilities and his excellent rapport with the media, he is popular the world over.
While his popularity may be near a peak, the career of Roger Federer isn't over and one gets the sense that "The Roger Federer Story - Quest For Perfection" is simply the first book in a series. Federer continues to chase history. Part 1 of this book ended in January 2007 in Melbourne, Australia with another Aussie Open title for the world's best player. Federer has since ended Rafael Nadal's clay court winning streak at 81 matches, reached the French Open final for the second consecutive year, won his fifth consecutive Wimbledon title equalling the record of the great Bjorn Borg, and captured his 50th career title with a victory at the ATP Master Series in Cincinnati. With his Wimbledon victory, Federer's Grand Slam title count stands at 11, only 3 behind Pete Sampras. On the eve of the US Open where Federer will be going for this fourth consecutive title in New York, it's hard to fathom him not shattering Sampras' mark.
For the Federer fan, "The Roger Federer Story - Quest For Perfection" is a must read. It is an Encyclopedia Federer if you will, and the author's exclusive access to the player over the years gives the reader ample insight into the career and life of a man who may become the greatest tennis player of all-time.
"The Roger Federer Story - Quest For Perfection" is published by New Chapter Press. Go to www.rogerfedererbook.com for more information including links to where the book is available for purchase.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Things Are Getting Close
All of a sudden, the Red Sox lead over the Yankees has shrunk to a measly 5 games, and the Bombers are percentage points behind Seattle for the wild card. If the Yanks form continues, it appears a near certainty that they'll make the playoffs. The question for Yankee fans will then become, can this team win the World Series for the first time since 2000?
The answer is "doubtful". I've been saying this for years and it's still true today - the Yanks are built to win in the regular season, not the playoffs. Mediocre pitching and stellar offense will win a lot of games against bad teams. It doesn't win games against good teams that have good pitching. Consistently scoring 10 runs a game isn't going to happen in October, and right now that's the Yankees modus operandi.
The answer is "doubtful". I've been saying this for years and it's still true today - the Yanks are built to win in the regular season, not the playoffs. Mediocre pitching and stellar offense will win a lot of games against bad teams. It doesn't win games against good teams that have good pitching. Consistently scoring 10 runs a game isn't going to happen in October, and right now that's the Yankees modus operandi.
Andy Murray's Future
The 2007 Rogers Masters in Montreal saw the return of Britain's Andy Murray to the ATP Tour after being on the sidelines since May with a wrist injury, and the results were decidedly mixed. The young Scot managed to squeak out a victory versus American underachiever Robby Ginepri in the first round before being humbled by Italian qualifier Fabio Fagnini, 6-2, 6-2. Obviously, this wasn't the return to form that Murray hoped for in Montreal and if anything, his poor play begs more questions. Is his wrist healed? Is Brad Gilbert the right coach? Can he ever win a Grand Slam title? Well, Murray's performances in Montreal were uninspiring and they have to give his fans pause when considering the future of Britain's number 1 player.
Another question on the mind of Murray fans after the loss to Fabio Fognini was, how did he lose so badly to the 139th ranked player in the world? Well, andymurraynews.com has a clinical explanation for that one.
As we've seen lately, Murray rarely loses to a lower ranked players [sic] so, either Fognini is a rising star, or Murray was struggling with fitness when he lost 2-6 2-6.
It seems so simple, doesn't it? Let's dispel the first part of the explanation that Fognini is a rising star. He isn't, and to suggest that he is is quite simply comedy gold. As Kenny Banya would say on Seinfeld, "That's gold Jerry, that's gold!" If Fognini was so good, he probably wouldn't have needed three sets to dispose of Canadian junior Peter Polansky in the first round.
Struggling with fitness? Possibly, but the temperatures in Montreal weren't that warm and Murray's match versus Ginepri didn't appear to be all that taxing. Presumably, Murray has been practicing and training, so he can't be too out of shape. Plus, doesn't Gilbert have him working out with various NFL strength coaches? Struggling with fitness seems like a lame excuse. No, the explanation for Murray's quick exit in Canada is more likely a lack of match play combined with mental discomfort over the injured wrist. Since Murray's game is more cerebral than physical, a return to form may take a few weeks of playing so Murray fans will have to be patient with the player.
In the meantime, let's ponder the question of Brad Gilbert and whether he is the right man to coach Andy Murray. The results so far appear to be rather neutral. From a physical standpoint, one immediate difference that's notable is Gilbert's influence on Murray's approach to the first serve. The young Brit is hitting big first serves all the time with no regard for first serve percentage. The American coach's belief is that the first serve percentage will gradually improve over time and that it is necessary to have a big bomb for a first serve if one is to make it into the top 5 in the world.
Other than the serve, there don't appear to be any other stroke changes in Murray's game due to the new coaching relationship. He's always been fairly solid from the ground so there wasn't much need to change anything there. His excellent return of serve has been helpful in handling big servers like Andy Roddick. How about tactics? If anything, Andy Murray's made his living on being a good tactical player, save for his over zealous love for the drop shot. Murray has always been adept at mixing up speeds and placement, and generally keeping his opponents off-balance. Gilbert's influence in this area isn't apparent at the moment. If one looks at Gilbert's results with Andre Agassi and Andy Roddick, the one strategic piece of advice that both men seemed to take from their relationship with Gilbert was to outwork and grind opponents into the ground physically by being stronger and by being aggressively consistent from the baseline. Agassi became a master at this style of play by running his foes ragged until they had nothing left to give. Roddick added a monster serve and a first strike forehand to the Gilbert mantra and rode that to his first and only Grand Slam title at the US Open in 2003.
Does Andy Murray have the tools to play the Brad Gilbert way? Perhaps a better question is, does Andy Murray want to play the Brad Gilbert way? Let's face it, both men are strong personalities and appear to be rather stubborn. Often times, Murray berates Gilbert from the court when things get tough in a match, and in general has a dour attitude while playing. He appears to be absolutely miserable on the court. While there is no prerequisite that one have fun while playing tennis, it does probably make for a longer career in the sport. And Murray's negative attitude can bleed into a letdown in his competitive spirit on the court as it did in the 5th set of his Round of 16 Australian Open encounter with Rafael Nadal this past January. After losing a competitive 4th set to Nadal, 6-3, Murray simply disappeared in the 5th and went down 6-1.
If there is one area in Murray's game that Gilbert must address in order for him to be a Grand Slam champion, it is that on-court attitude. He must convince the Scot that the negativity only distracts from the focus of winning and is therefore unproductive. He simply hurts himself. Can Murray learn to do this or is his on-court behavior just a matter of who he is and he'll never be able to change? If he doesn't change, British tennis fans will suffer several more years without a home-grown Grand Slam title winner.
Another question on the mind of Murray fans after the loss to Fabio Fognini was, how did he lose so badly to the 139th ranked player in the world? Well, andymurraynews.com has a clinical explanation for that one.
As we've seen lately, Murray rarely loses to a lower ranked players [sic] so, either Fognini is a rising star, or Murray was struggling with fitness when he lost 2-6 2-6.
It seems so simple, doesn't it? Let's dispel the first part of the explanation that Fognini is a rising star. He isn't, and to suggest that he is is quite simply comedy gold. As Kenny Banya would say on Seinfeld, "That's gold Jerry, that's gold!" If Fognini was so good, he probably wouldn't have needed three sets to dispose of Canadian junior Peter Polansky in the first round.
Struggling with fitness? Possibly, but the temperatures in Montreal weren't that warm and Murray's match versus Ginepri didn't appear to be all that taxing. Presumably, Murray has been practicing and training, so he can't be too out of shape. Plus, doesn't Gilbert have him working out with various NFL strength coaches? Struggling with fitness seems like a lame excuse. No, the explanation for Murray's quick exit in Canada is more likely a lack of match play combined with mental discomfort over the injured wrist. Since Murray's game is more cerebral than physical, a return to form may take a few weeks of playing so Murray fans will have to be patient with the player.
In the meantime, let's ponder the question of Brad Gilbert and whether he is the right man to coach Andy Murray. The results so far appear to be rather neutral. From a physical standpoint, one immediate difference that's notable is Gilbert's influence on Murray's approach to the first serve. The young Brit is hitting big first serves all the time with no regard for first serve percentage. The American coach's belief is that the first serve percentage will gradually improve over time and that it is necessary to have a big bomb for a first serve if one is to make it into the top 5 in the world.
Other than the serve, there don't appear to be any other stroke changes in Murray's game due to the new coaching relationship. He's always been fairly solid from the ground so there wasn't much need to change anything there. His excellent return of serve has been helpful in handling big servers like Andy Roddick. How about tactics? If anything, Andy Murray's made his living on being a good tactical player, save for his over zealous love for the drop shot. Murray has always been adept at mixing up speeds and placement, and generally keeping his opponents off-balance. Gilbert's influence in this area isn't apparent at the moment. If one looks at Gilbert's results with Andre Agassi and Andy Roddick, the one strategic piece of advice that both men seemed to take from their relationship with Gilbert was to outwork and grind opponents into the ground physically by being stronger and by being aggressively consistent from the baseline. Agassi became a master at this style of play by running his foes ragged until they had nothing left to give. Roddick added a monster serve and a first strike forehand to the Gilbert mantra and rode that to his first and only Grand Slam title at the US Open in 2003.
Does Andy Murray have the tools to play the Brad Gilbert way? Perhaps a better question is, does Andy Murray want to play the Brad Gilbert way? Let's face it, both men are strong personalities and appear to be rather stubborn. Often times, Murray berates Gilbert from the court when things get tough in a match, and in general has a dour attitude while playing. He appears to be absolutely miserable on the court. While there is no prerequisite that one have fun while playing tennis, it does probably make for a longer career in the sport. And Murray's negative attitude can bleed into a letdown in his competitive spirit on the court as it did in the 5th set of his Round of 16 Australian Open encounter with Rafael Nadal this past January. After losing a competitive 4th set to Nadal, 6-3, Murray simply disappeared in the 5th and went down 6-1.
If there is one area in Murray's game that Gilbert must address in order for him to be a Grand Slam champion, it is that on-court attitude. He must convince the Scot that the negativity only distracts from the focus of winning and is therefore unproductive. He simply hurts himself. Can Murray learn to do this or is his on-court behavior just a matter of who he is and he'll never be able to change? If he doesn't change, British tennis fans will suffer several more years without a home-grown Grand Slam title winner.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Wimbledon 2007 - Chasing Bjorn
Winning tennis matches often comes down to a few key moments in a contest and the player who seizes the opportunities presented in those moments emerges victorious. In Sunday's Wimbledon Men's Singles championship match between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, Federer was that player and thus captured his fifth consecutive Wimbledon crown equaling the Open Era record of the great Bjorn Borg.
On such an historic occasion, it was fitting that the level of play from both contestants was so high. The difference between the men came down to serving and the ability to play well in tiebreakers. Nadal often appeared to be the stronger player during the course of the match, but Federer served with Sampras-like precision on key points in the first and third set tiebreaks to give himself a two sets to one lead. Nadal didn't play his best in those tiebreaks, but he was making more of an impression on the Federer serve as the sets wore on. I had a feeling that if he could get a break in the fourth set and avoid another tiebreak, a fifth set would decide the title.
And that's exactly what the number 2 seed did. He broke Federer immediately in the fourth set and then again to take a 3-0 lead. Federer was beginning to become unglued. In a moment of petulance, Federer even asked chair umpire Carlos Ramos if Hawkeye could be switched off after it reversed a baseline call on one of Nadal's forehands. “It's killing me” Federer cried on the change over, but soon the tenor of the match was to change.
Nadal received a visit from the trainer at 4-1 in the fourth to look at his right knee and an eerie quiet came over the crowd. It gave Federer a chance to recover his senses and realize that his opponent may be seriously hurting. When play resumed, Nadal appeared to be a little hobbled, but he managed to capture the set and take this historic match to a fifth set.
Grand slam matches between these men have not been classics, but Sunday's final was different. It was an epic match and it was going the distance. In the end, the difference was again the Federer serve. In both of Federer's first two service games in the fifth, Nadal charged to 15-40 leads only to see them erased by some clutch deliveries from the Swiss master. By just winning one of those points, Nadal probably wins his first Wimbledon title, but it was not to be. Instead, Federer made his move against the Nadal serve at 3-2. The number 1 seed had held only one break point against Nadal since the early stages of the first set, but with history on the line he made his charge and broke for a 4-2 lead. He would then hold and break the Nadal serve again to seal his fifth title.
Fans around the world were treated to 3 hours and 45 minutes of exhilarating tennis between the two best players on the planet. And while Federer completed his historic victory, I can't help feeling that his veneer of invincibility on grass has been removed. In many respects, Rafa Nadal was the better player on Sunday and the amount of improvement that he demonstrated between last year's final and this year's was staggering.
Since Nadal's triumph in Paris a month ago, many of the Federer faithful claimed that Rafa's march to the 2006 Wimbledon final was a fluke and that he wouldn't be able to challenge Federer's quest for another Wimbledon title. How wrong those fans were. Nadal's march to the 2007 final was far tougher than the previous year, and far more difficult than Federer's draw. In fact, Federer was lucky to win the championship and admitted so to Bud Collins of NBC in the post-match interview. A few points here or there and we might be talking about Rafa Nadal, the first man to win Roland Garros and Wimbledon back-to-back since Bjorn Borg in 1980. Alas, that didn't happen, and Federer was the man who caught Borg on this day.
Of course, the real winner on Sunday was the sport of tennis as its best rivalry produced a classic final in the game's most famed championship. I, for one, can't wait for their next encounter.
On such an historic occasion, it was fitting that the level of play from both contestants was so high. The difference between the men came down to serving and the ability to play well in tiebreakers. Nadal often appeared to be the stronger player during the course of the match, but Federer served with Sampras-like precision on key points in the first and third set tiebreaks to give himself a two sets to one lead. Nadal didn't play his best in those tiebreaks, but he was making more of an impression on the Federer serve as the sets wore on. I had a feeling that if he could get a break in the fourth set and avoid another tiebreak, a fifth set would decide the title.
And that's exactly what the number 2 seed did. He broke Federer immediately in the fourth set and then again to take a 3-0 lead. Federer was beginning to become unglued. In a moment of petulance, Federer even asked chair umpire Carlos Ramos if Hawkeye could be switched off after it reversed a baseline call on one of Nadal's forehands. “It's killing me” Federer cried on the change over, but soon the tenor of the match was to change.
Nadal received a visit from the trainer at 4-1 in the fourth to look at his right knee and an eerie quiet came over the crowd. It gave Federer a chance to recover his senses and realize that his opponent may be seriously hurting. When play resumed, Nadal appeared to be a little hobbled, but he managed to capture the set and take this historic match to a fifth set.
Grand slam matches between these men have not been classics, but Sunday's final was different. It was an epic match and it was going the distance. In the end, the difference was again the Federer serve. In both of Federer's first two service games in the fifth, Nadal charged to 15-40 leads only to see them erased by some clutch deliveries from the Swiss master. By just winning one of those points, Nadal probably wins his first Wimbledon title, but it was not to be. Instead, Federer made his move against the Nadal serve at 3-2. The number 1 seed had held only one break point against Nadal since the early stages of the first set, but with history on the line he made his charge and broke for a 4-2 lead. He would then hold and break the Nadal serve again to seal his fifth title.
Fans around the world were treated to 3 hours and 45 minutes of exhilarating tennis between the two best players on the planet. And while Federer completed his historic victory, I can't help feeling that his veneer of invincibility on grass has been removed. In many respects, Rafa Nadal was the better player on Sunday and the amount of improvement that he demonstrated between last year's final and this year's was staggering.
Since Nadal's triumph in Paris a month ago, many of the Federer faithful claimed that Rafa's march to the 2006 Wimbledon final was a fluke and that he wouldn't be able to challenge Federer's quest for another Wimbledon title. How wrong those fans were. Nadal's march to the 2007 final was far tougher than the previous year, and far more difficult than Federer's draw. In fact, Federer was lucky to win the championship and admitted so to Bud Collins of NBC in the post-match interview. A few points here or there and we might be talking about Rafa Nadal, the first man to win Roland Garros and Wimbledon back-to-back since Bjorn Borg in 1980. Alas, that didn't happen, and Federer was the man who caught Borg on this day.
Of course, the real winner on Sunday was the sport of tennis as its best rivalry produced a classic final in the game's most famed championship. I, for one, can't wait for their next encounter.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Wimbledon Men's Preview
The 2007 Championships at Wimbledon are upon us and the major theme of the men's event is Roger Federer's quest for a fifth consecutive title to equal the Open Era mark set by Bjorn Borg. Federer is a huge favorite to capture title number five and seemingly no one stands in his way. The Swiss' dominance on grass is well chronicled, and the lack of a competitive tune-up event shouldn't worry him. There just aren't any men who can play on grass well enough to beat him.
One player who certainly won't be standing in Federer's way is Britain's Andy Murray who had to withdraw from The Championships with a lingering wrist injury. This is a double-blow for the tournament as Murray is not only a top player – he was seeded eighth – but he was also a strong rooting interest for the British public. While Tim Henman is still playing, his days of challenging for the title are in the past. The young Scot was Britain's best hope and with him out of the competition, the local fans will have no home-grown players with title aspirations to cheer for since 1995.
So can anyone trouble the Swiss Master at Wimbledon? The answer is a fairly definitive “no”, but let's take a look at the top eight seeds to see if a challenger lies among them.
James Blake (9)
The 27 year-old American has played at Wimbledon six times with a best result of the third round in 2006. While his game is well suited to fast courts, his grass court results are inconsistent. Blake will be disappointed that he is on Federer's side of the draw rather than second seeded Rafael Nadal. Blake has had his way with Nadal on quick courts and would likely welcome a shot at the Spaniard on the lawns of Wimbledon. Instead, a potential fourth round match with Chilean Fernando Gonzalez looms and then a quarterfinal versus the world's number one. At the very most, the road will end there.
Tomas Berdych (7)
The 2007 Gerry Weber Open champion should bring great confidence into this year' Wimbledon. He went through the field at Halle, Germany without dropping a set. In 2006, he achieved a career best fourth round result at Wimbledon and has a favorable draw this time around. However, don't be surprised to see him in a tricky match-up with hard serving Aussie Wayne Arthurs in the fourth round. If he can survive that, a possible quarterfinal date with Rafael Nadal awaits. The young Czech has the talent, and perhaps more importantly, the right draw to get through to his first Wimbledon final. If he can make it that far, he'll have to control his nerves to give Federer a run for his money.
Nikolay Davydenko (6)
There's not much to say about Nikolay Davydenko's prospects at Wimbledon other than he has none. He's played the event 5 times and has only won once. He plays a fellow Russian in the first round and if he can somehow survive that match, he'll play the winner of a match between two men who know how to play on grass – Alex Bogdanovic of Great Britain and Chris Guccione of Australia. That spells Game Over for Davydenko.
Fernando Gonzalez (5)
The world's sixth ranked player has had decent results on grass, but nothing to suggest that he can challenge for the Wimbledon crown. He has a difficult first round match with Robby Ginepri and then possibly an encounter with hard serving American, Sam Querrey. It will be quite a feat if Gonzalez can advance to the quarterfinal to meet his doom versus Federer.
Novak Djokovic (4)
In Paris, the young Serbian advanced to his first Grand Slam semifinal, but don't expect a repeat in London. If he comes through his first three matches, a troubling encounter with 16th seed Lleyton Hewitt awaits. Based on Djokovic's career grass court results, one can't see him defeating the Australian veteran on this surface. Like many of his counterparts, Novak will be happy to move to the hard court season.
Andy Roddick (3)
Andy Roddick is one of the few top players that feels comfortable on grass and he'll be looking to put the disappointment of a third round loss to Andy Murray at Wimbledon in 2006 behind him. Coming off a confidence boosting fourth title victory at Queen's Club last week, Roddick will be slightly disappointed that he's been drawn in the same half as Federer. However, Murray's withdrawal has vacated Roddick's quarter of the draw of another top seed, and has left 12th seeded Richard Gasquet as the next highest challenger. Beyond that, 15th seeded Ivan Ljubicic appears to be the only hurdle between the Texan and a semifinal date with Federer. Can Andy break through against Federer when it really matters? It says here that he can't. While Roddick's serve is a formidable weapon, his backhand and net game aren't polished enough to avoid being exploited by the Swiss Master. Roddick's tournament ends in the semifinal.
Rafael Nadal (2)
Many say that Rafael Nadal's run to the Wimbledon final in 2006 was a fluke. The draw fell perfectly for him they say. Well, some of that may be true, but when assessing Rafa's chances in 2007, it would be wise not to discount the young Spaniard too quickly. With such a short grass court season, there are fewer and fewer players who know how to play on the surface thus enabling Nadal to be on equal footing with his opponents. The fact that the All England Club has made the courts play similar to hard courts also works in Nadal's favor as he can expect truer bounces than perhaps some years ago when the courts were a bit softer.
However, it will be difficult for Nadal to repeat as Wimbledon finalist. He has an intriguing first round clash with Mardy Fish of the United States. Nadal defeated the hard serving Fish at Queen's Club in 2006, but Fish was still recovering from injury. The greatest danger to Rafa in his half is Tomas Berdych. Berdych holds a 3-2 advantage in head-to-head and has never lost to Nadal on a non-clay surface. They haven't played before on grass, but the surface favors Berdych's “first strike” style of tennis which he has used against Nadal successfully in the past.
Roger Federer (1)
After reading the above, it's no secret that Roger Federer will in all likelihood win Wimbledon for the fifth straight time.
Predictions
Semifinals
Federer defeats Roddick
Berdych defeats Hewitt
Final
Federer defeats Berdych
One player who certainly won't be standing in Federer's way is Britain's Andy Murray who had to withdraw from The Championships with a lingering wrist injury. This is a double-blow for the tournament as Murray is not only a top player – he was seeded eighth – but he was also a strong rooting interest for the British public. While Tim Henman is still playing, his days of challenging for the title are in the past. The young Scot was Britain's best hope and with him out of the competition, the local fans will have no home-grown players with title aspirations to cheer for since 1995.
So can anyone trouble the Swiss Master at Wimbledon? The answer is a fairly definitive “no”, but let's take a look at the top eight seeds to see if a challenger lies among them.
James Blake (9)
The 27 year-old American has played at Wimbledon six times with a best result of the third round in 2006. While his game is well suited to fast courts, his grass court results are inconsistent. Blake will be disappointed that he is on Federer's side of the draw rather than second seeded Rafael Nadal. Blake has had his way with Nadal on quick courts and would likely welcome a shot at the Spaniard on the lawns of Wimbledon. Instead, a potential fourth round match with Chilean Fernando Gonzalez looms and then a quarterfinal versus the world's number one. At the very most, the road will end there.
Tomas Berdych (7)
The 2007 Gerry Weber Open champion should bring great confidence into this year' Wimbledon. He went through the field at Halle, Germany without dropping a set. In 2006, he achieved a career best fourth round result at Wimbledon and has a favorable draw this time around. However, don't be surprised to see him in a tricky match-up with hard serving Aussie Wayne Arthurs in the fourth round. If he can survive that, a possible quarterfinal date with Rafael Nadal awaits. The young Czech has the talent, and perhaps more importantly, the right draw to get through to his first Wimbledon final. If he can make it that far, he'll have to control his nerves to give Federer a run for his money.
Nikolay Davydenko (6)
There's not much to say about Nikolay Davydenko's prospects at Wimbledon other than he has none. He's played the event 5 times and has only won once. He plays a fellow Russian in the first round and if he can somehow survive that match, he'll play the winner of a match between two men who know how to play on grass – Alex Bogdanovic of Great Britain and Chris Guccione of Australia. That spells Game Over for Davydenko.
Fernando Gonzalez (5)
The world's sixth ranked player has had decent results on grass, but nothing to suggest that he can challenge for the Wimbledon crown. He has a difficult first round match with Robby Ginepri and then possibly an encounter with hard serving American, Sam Querrey. It will be quite a feat if Gonzalez can advance to the quarterfinal to meet his doom versus Federer.
Novak Djokovic (4)
In Paris, the young Serbian advanced to his first Grand Slam semifinal, but don't expect a repeat in London. If he comes through his first three matches, a troubling encounter with 16th seed Lleyton Hewitt awaits. Based on Djokovic's career grass court results, one can't see him defeating the Australian veteran on this surface. Like many of his counterparts, Novak will be happy to move to the hard court season.
Andy Roddick (3)
Andy Roddick is one of the few top players that feels comfortable on grass and he'll be looking to put the disappointment of a third round loss to Andy Murray at Wimbledon in 2006 behind him. Coming off a confidence boosting fourth title victory at Queen's Club last week, Roddick will be slightly disappointed that he's been drawn in the same half as Federer. However, Murray's withdrawal has vacated Roddick's quarter of the draw of another top seed, and has left 12th seeded Richard Gasquet as the next highest challenger. Beyond that, 15th seeded Ivan Ljubicic appears to be the only hurdle between the Texan and a semifinal date with Federer. Can Andy break through against Federer when it really matters? It says here that he can't. While Roddick's serve is a formidable weapon, his backhand and net game aren't polished enough to avoid being exploited by the Swiss Master. Roddick's tournament ends in the semifinal.
Rafael Nadal (2)
Many say that Rafael Nadal's run to the Wimbledon final in 2006 was a fluke. The draw fell perfectly for him they say. Well, some of that may be true, but when assessing Rafa's chances in 2007, it would be wise not to discount the young Spaniard too quickly. With such a short grass court season, there are fewer and fewer players who know how to play on the surface thus enabling Nadal to be on equal footing with his opponents. The fact that the All England Club has made the courts play similar to hard courts also works in Nadal's favor as he can expect truer bounces than perhaps some years ago when the courts were a bit softer.
However, it will be difficult for Nadal to repeat as Wimbledon finalist. He has an intriguing first round clash with Mardy Fish of the United States. Nadal defeated the hard serving Fish at Queen's Club in 2006, but Fish was still recovering from injury. The greatest danger to Rafa in his half is Tomas Berdych. Berdych holds a 3-2 advantage in head-to-head and has never lost to Nadal on a non-clay surface. They haven't played before on grass, but the surface favors Berdych's “first strike” style of tennis which he has used against Nadal successfully in the past.
Roger Federer (1)
After reading the above, it's no secret that Roger Federer will in all likelihood win Wimbledon for the fifth straight time.
Predictions
Semifinals
Federer defeats Roddick
Berdych defeats Hewitt
Final
Federer defeats Berdych
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
French Open Rerun
It's been a few days since Rafael Nadal won his third consecutive French Open title by defeating Roger Federer in four sets, and I can't shake this feeling of deja vu. With a few exceptions, wasn't this just about the same match that we saw in 2006? That thought prompted me to go back and re-read what I wrote about the 2006 final, and I discovered that other than a few factual updates, the general gist of the article would be valid for this year's championship match.
So what does that tell us about Federer's approach to this match based on his 2006 experience? Is he stubborn enough to think that he can defeat Nadal from the baseline or does Rafa do such a good job of controlling points from the backcourt that Roger can't attack successfully? Did his victory in Hamburg give him a false sense of confidence coming into Paris?
Merely suggesting that Federer needs to attack and dictate play more is probably over-simplifying the strategy required to beat the 21 year-old Spaniard. Nadal's speed and strength make him an extremely difficult player to attack on clay and that has to weigh on Federer's mind when it comes to shot selection. However, in the matches that Federer has been successful against Nadal on clay, Rome 2006 and Hamburg 2007, he had played a more attack oriented style of play that paid dividends. Why not try that in Paris? Why not commit to an all-out attack?
On Sunday, he did it for a brief period of time and his effort was rewarded with a second set triumph. He was 9 of 10 in his net approaches in that set and he used his slice backhand effectively to attack the Nadal backhand. It appeared that he had found the key to winning the match in the second set, but a poor start to the third set took the wind out of the Swiss' sails. He never recovered from that moment and Nadal's physical style of play would dominate the rest of the day. The Federer we saw in the second set never reappeared and in his place we were left with a man that seemed content to play the match from the baseline to its inevitable conclusion – a Nadal victory.
So for the second year in a row, the championship match at Roland Garros was disappointing from a drama perspective. Federer couldn't stick to the aggressive game plan that he had verbally committed to before the match and he left his fans exasperated and disappointed. But let's give credit to El Rey del Clay because he certainly deserves it. The physically imposing Nadal proved that the ending of his win streak on clay in Hamburg meant nothing. It was simply time to start a new streak and Roland Garros provided courts that were far friendlier to his game than those in Germany. He wore down Federer both mentally and physically, and that's no easy feat. Federer may have claimed to be fitter and stronger than the world's No. 2, but the visual evidence was to the contrary.
By beating Federer for the third straight year in Paris, Nadal may have also proved that he is in Federer's head on this surface. Invariably, the Swiss master struggles to play well against Rafa on clay and admitted in his post-match interview that playing against the young lefty is awkward. Those aren't the words of supreme confidence that we usually hear from the world's best player and they are indicative of his state of mind when it comes to Nadal. As he did in 2006, Federer will look to Wimbledon as the vehicle to re-establish his confidence and supremacy over the game. But in the back of his mind, could he be worried that Rafael Nadal is ready to go one step further than last year and steal his Wimbledon crown?
So what does that tell us about Federer's approach to this match based on his 2006 experience? Is he stubborn enough to think that he can defeat Nadal from the baseline or does Rafa do such a good job of controlling points from the backcourt that Roger can't attack successfully? Did his victory in Hamburg give him a false sense of confidence coming into Paris?
Merely suggesting that Federer needs to attack and dictate play more is probably over-simplifying the strategy required to beat the 21 year-old Spaniard. Nadal's speed and strength make him an extremely difficult player to attack on clay and that has to weigh on Federer's mind when it comes to shot selection. However, in the matches that Federer has been successful against Nadal on clay, Rome 2006 and Hamburg 2007, he had played a more attack oriented style of play that paid dividends. Why not try that in Paris? Why not commit to an all-out attack?
On Sunday, he did it for a brief period of time and his effort was rewarded with a second set triumph. He was 9 of 10 in his net approaches in that set and he used his slice backhand effectively to attack the Nadal backhand. It appeared that he had found the key to winning the match in the second set, but a poor start to the third set took the wind out of the Swiss' sails. He never recovered from that moment and Nadal's physical style of play would dominate the rest of the day. The Federer we saw in the second set never reappeared and in his place we were left with a man that seemed content to play the match from the baseline to its inevitable conclusion – a Nadal victory.
So for the second year in a row, the championship match at Roland Garros was disappointing from a drama perspective. Federer couldn't stick to the aggressive game plan that he had verbally committed to before the match and he left his fans exasperated and disappointed. But let's give credit to El Rey del Clay because he certainly deserves it. The physically imposing Nadal proved that the ending of his win streak on clay in Hamburg meant nothing. It was simply time to start a new streak and Roland Garros provided courts that were far friendlier to his game than those in Germany. He wore down Federer both mentally and physically, and that's no easy feat. Federer may have claimed to be fitter and stronger than the world's No. 2, but the visual evidence was to the contrary.
By beating Federer for the third straight year in Paris, Nadal may have also proved that he is in Federer's head on this surface. Invariably, the Swiss master struggles to play well against Rafa on clay and admitted in his post-match interview that playing against the young lefty is awkward. Those aren't the words of supreme confidence that we usually hear from the world's best player and they are indicative of his state of mind when it comes to Nadal. As he did in 2006, Federer will look to Wimbledon as the vehicle to re-establish his confidence and supremacy over the game. But in the back of his mind, could he be worried that Rafael Nadal is ready to go one step further than last year and steal his Wimbledon crown?
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Federer And Nadal - History In The Making
It's a good thing I don't make a living as a prognosticator of tennis matches or else I would be living in a cardboard box next to my local subway station asking passersby if they had seen Svetlana Kuznetsova's tennis game, since she clearly misplaced it in her quarterfinal match versus Ana Invanovic. Although my recent French Open predictions were of their usual low quality, even I was able to forecast the combatants in Sunday's Men's Singles final at Roland Garros between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal.
Such is their dominance of the sport that for the second consecutive year, it's Federer and Nadal playing on Championship Sunday. Is it boring that tennis has become so predictable and that we have all known for weeks that these two men would be in the final at Roland Garros? Does tennis need someone to break up the Federer – Nadal monopoly to restore some parity to the sport? The answers to both of these questions are the same and it is, quite simply, no. If you want parity, then watch the NFL.
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are the two best tennis players on the planet and each of them is on an historic quest. With a victory in the final, the Swiss No. 1 will hold all four of the Grand Slam titles at once and will be favored to complete a calendar year Grand Slam in 2007. If he does that, it will be difficult to dispute his place in the game as the Greatest of All-Time.
At the moment, one man stands in the way of the Federer Express and it is a man who at 21 years of age is already leaving his mark on the game. Rafael Nadal's accomplishments on clay are the stuff of legend. If he captures the Coupe des Mousquetaires on Sunday, he will be the first player to go undefeated in his first three French Opens. John McEnroe has called Nadal a 21st Century Bjorn Borg which is high praise from Mac considering he listed Borg in his top 5 of greatest players of all-time.
Yet there are tennis fans that believe the Fedrer-Nadal stranglehold on the sport is a bad thing and it would be best if someone broke up the party. Supposedly, it is boring that these two meet in the finals of multiple major events per year. However, these fans are under-appreciating what we are witnessing from these two exceptional players. Quite frankly, what we are seeing is history being made and we should feel privileged to be a part of it. When discussing the topic of Greatest of All-Time, how many of us can actually claim to know what we are talking about when it comes to some of the past giants of the game like Laver, Kramer and Tilden to name a few? Well, perhaps in 15 to 20 years, we will all be able to discuss that topic a little more competently because of what we are seeing from Federer and Nadal today.
More Grand Slam finals between these two is a good thing for our sport and it will give the casual fan something recognizable to latch onto when considering tennis for its entertainment value. So let's not push these players off the stage before their time. Instead, let us revel in their accomplishments and in the rivalry that they have fostered, and recognize how truly lucky we are to be living at a time when we can see such great players. We may never be so lucky again in our lives to enjoy such tennis genius. To hope for that to end seems foolhardy indeed.
Such is their dominance of the sport that for the second consecutive year, it's Federer and Nadal playing on Championship Sunday. Is it boring that tennis has become so predictable and that we have all known for weeks that these two men would be in the final at Roland Garros? Does tennis need someone to break up the Federer – Nadal monopoly to restore some parity to the sport? The answers to both of these questions are the same and it is, quite simply, no. If you want parity, then watch the NFL.
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are the two best tennis players on the planet and each of them is on an historic quest. With a victory in the final, the Swiss No. 1 will hold all four of the Grand Slam titles at once and will be favored to complete a calendar year Grand Slam in 2007. If he does that, it will be difficult to dispute his place in the game as the Greatest of All-Time.
At the moment, one man stands in the way of the Federer Express and it is a man who at 21 years of age is already leaving his mark on the game. Rafael Nadal's accomplishments on clay are the stuff of legend. If he captures the Coupe des Mousquetaires on Sunday, he will be the first player to go undefeated in his first three French Opens. John McEnroe has called Nadal a 21st Century Bjorn Borg which is high praise from Mac considering he listed Borg in his top 5 of greatest players of all-time.
Yet there are tennis fans that believe the Fedrer-Nadal stranglehold on the sport is a bad thing and it would be best if someone broke up the party. Supposedly, it is boring that these two meet in the finals of multiple major events per year. However, these fans are under-appreciating what we are witnessing from these two exceptional players. Quite frankly, what we are seeing is history being made and we should feel privileged to be a part of it. When discussing the topic of Greatest of All-Time, how many of us can actually claim to know what we are talking about when it comes to some of the past giants of the game like Laver, Kramer and Tilden to name a few? Well, perhaps in 15 to 20 years, we will all be able to discuss that topic a little more competently because of what we are seeing from Federer and Nadal today.
More Grand Slam finals between these two is a good thing for our sport and it will give the casual fan something recognizable to latch onto when considering tennis for its entertainment value. So let's not push these players off the stage before their time. Instead, let us revel in their accomplishments and in the rivalry that they have fostered, and recognize how truly lucky we are to be living at a time when we can see such great players. We may never be so lucky again in our lives to enjoy such tennis genius. To hope for that to end seems foolhardy indeed.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Men's Quartefinal Preview
After Monday's matches at Roland Garros, the men have reached the quarterfinal round of the French Open. Let's take a look at the match-ups from the quarters through the final on Sunday.
Roger Federer (1) vs. Tommy Robredo (9)
While Tommy Robredo is certainly an accomplished clay court player, he's had very little luck with Roger Federer on the surface. His career record versus the Swiss Master stands at 0-7 with two of those losses coming on clay. Federer hasn't dropped a set to Robredo since 2002. Robredo simply doesn't have the game to hurt Federer on any surface and that includes clay.
Pick: Federer cruises comfortably in straight sets.
Nikolay Davydenko (4) vs. Guillermo Cañas (19)
This match has the potential to be the longest match played at the French Open this year. Both players are veritable backboards and are each in supreme shape. The two have not played since Cañas has returned to the tour from his drug suspension, but prior to that the Argentine held a 3-1 advantage in their matches played. Their only match on clay was in 2004 and Cañas won that in 3 sets.
To this point in the tournament, both players have looked solid in their performances and each man has lost only one set. The difference may come down to patience and which player is willing to wait out the other.
Pick: Cañas runs his tail off in this match and wins in 4 grueling sets.
Novak Djokovic (6) vs. Igor Andreev
These two men met in the first round at Estoril in late April in their only encounter to date, and Djokovic emerged victorious in a 3rd set tiebreak. This match figures to be as close as that one. Andreev has been hot in Paris from the start with a victory over third seeded Andy Roddick in the first round, followed up by victories over Nicolas Massu, Paul-Henri Mathieu and the 16th seed Marcos Baghdatis. The 23 year-old Russian seems to have found his dominating forehand in time for a deep run at Roland Garros, but will it be enough to conquer one of the rising stars on the men's tour?
2007 could be Novak Djokovic's breakout year. He won his first ATP Master Series title in Miami and was a finalist in Indian Wells. He also captured the championship at Estoril on clay. However, his path to the quarterfinals has not been entirely smooth. He was fortunate to escape his third round match with France's Olivier Patience – a match he eventually won in 5 sets. At times, the 20 year-old Serb hasn't looked comfortable moving on the dry clay and that could be his downfall versus Andreev, as the Russian will look to use his forehand to maneuver his opponent around the court.
Pick: Andreev in 5 sets.
Rafael Nadal (2) vs. Carlos Moya (23)
There are probably no two players on tour who know each other as well as these men from Mallorca. That makes this a dangerous match for tournament favorite Rafael Nadal as good friend Carlos Moya knows his game as well as his own. Nadal holds a 3-2 edge over Moya in matches with Rafa winning their last meeting in Rome in 2006. Each of their last three matches has gone the distance, so when they play, the matches are tight.
Both players have had relatively easy paths to this point in the tournament, so fatigue should not be a factor. That's especially important for the 31 year-old Moya who has to figure out a way to compete physically with a man 10 years his junior. The key to the match will be who can control more points with his forehand. Neither man wants to hit too many backhands, although Nadal is stronger off that wing than his good buddy.
Pick: Nadal is able to use his forehand to his advantage and pick on the weaker backhand of Moya to win in 4 sets.
Semifinals
Federer vs. Cañas
Amazingly, Cañas has defeated Federer twice this year on hard courts. Can he repeat the feat on clay at Roland Garros? Well, he certainly has a shot if he can frustrate the world's number one player the way he did in Indian Wells and Miami. Cañas simply would not miss in those matches and that fact got into Federer's head. The Swiss Master started going for too much on his shots and making errors, and fell right into the trap that Cañas laid for him.
However, Federer appears to have righted the ship since those hard court events in the US. He's playing more patiently and not going for too much too early in the points. He'll need to stay extra focused in this match as he hasn't played anyone as steady as Cañas yet.
Pick: Federer avenges his earlier defeats to the Argentine with a straight sets victory.
Nadal vs. Andreev
Although most people would have expected Novak Djokovic to be facing Nadal in this match, we're sticking with Andreev. Like the Moya – Nadal match, this one will be another battle of the forehands. These two men met recently in Hamburg and Nadal won convincingly 6-4, 6-1. However, I think we all know that Andreev has a win over Nadal on clay as that was Nadal's last loss on the surface before Roger Federer defeated him in the final at Hamburg.
Both players come into this match playing their best, but I can't see Nadal dropping a best of five set match to the Russian.
Pick: Nadal wins in 3 close sets.
Final
Federer vs. Nadal
For the third time during this clay court season, we have a final with the top two players in the world as well as a repeat of the 2006 French Open Final. Much has been made of Federer's triumph over Nadal in Hamburg, but now it is time for the number one seed to prove that he can do it in Paris. Nadal has never lost a match at Roland Garros and the drier clay is much more to his liking than the heavy and wet conditions of Hamburg.
Federer's confidence against Nadal should be at an all-time high since he finally proved that he can beat the Spaniard on clay. On the other hand, Nadal should be fresher both physically and mentally than he was during their last encounter and will be ready to give it his all across 5 sets. As usual when these two meet, the key will be how Federer handles the high ball into his backhand wing. If he can get on top of it and drive it, he'll be in good position to dictate play. However, if he's forced to simply return his backhand into play, that may give Nadal the opening he needs to hit his inside-out forehand for multiple winners.
Pick: Nadal wins his third consecutive French Open title and remains undefeated at Roland Garros in five grueling sets.
Who are your picks to advance at Roland Garros?
Roger Federer (1) vs. Tommy Robredo (9)
While Tommy Robredo is certainly an accomplished clay court player, he's had very little luck with Roger Federer on the surface. His career record versus the Swiss Master stands at 0-7 with two of those losses coming on clay. Federer hasn't dropped a set to Robredo since 2002. Robredo simply doesn't have the game to hurt Federer on any surface and that includes clay.
Pick: Federer cruises comfortably in straight sets.
Nikolay Davydenko (4) vs. Guillermo Cañas (19)
This match has the potential to be the longest match played at the French Open this year. Both players are veritable backboards and are each in supreme shape. The two have not played since Cañas has returned to the tour from his drug suspension, but prior to that the Argentine held a 3-1 advantage in their matches played. Their only match on clay was in 2004 and Cañas won that in 3 sets.
To this point in the tournament, both players have looked solid in their performances and each man has lost only one set. The difference may come down to patience and which player is willing to wait out the other.
Pick: Cañas runs his tail off in this match and wins in 4 grueling sets.
Novak Djokovic (6) vs. Igor Andreev
These two men met in the first round at Estoril in late April in their only encounter to date, and Djokovic emerged victorious in a 3rd set tiebreak. This match figures to be as close as that one. Andreev has been hot in Paris from the start with a victory over third seeded Andy Roddick in the first round, followed up by victories over Nicolas Massu, Paul-Henri Mathieu and the 16th seed Marcos Baghdatis. The 23 year-old Russian seems to have found his dominating forehand in time for a deep run at Roland Garros, but will it be enough to conquer one of the rising stars on the men's tour?
2007 could be Novak Djokovic's breakout year. He won his first ATP Master Series title in Miami and was a finalist in Indian Wells. He also captured the championship at Estoril on clay. However, his path to the quarterfinals has not been entirely smooth. He was fortunate to escape his third round match with France's Olivier Patience – a match he eventually won in 5 sets. At times, the 20 year-old Serb hasn't looked comfortable moving on the dry clay and that could be his downfall versus Andreev, as the Russian will look to use his forehand to maneuver his opponent around the court.
Pick: Andreev in 5 sets.
Rafael Nadal (2) vs. Carlos Moya (23)
There are probably no two players on tour who know each other as well as these men from Mallorca. That makes this a dangerous match for tournament favorite Rafael Nadal as good friend Carlos Moya knows his game as well as his own. Nadal holds a 3-2 edge over Moya in matches with Rafa winning their last meeting in Rome in 2006. Each of their last three matches has gone the distance, so when they play, the matches are tight.
Both players have had relatively easy paths to this point in the tournament, so fatigue should not be a factor. That's especially important for the 31 year-old Moya who has to figure out a way to compete physically with a man 10 years his junior. The key to the match will be who can control more points with his forehand. Neither man wants to hit too many backhands, although Nadal is stronger off that wing than his good buddy.
Pick: Nadal is able to use his forehand to his advantage and pick on the weaker backhand of Moya to win in 4 sets.
Semifinals
Federer vs. Cañas
Amazingly, Cañas has defeated Federer twice this year on hard courts. Can he repeat the feat on clay at Roland Garros? Well, he certainly has a shot if he can frustrate the world's number one player the way he did in Indian Wells and Miami. Cañas simply would not miss in those matches and that fact got into Federer's head. The Swiss Master started going for too much on his shots and making errors, and fell right into the trap that Cañas laid for him.
However, Federer appears to have righted the ship since those hard court events in the US. He's playing more patiently and not going for too much too early in the points. He'll need to stay extra focused in this match as he hasn't played anyone as steady as Cañas yet.
Pick: Federer avenges his earlier defeats to the Argentine with a straight sets victory.
Nadal vs. Andreev
Although most people would have expected Novak Djokovic to be facing Nadal in this match, we're sticking with Andreev. Like the Moya – Nadal match, this one will be another battle of the forehands. These two men met recently in Hamburg and Nadal won convincingly 6-4, 6-1. However, I think we all know that Andreev has a win over Nadal on clay as that was Nadal's last loss on the surface before Roger Federer defeated him in the final at Hamburg.
Both players come into this match playing their best, but I can't see Nadal dropping a best of five set match to the Russian.
Pick: Nadal wins in 3 close sets.
Final
Federer vs. Nadal
For the third time during this clay court season, we have a final with the top two players in the world as well as a repeat of the 2006 French Open Final. Much has been made of Federer's triumph over Nadal in Hamburg, but now it is time for the number one seed to prove that he can do it in Paris. Nadal has never lost a match at Roland Garros and the drier clay is much more to his liking than the heavy and wet conditions of Hamburg.
Federer's confidence against Nadal should be at an all-time high since he finally proved that he can beat the Spaniard on clay. On the other hand, Nadal should be fresher both physically and mentally than he was during their last encounter and will be ready to give it his all across 5 sets. As usual when these two meet, the key will be how Federer handles the high ball into his backhand wing. If he can get on top of it and drive it, he'll be in good position to dictate play. However, if he's forced to simply return his backhand into play, that may give Nadal the opening he needs to hit his inside-out forehand for multiple winners.
Pick: Nadal wins his third consecutive French Open title and remains undefeated at Roland Garros in five grueling sets.
Who are your picks to advance at Roland Garros?
Sunday, June 03, 2007
French Open - Ladies Preview for Week 2
The ladies have reached the quarterfinals at Roland Garros so it's time to take a look at the match-ups and predict a winner for the 2007 French Open.
Justine Henin (1) vs. Serena Williams (8)
At the top of the draw is the marquee encounter of the tournament and it's one worthy of being a final. Serena leads the head-to-head 6-3, but they haven't played each other on clay since their infamous clash in Paris in 2003 when Justine raised her hand to stop play late in the third set and then didn't own up to doing it when it became controversial. Her lack of sportsmanship aside, Henin is probably the best player on clay at the moment and she's been moving around the court beautifully in this tournament. She's advanced to this point without dropping a set.
Serena's fitness hasn't been an issue yet in Paris, but this might be the match where it becomes one. She was a little shaky in her opening match against Tsvetana Pironkova, but has started to improve with each match. That's reminiscent of her performance at the Australian Open in January where she played herself into form resulting in a crushing defeat of Maria Sharapova in the final.
Pick: Henin – Justine takes the match in 3 tough sets.
Jelena Jankovic (4) vs. Nicole Vaidisova (6)
Jelena Jankovic came to Paris as one of the hottest players on the WTA tour and she hasn't disappointed her fans at Roland Garros. Aside from a difficult match with Venus Williams, she's rolled into the quarterfinals playing her best tennis. Can she reach her second career Grand Slam semifinal?
On the other side of the net, Nicole Vaidisova was forced to withdraw from her last 3 events with a wrist injury and hasn't had much competitive play on clay this spring. Regardless, she has also moved into the quarters without much resistance and now looks to reach her second Grand Slam semifinal of 2007. Jankovic has won two of their last three encounters with all of them going 3 sets.
Pick: Jankovic wins in 3 sets to set up a rematch of her US Open semifinal versus Justine Henin.
Ana Ivanovic (7) vs. Svetalana Kuznetsova (3)
These two ladies just played each other a few weeks ago in the final at Berlin with Ivanovic winning in 3 sets. What that result doesn't tell you is that it was Kuznetsova's second match of the day after she had beaten Justine Henin earlier in a 3 set battle. In the final, Kuznetsova claimed that she was mentally drained from her victory over Henin and wasn't able to compete the way she wanted to.
Both players have moved to this point in the tournament with relative ease, although Ivanovic struggled a bit on Sunday against Anabel Medina Garrigues. She'll have to improve on that performance in order to beat the Russian.
Pick: Kuznetsova continues her fine form in Paris and wins in straight sets.
Anna Chakvetadze (9) vs. Maria Sharapova (2)
A rematch of their Australian Open quarterfinal is on the docket for these two 20 year-old Russians. Maria Sharapova has never lost to Chakvetadze (3-0) and that includes a win at Roland Garros in 2005. Of course, Chakvetadze is a much improved player since 2005 so that result may not be particularly significant in evaluating this match.
What is significant is that both players have come to Roland Garros with shoulder issues hampering their preparation. On Sunday, each player was pushed to three sets and Sharapova managed to survive two match points against her. As is often the case in Maria's matches, her mental toughness pulled her through.
Pick: Sharapova has the mental edge on Chakvetadze and wins in 2 close sets.
Semifinals
Henin (1) vs. Jankovic (4)
These two ladies have already played each other three times in 2007 as well as a semifinal clash in the 2006 US Open. Unfortunately for Jankovic, she's lost all of those matches and has an 0-5 record against the diminutive Belgian. Jankovic has come close to victory in the five previous encounters, but she hasn't been able to solve the Henin puzzle. Will Paris be different?
Pick: Henin continues her mastery over Jankovic in another 3 set battle and reaches her fifth consecutive Grand Slam final.
Kuznetsova (3) vs. Sharapova (2)
This semifinal looks to be another all-Russian affair for Maria Sharapova, but in this match up, she doesn't have the advantage in the head-to-head as their record stands at 3-3. They have never played each other on clay and this will be their first meeting of 2007 so this match is a difficult one to predict. Sharapova will bring an aggressive game and her mental strength to the court. The question will be whether Kuznetsova can handle the moment well enough to defeat one of the toughest competitors on the women's tour.
Pick: Kuznetsova's clay court form propels her into the final in 3 tough sets, and gives her a chance to avenge her defeat in last year's French Open final versus Justine Henin.
Final
Henin (1) vs. Kuznetsova (3)
A few weeks ago in Berlin, Kuznetsova managed to squeeze out a three set victory over Henin in the semifinals of the Berlin Open before losing the final to Ana Invanovic. That was only the Russian's second victory versus Henin in 16 tries. Those numbers don't tell a compelling story for the Russian's chances in this match especially since two of her losses versus Henin have occurred at Roland Garros.
For Justine, a victory in Paris would be her third consecutive French Open crown and would cement her reputation as the tour's top clay court player.
Pick: Henin does it again with a straight sets victory over her Russian foe.
What are your predictions for the rest of the tournament?
Justine Henin (1) vs. Serena Williams (8)
At the top of the draw is the marquee encounter of the tournament and it's one worthy of being a final. Serena leads the head-to-head 6-3, but they haven't played each other on clay since their infamous clash in Paris in 2003 when Justine raised her hand to stop play late in the third set and then didn't own up to doing it when it became controversial. Her lack of sportsmanship aside, Henin is probably the best player on clay at the moment and she's been moving around the court beautifully in this tournament. She's advanced to this point without dropping a set.
Serena's fitness hasn't been an issue yet in Paris, but this might be the match where it becomes one. She was a little shaky in her opening match against Tsvetana Pironkova, but has started to improve with each match. That's reminiscent of her performance at the Australian Open in January where she played herself into form resulting in a crushing defeat of Maria Sharapova in the final.
Pick: Henin – Justine takes the match in 3 tough sets.
Jelena Jankovic (4) vs. Nicole Vaidisova (6)
Jelena Jankovic came to Paris as one of the hottest players on the WTA tour and she hasn't disappointed her fans at Roland Garros. Aside from a difficult match with Venus Williams, she's rolled into the quarterfinals playing her best tennis. Can she reach her second career Grand Slam semifinal?
On the other side of the net, Nicole Vaidisova was forced to withdraw from her last 3 events with a wrist injury and hasn't had much competitive play on clay this spring. Regardless, she has also moved into the quarters without much resistance and now looks to reach her second Grand Slam semifinal of 2007. Jankovic has won two of their last three encounters with all of them going 3 sets.
Pick: Jankovic wins in 3 sets to set up a rematch of her US Open semifinal versus Justine Henin.
Ana Ivanovic (7) vs. Svetalana Kuznetsova (3)
These two ladies just played each other a few weeks ago in the final at Berlin with Ivanovic winning in 3 sets. What that result doesn't tell you is that it was Kuznetsova's second match of the day after she had beaten Justine Henin earlier in a 3 set battle. In the final, Kuznetsova claimed that she was mentally drained from her victory over Henin and wasn't able to compete the way she wanted to.
Both players have moved to this point in the tournament with relative ease, although Ivanovic struggled a bit on Sunday against Anabel Medina Garrigues. She'll have to improve on that performance in order to beat the Russian.
Pick: Kuznetsova continues her fine form in Paris and wins in straight sets.
Anna Chakvetadze (9) vs. Maria Sharapova (2)
A rematch of their Australian Open quarterfinal is on the docket for these two 20 year-old Russians. Maria Sharapova has never lost to Chakvetadze (3-0) and that includes a win at Roland Garros in 2005. Of course, Chakvetadze is a much improved player since 2005 so that result may not be particularly significant in evaluating this match.
What is significant is that both players have come to Roland Garros with shoulder issues hampering their preparation. On Sunday, each player was pushed to three sets and Sharapova managed to survive two match points against her. As is often the case in Maria's matches, her mental toughness pulled her through.
Pick: Sharapova has the mental edge on Chakvetadze and wins in 2 close sets.
Semifinals
Henin (1) vs. Jankovic (4)
These two ladies have already played each other three times in 2007 as well as a semifinal clash in the 2006 US Open. Unfortunately for Jankovic, she's lost all of those matches and has an 0-5 record against the diminutive Belgian. Jankovic has come close to victory in the five previous encounters, but she hasn't been able to solve the Henin puzzle. Will Paris be different?
Pick: Henin continues her mastery over Jankovic in another 3 set battle and reaches her fifth consecutive Grand Slam final.
Kuznetsova (3) vs. Sharapova (2)
This semifinal looks to be another all-Russian affair for Maria Sharapova, but in this match up, she doesn't have the advantage in the head-to-head as their record stands at 3-3. They have never played each other on clay and this will be their first meeting of 2007 so this match is a difficult one to predict. Sharapova will bring an aggressive game and her mental strength to the court. The question will be whether Kuznetsova can handle the moment well enough to defeat one of the toughest competitors on the women's tour.
Pick: Kuznetsova's clay court form propels her into the final in 3 tough sets, and gives her a chance to avenge her defeat in last year's French Open final versus Justine Henin.
Final
Henin (1) vs. Kuznetsova (3)
A few weeks ago in Berlin, Kuznetsova managed to squeeze out a three set victory over Henin in the semifinals of the Berlin Open before losing the final to Ana Invanovic. That was only the Russian's second victory versus Henin in 16 tries. Those numbers don't tell a compelling story for the Russian's chances in this match especially since two of her losses versus Henin have occurred at Roland Garros.
For Justine, a victory in Paris would be her third consecutive French Open crown and would cement her reputation as the tour's top clay court player.
Pick: Henin does it again with a straight sets victory over her Russian foe.
What are your predictions for the rest of the tournament?
Roland Garros - Week 1 Thoughts
American Men
The first few days of the 2007 French Open were dominated by rain and if you were an American male tennis player, you probably wished the rain had never stopped. Not a single American man was able to advance beyond the first round, including the world's number 3 player Andy Roddick, in an amazing display of incompetence on clay. American struggles at Roland Garros have been well chronicled over the years, but typically the discussion has focused on the difficulty of winning the tournament, not of winning a match.
With the rise of Spanish tennis in the 1990's, the Spaniards were criticized for specializing on clay and giving little attention to their games on the faster surfaces. Some Spanish players and other clay court specialists would show up at Wimbledon with absolutely no preparation and would make a quick exit. Under those circumstances, the question was why even play the tournament if you don't prepare? It was a good question and it is one that the Spanish, as well as other European and South American players, have answered quite well. Not only have they continued to be the dominant force on clay, they have become contenders on all other surfaces and have emerged as the new powers in tennis. In Spain, hard courts and grass courts were built to help train their players on the other Grand Slam surfaces, and the results have begun to follow. Spaniards Carlos Moya, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Rafael Nadal, and South Americans David Nalbandian, Fernando Gonzalez and Marcelo Rios have all been finalists at non-clay Grand Slams since 1997.
Now the shoe is on the other foot and it's time for American tennis to decide if it wants to address its woes on clay. It will require a tennis culture change as hard courts in the US are being built to play faster and faster, and power is taught as the main component of the game. Until more clay courts are built in the US for junior players to train on, the trend of ineptitude on clay for the American men will in all likelihood continue.
Other Thoughts
Once again, Ivan Ljubicic has lived up to his billing as Grand Slam underachiever, this time with a third round loss to Italian Filippo Volandri. In the first 2 majors of the year, the number 7 player in the world has won just 2 matches, both in Paris.
Although the big story in the US has been the misfortunes of the American men, there are also no French men remaining as Week 2 begins. Of the four host nations of the Grand Slams, only Australia has a male player remaining in the event, Lleyton Hewitt, and he is not typically considered a great clay court player. This is just another indication of how the once traditional powers in tennis have lost their dominance.
With three of the most exciting players in the game today, there's an outside chance that the men's and women's champions could come from Serbia. Novak Djokovic, Jelena Jankovic and Ana Ivanovic are all still in the mix and each of them has a good opportunity to advance further.
The continuing demise of Venus Williams was on full display in Paris in the first week of Roland Garros. While her three set loss to Jelena Jankovic was certainly respectable, Venus continues to ignore the mechanical flaws in her own game while at the same time seems unable to ever give her opponents any credit. It is always about how she played poorly, or in the case of the Jankovic match, how she over-trained for the event and that made her tired in the final set. Apparently, it had nothing to do with the fact that she has only played 6 tournaments this year compared to the 14 that Jankovic has played.
The first few days of the 2007 French Open were dominated by rain and if you were an American male tennis player, you probably wished the rain had never stopped. Not a single American man was able to advance beyond the first round, including the world's number 3 player Andy Roddick, in an amazing display of incompetence on clay. American struggles at Roland Garros have been well chronicled over the years, but typically the discussion has focused on the difficulty of winning the tournament, not of winning a match.
With the rise of Spanish tennis in the 1990's, the Spaniards were criticized for specializing on clay and giving little attention to their games on the faster surfaces. Some Spanish players and other clay court specialists would show up at Wimbledon with absolutely no preparation and would make a quick exit. Under those circumstances, the question was why even play the tournament if you don't prepare? It was a good question and it is one that the Spanish, as well as other European and South American players, have answered quite well. Not only have they continued to be the dominant force on clay, they have become contenders on all other surfaces and have emerged as the new powers in tennis. In Spain, hard courts and grass courts were built to help train their players on the other Grand Slam surfaces, and the results have begun to follow. Spaniards Carlos Moya, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Rafael Nadal, and South Americans David Nalbandian, Fernando Gonzalez and Marcelo Rios have all been finalists at non-clay Grand Slams since 1997.
Now the shoe is on the other foot and it's time for American tennis to decide if it wants to address its woes on clay. It will require a tennis culture change as hard courts in the US are being built to play faster and faster, and power is taught as the main component of the game. Until more clay courts are built in the US for junior players to train on, the trend of ineptitude on clay for the American men will in all likelihood continue.
Other Thoughts
Once again, Ivan Ljubicic has lived up to his billing as Grand Slam underachiever, this time with a third round loss to Italian Filippo Volandri. In the first 2 majors of the year, the number 7 player in the world has won just 2 matches, both in Paris.
Although the big story in the US has been the misfortunes of the American men, there are also no French men remaining as Week 2 begins. Of the four host nations of the Grand Slams, only Australia has a male player remaining in the event, Lleyton Hewitt, and he is not typically considered a great clay court player. This is just another indication of how the once traditional powers in tennis have lost their dominance.
With three of the most exciting players in the game today, there's an outside chance that the men's and women's champions could come from Serbia. Novak Djokovic, Jelena Jankovic and Ana Ivanovic are all still in the mix and each of them has a good opportunity to advance further.
The continuing demise of Venus Williams was on full display in Paris in the first week of Roland Garros. While her three set loss to Jelena Jankovic was certainly respectable, Venus continues to ignore the mechanical flaws in her own game while at the same time seems unable to ever give her opponents any credit. It is always about how she played poorly, or in the case of the Jankovic match, how she over-trained for the event and that made her tired in the final set. Apparently, it had nothing to do with the fact that she has only played 6 tournaments this year compared to the 14 that Jankovic has played.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Jankovic Riding High Into Roland Garros
With less than a week to go before the French Open begins in Paris, uncertainty reigns in the women's game perhaps more than ever. Over the past 30 years, tennis fans have become accustomed to a very small number of women dominating the game at any one time. Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf and Monica Seles owned the tour during their respective careers from the mid-70's through the mid to late 90's. A look at the winners of the four Majors during this time period will show these ladies' names over and over again with few exceptions.
Since Martina Hingis' ascension to the number 1 ranking in 1997, there has been greater depth at the top of the game with the rise of the Williams Sisters, Lindsay Davenport, the Russian Revolution and a pair of talented Belgians, thus adding a little more intrigue to the tour. Recent Grand Slam title winners have come from this list, but the 2007 French Open may be different as none of the usual suspects appears to be playing all that well or even playing at all – Martina Hingis and Kim Clijsters to name a couple. It may be time for a new rising star.
That rising star may have been seen this past weekend in Rome, where Jelena Jankovic captured her first Italian Open title without losing a set and perhaps signaled to the rest of the WTA Tour that she is ready to win a major. With the victory, the 22 year-old Serbian rose to a career high singles ranking of number 4 in the world. Since a 1-10 start to the 2006 season, Jankovic has rebounded to become a force to be reckoned with on the WTA Tour, going 44-17 for the remainder of the season including a semifinal appearance at the US Open.
Her 2007 campaign began in torrid fashion with a 12-2 record on the Australian swing where she won her first of three titles this year, and although she had a disappointing Spring on American hard courts, she seems to have found her game in time for Roland Garros. However, this talented and athletic player does have a couple of hurdles to overcome before she can claim her first Grand Slam title. One is simply the ability to handle the big moment in a major. In last year's US Open semifinal versus Justine Henin, Jankovic struggled mentally after relinquishing a large lead and it appeared that she wasn't able to handle the occasion of her first Grand Slam semifinal. Double faults crept into her game and she was visibly shaken in the third set which she lost at love.
The other hurdle that stands between Jankovic and glory in Paris is Justine Henin. Jankovic's record against Henin is 0-5 with four of those losses coming in the last year. All of their head-to-head encounters have gone three sets. After her victory in Rome, Jankovic joked that the only reason she won the event was because Justine didn't play and those words are telling when considering the Serbian's state of mind regarding Henin. She knows that she needs to beat Henin soon for her own confidence and to erase the memories of some recent painful losses to the world's number one including blowing a 4-0 advantage in the third set of their Berlin quarterfinal.
When watching Jankovic play tennis, it's obvious that we are watching an elite athlete in action. She glides across the court in a way that few women do, and her groundstrokes are extremely fluid, especially her two-handed backhand. Physically, she oozes talent and one can't help but be impressed by her athleticism. However, physical talent is only a portion of the equation when it comes to winning a tournament of the magnitude of the French Open. Mental strength, especially on red clay, is a major component of success at the highest level of the game and it is that strength that Jelena Jankovic will have to demonstrate if she is to capture her first Grand Slam title at Roland Garros. Can she do it? Well, the opportunity is certainly there for the taking this year and here's hoping that she can pull it off.
Since Martina Hingis' ascension to the number 1 ranking in 1997, there has been greater depth at the top of the game with the rise of the Williams Sisters, Lindsay Davenport, the Russian Revolution and a pair of talented Belgians, thus adding a little more intrigue to the tour. Recent Grand Slam title winners have come from this list, but the 2007 French Open may be different as none of the usual suspects appears to be playing all that well or even playing at all – Martina Hingis and Kim Clijsters to name a couple. It may be time for a new rising star.
That rising star may have been seen this past weekend in Rome, where Jelena Jankovic captured her first Italian Open title without losing a set and perhaps signaled to the rest of the WTA Tour that she is ready to win a major. With the victory, the 22 year-old Serbian rose to a career high singles ranking of number 4 in the world. Since a 1-10 start to the 2006 season, Jankovic has rebounded to become a force to be reckoned with on the WTA Tour, going 44-17 for the remainder of the season including a semifinal appearance at the US Open.
Her 2007 campaign began in torrid fashion with a 12-2 record on the Australian swing where she won her first of three titles this year, and although she had a disappointing Spring on American hard courts, she seems to have found her game in time for Roland Garros. However, this talented and athletic player does have a couple of hurdles to overcome before she can claim her first Grand Slam title. One is simply the ability to handle the big moment in a major. In last year's US Open semifinal versus Justine Henin, Jankovic struggled mentally after relinquishing a large lead and it appeared that she wasn't able to handle the occasion of her first Grand Slam semifinal. Double faults crept into her game and she was visibly shaken in the third set which she lost at love.
The other hurdle that stands between Jankovic and glory in Paris is Justine Henin. Jankovic's record against Henin is 0-5 with four of those losses coming in the last year. All of their head-to-head encounters have gone three sets. After her victory in Rome, Jankovic joked that the only reason she won the event was because Justine didn't play and those words are telling when considering the Serbian's state of mind regarding Henin. She knows that she needs to beat Henin soon for her own confidence and to erase the memories of some recent painful losses to the world's number one including blowing a 4-0 advantage in the third set of their Berlin quarterfinal.
When watching Jankovic play tennis, it's obvious that we are watching an elite athlete in action. She glides across the court in a way that few women do, and her groundstrokes are extremely fluid, especially her two-handed backhand. Physically, she oozes talent and one can't help but be impressed by her athleticism. However, physical talent is only a portion of the equation when it comes to winning a tournament of the magnitude of the French Open. Mental strength, especially on red clay, is a major component of success at the highest level of the game and it is that strength that Jelena Jankovic will have to demonstrate if she is to capture her first Grand Slam title at Roland Garros. Can she do it? Well, the opportunity is certainly there for the taking this year and here's hoping that she can pull it off.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Now What?
Now that Roger Federer has managed to finally trip up Rafael Nadal on clay, the operative question becomes, what will happen at Roland Garros? Prior to last week's ATP Master Series Hamburg event, a third consecutive triumph in Paris for Rafael Nadal appeared to be a near certainty. Victories in Monte Carlo, Barcelona and Rome solidified the Spaniard's standing as El Rey del Clay and quite frankly, he's looked better on the dirt this year than he did last. As for Roger Federer, he looked poor in the Monte Carlo final versus Nadal and he suffered a stunning defeat in Rome at the hands of world number 53, Filippo Volandri. Those aren't the types of performances on which to build confidence in order to win the one Grand Slam title missing from the résumé.
Hamburg just may have changed that for Federer. Admittedly, he was playing poorly throughout the tournament including the first set of the final, but at 0-1, 15-40, something appeared to click mentally for Federer. Instead of trying to end points quickly, he worked the points more patiently and controlled the play until he could end the rallies with a high percentage shot. Up until that juncture in the match, the world's number one had been trying unsuccessfully to hit flashy winners in an attempt to dictate play and shorten the points. However, this change in approach enabled Federer to escape break points on his serve and recover from what could have been the decisive break of the match. From that moment on, the tenor of the match changed. Federer was now in charge, playing cleaner tennis, and Nadal, who hadn't been playing that well to begin with, was more error prone than usual.
While Nadal is still the bookmakers' favorite even after yesterday's loss, his air of invincibility on clay has been removed. All of a sudden, the Federer Express appears to be back on track for its ultimate destination of Greatest Player of All-Time. It's a track that will eventually require a Championship stop at Roland Garros Station in order to complete that journey, and 2007 may be the year that the Fed Train arrives there on the third Sunday of the tournament.
Understandably, Federer supporters are coming out in droves in support of their man and his chances of winning the French Open now that he has finally deposed Nadal on clay. But will this match be the turning point in Federer's season or will he go back to his impatient, error-filled tennis of the last few months? Through the Australian Open and Dubai, Federer had been playing so well that one wonders if he had become psychologically addicted to hitting brilliant winners at will and that that possibly led to his mini-slump when he couldn't adjust to missing his shots. Anyone who plays the game knows that hitting winners is addictive to the point where it can begin to change your approach to point construction. Suddenly, you lose patience and you try to end the points before you should. Only by breaking the addiction can you begin to focus on playing good tennis and letting the results follow. It remains to be seen whether Federer has completely emerged from his rough patch and can return to his previous championship form.
As for Nadal, I was surprised that he played Hamburg because of the potential to get over-tired with so many more matches on clay, and the fact that he had skipped the event the last two years. Rafa did appear tired and drained in the final and his fans are left wondering how he will overcome this defeat and the end of his record winning streak. A weeks rest will do the Mallorcan well in his quest for a third consecutive French Open title, but the psychological hurdle may be more difficult to overcome. He'll be looking forward to his first round match next week to exercise the demons from his game and re-establish himself as El Rey del Clay.
Based on yesterday's result, one thing is clear – we've got Game On for this year's French Open and tennis fans are the big winners.
Hamburg just may have changed that for Federer. Admittedly, he was playing poorly throughout the tournament including the first set of the final, but at 0-1, 15-40, something appeared to click mentally for Federer. Instead of trying to end points quickly, he worked the points more patiently and controlled the play until he could end the rallies with a high percentage shot. Up until that juncture in the match, the world's number one had been trying unsuccessfully to hit flashy winners in an attempt to dictate play and shorten the points. However, this change in approach enabled Federer to escape break points on his serve and recover from what could have been the decisive break of the match. From that moment on, the tenor of the match changed. Federer was now in charge, playing cleaner tennis, and Nadal, who hadn't been playing that well to begin with, was more error prone than usual.
While Nadal is still the bookmakers' favorite even after yesterday's loss, his air of invincibility on clay has been removed. All of a sudden, the Federer Express appears to be back on track for its ultimate destination of Greatest Player of All-Time. It's a track that will eventually require a Championship stop at Roland Garros Station in order to complete that journey, and 2007 may be the year that the Fed Train arrives there on the third Sunday of the tournament.
Understandably, Federer supporters are coming out in droves in support of their man and his chances of winning the French Open now that he has finally deposed Nadal on clay. But will this match be the turning point in Federer's season or will he go back to his impatient, error-filled tennis of the last few months? Through the Australian Open and Dubai, Federer had been playing so well that one wonders if he had become psychologically addicted to hitting brilliant winners at will and that that possibly led to his mini-slump when he couldn't adjust to missing his shots. Anyone who plays the game knows that hitting winners is addictive to the point where it can begin to change your approach to point construction. Suddenly, you lose patience and you try to end the points before you should. Only by breaking the addiction can you begin to focus on playing good tennis and letting the results follow. It remains to be seen whether Federer has completely emerged from his rough patch and can return to his previous championship form.
As for Nadal, I was surprised that he played Hamburg because of the potential to get over-tired with so many more matches on clay, and the fact that he had skipped the event the last two years. Rafa did appear tired and drained in the final and his fans are left wondering how he will overcome this defeat and the end of his record winning streak. A weeks rest will do the Mallorcan well in his quest for a third consecutive French Open title, but the psychological hurdle may be more difficult to overcome. He'll be looking forward to his first round match next week to exercise the demons from his game and re-establish himself as El Rey del Clay.
Based on yesterday's result, one thing is clear – we've got Game On for this year's French Open and tennis fans are the big winners.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The Footwork Master
With his impressive performance in the semifinals of the ATP Master Series Rome event versus Rafael Nadal, Nikolay Davydenko has all of a sudden put himself on the radar screen as a potential winner at Roland Garros when it starts in a couple of weeks. The Russian, currently ranked number 4 in the world, had Nadal on the ropes, both physically and mentally, but just couldn't close the deal when he needed to in the third set. However, he served notice that he might be turning his game around just in time for the year's second major.
Thus far, 2007 has been a rather ordinary season for one of the game's best movers on court. He has no titles this year and has yet to reach a final. However, the guy's footwork is incredible, especially on hard courts, and that footwork was a big factor in his ability to hang with Nadal in Rome. Where other players had been chasing Nadal's shots down and were unable to get much power on the returns, Davydenko always seemed in position and was able to handle Nadal's best with penetrating replies. Can he do that at Roland Garros? That remains to be seen as the various clay surfaces on the European tour tend to vary and a good result in Rome is not necessarily a key predictor for success against El Rey del Clay in Paris (see Roger Federer 2006). Campo Centrale at the Foro Italico is known as one of the faster clay surfaces on the European swing, although this year it didn't look nearly as fast as last year when it appeared all of the topsoil had blown away. The speed of the court may have helped Davydenko in his clash with Rafa, but in the end Nadal was able to seize the moment when it mattered.
The courts in Paris aren't quite as fast as Rome and it may be harder to hurt Nadal on a slower court as he'll have time to chase everything down. Yet, Davydenko may have shown the rest of the field the way to beat Nadal on clay, although it won't be easy to complete that mission. The question for the world's number 4 is can he improve on his Grand Slam performances with success in Paris and at the same time, turn his lackluster year around? Unquestionably, Nadal is the favorite at Roland Garros, but don't count out the man with the best footwork on the tour. He just might be able to push the King of Clay to the brink in their next encounter.
Thus far, 2007 has been a rather ordinary season for one of the game's best movers on court. He has no titles this year and has yet to reach a final. However, the guy's footwork is incredible, especially on hard courts, and that footwork was a big factor in his ability to hang with Nadal in Rome. Where other players had been chasing Nadal's shots down and were unable to get much power on the returns, Davydenko always seemed in position and was able to handle Nadal's best with penetrating replies. Can he do that at Roland Garros? That remains to be seen as the various clay surfaces on the European tour tend to vary and a good result in Rome is not necessarily a key predictor for success against El Rey del Clay in Paris (see Roger Federer 2006). Campo Centrale at the Foro Italico is known as one of the faster clay surfaces on the European swing, although this year it didn't look nearly as fast as last year when it appeared all of the topsoil had blown away. The speed of the court may have helped Davydenko in his clash with Rafa, but in the end Nadal was able to seize the moment when it mattered.
The courts in Paris aren't quite as fast as Rome and it may be harder to hurt Nadal on a slower court as he'll have time to chase everything down. Yet, Davydenko may have shown the rest of the field the way to beat Nadal on clay, although it won't be easy to complete that mission. The question for the world's number 4 is can he improve on his Grand Slam performances with success in Paris and at the same time, turn his lackluster year around? Unquestionably, Nadal is the favorite at Roland Garros, but don't count out the man with the best footwork on the tour. He just might be able to push the King of Clay to the brink in their next encounter.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Viva El Rey
Another clay court tournament, another victory for El Rey del Clay, Rafael Nadal - that seems to be the script these days and there doesn't appear to be anything from stopping the kid on his way to his third consecutive triumph in Paris at Roland Garros. Yesterday, Rafa earned his third consecutive ATP Masters Series Rome victory, a feat which had been unachieved in the event's long history, with a convincing victory over Chilean Fernando Gonzalez. Gonzalez, under the tutelage of Larry Stefanki, had been expected to give Nadal a serious run as he had played extremely well in his semifinal rout over Italian surprise Filipo Volandri and he was facing a potentially mentally and physically fatigued opponent in Rafa. Since Gonzo has been working with Stefanki, his game has been transformed from a forehand bashing error machine into a thinking man's player with weapons.
Alas, a dramatic final was not to be. The pre-Stefanki Gonzalez showed up and was in a highly charitable mood. He never challenged Nadal in the 2 abbreviated sets. However, Nadal did well to forget the turmoil of his semifnal match with Nikolay Davydenko, deciding instead to take control of the points versus an opponent who dearly wanted to dictate play. By not letting Gonzalez control play, Rafa was able to force the Chilean into becoming impatient and thus forcing errors. Including yesterday's final, Gonzalez's record in finals now stands at 7 - 10, while Nadal's is 21 - 3, including 9 - 1 in ATP Master Series finals. Those records are telling when comparing the two men. Obviously, Gonzalez hasn't been nearly as successful in the big moments and perhaps that played a part yesterday as he was appearing in only his second Master Series final. On the other hand, Nadal relishes the big moment and as television commentator Doug Adler noted a few times during the final, he is such a good match player as he recognizes the important moments of a match and plays them extremely well.
So the impressive feats of the young Spaniard continue - here is a brief list:
21 titles
9 Master Series titles
3 consecutive ATP Masters Series Rome titles
2 French Open championships in 2 tries
77 match win streak on clay (the longest for any male player on any surface)
Ranked number 2 in the world for a record 90 consecutive weeks
The above list becomes even more impressive when you consider that Rafa is still only 20 years old. OK, admittedly I'm a Rafa Kool-Aid drinker, but that withstanding, one has to admit that the kid's record is pretty darn good. You have to go back to Bjorn Borg to find someone so accomplished at such a young age. Somehow, Nadal looks even better on clay this year than he did last and that's bad news for anyone who wants to win at Roland Garros (e.g., Roger Federer). He's dictating play more, hitting with far better length and not allowing his opponents any breathing room on their own service games. In his last 3 matches in Rome, he broke his opponents immediately in their opening service games. That's pressure when you have to play from behind right away against one of the game's best front-runners.
This week, the boys are in Hamburg and Nadal says he's going to play. I'm skeptical that he'll finish the event, but let's see what happens. Regardless, El Rey del Clay is on track for his third consecutive title at Roland Garros and it doesn't look like anyone can stop him. Viva el Rey!
Alas, a dramatic final was not to be. The pre-Stefanki Gonzalez showed up and was in a highly charitable mood. He never challenged Nadal in the 2 abbreviated sets. However, Nadal did well to forget the turmoil of his semifnal match with Nikolay Davydenko, deciding instead to take control of the points versus an opponent who dearly wanted to dictate play. By not letting Gonzalez control play, Rafa was able to force the Chilean into becoming impatient and thus forcing errors. Including yesterday's final, Gonzalez's record in finals now stands at 7 - 10, while Nadal's is 21 - 3, including 9 - 1 in ATP Master Series finals. Those records are telling when comparing the two men. Obviously, Gonzalez hasn't been nearly as successful in the big moments and perhaps that played a part yesterday as he was appearing in only his second Master Series final. On the other hand, Nadal relishes the big moment and as television commentator Doug Adler noted a few times during the final, he is such a good match player as he recognizes the important moments of a match and plays them extremely well.
So the impressive feats of the young Spaniard continue - here is a brief list:
21 titles
9 Master Series titles
3 consecutive ATP Masters Series Rome titles
2 French Open championships in 2 tries
77 match win streak on clay (the longest for any male player on any surface)
Ranked number 2 in the world for a record 90 consecutive weeks
The above list becomes even more impressive when you consider that Rafa is still only 20 years old. OK, admittedly I'm a Rafa Kool-Aid drinker, but that withstanding, one has to admit that the kid's record is pretty darn good. You have to go back to Bjorn Borg to find someone so accomplished at such a young age. Somehow, Nadal looks even better on clay this year than he did last and that's bad news for anyone who wants to win at Roland Garros (e.g., Roger Federer). He's dictating play more, hitting with far better length and not allowing his opponents any breathing room on their own service games. In his last 3 matches in Rome, he broke his opponents immediately in their opening service games. That's pressure when you have to play from behind right away against one of the game's best front-runners.
This week, the boys are in Hamburg and Nadal says he's going to play. I'm skeptical that he'll finish the event, but let's see what happens. Regardless, El Rey del Clay is on track for his third consecutive title at Roland Garros and it doesn't look like anyone can stop him. Viva el Rey!
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Sony Ericsson Open Thoughts
A few random thoughts on the Sony Ericsson Open in Miami.
Federer - Cañas
What's the deal with Roger Federer losing to Guillermo Cañas again in a Master Series event? At the time, Cañas' victory in Indian Wells appeared to be an anomaly with Federer playing poorly and looking disinterested. He also had an issue with a blister on his foot. One would have thought that Federer would relish the chance to play Cañas again, and so quickly so that he could erase any lingering doubt over his dominance. Well, it didn't turn out that way as Federer was once again vexed by the speedy Argentine, this time in 3 sets. The Swiss Master was in control of the match in the third set, but seemed to self destruct with a flurry of stupid shots and he opened the door for Cañas to hang around into the latter stages of the final set. That's a dangerous proposition when playing a human backboard and you're feeling the pressure to win as it was apparent that Federer was. Let's give Cañas some credit as well. I certainly didn't figure on Cañas being able to take out Federer twice in a row, and now he has reached the final of the event. The man is on a roll and now we are left to wonder how long this roll will last? Is it temporary or is this the level we should expect from the Argentine for the remainder of the season? My instinct tells me that Cañas will come back down to Earth in the next few months as we get into the clay season, but nevertheless, he's opening some eyes with his success on hard courts.
Ladies Final
Today's Ladies Final was a worst case scenario for me in terms of rooting interest. My disdain for the Belgian Bellyacher has been well documented on this site and I am certainly no fan of the Williams sisters. So when I picked the match up at 6-0, 5-4 in favor of Henin, I was unsure of how to feel about that. What was remarkable about the tennis is that we were able to see some characteristics of these ladies' games that make them intriguing players. Justine showed us that even though she's a multiple major event winner, she's vulnerable to nerves at crucial moments, but often comes back to snatch victory on those occasions. Serena's theme for 2007 seems to be fight, fight, and keep on fighting. She's a vicious competitor and I think she has improved her consistency by switching racquets to a more stream-lined model. Her previous racquet looked more appropriate for a 3.0 player, not one of the world's best. Serena took a 2-0 lead into the third set and it looked like it was all but over. But as Justine often does, she clawed back into the set to even the score at 3 all and it appeared that we had a match again. Alas, it was not to be as Serena completed her comeback with a 6-3 final set victory with some help from the Belgian's errors. With the victory, Serena inches her way back to the top of the game and based on her current form, one has to wonder if there is anyone out there who can beat her. She's made Maria Sharapova look absolutely stupid in 2 consecutive matches and other top players are faring no better. Perhaps the clay court season will help the rest of the ladies out, but if Serena can stay healthy and committed, there is no reason that she can't dominate the tour perhaps more than she has ever done.
Ljubicic
Every time I watch Ivan Ljubicic play a match against a top player, I'm keen to see how he will sabotage himself into a loss. I've been tracking Ljubicic in this way for the past couple of years and he rarely lets me down (such as my prediction that he would lose his first round Australian Open match to Mardy Fish this past January). Friday night's semifinal match versus Guillermo Cañas was no exception. Silly errors, poor shot selection, frustration with the wind were all self created opportunities for the Croat to give the match to Cañas. Ljubicic sees himself as one of the world's best players, and from a physical standpoint, he certainly is. But until he manages to become more mentally tough, he'll never be viewed as one of the game's greats. He'll be remembered as a very good player who didn't have what it took to win the big events. So even though Ljubicic thinks that Rafael Nadal is only a good player because he is left-handed, he underestimates the mental strength of the young Spaniard and that is perhaps where Ljubo needs to dedicate more attention to in his own game. He has the physical tools to be a dominant player, but he lacks what so many before him have been missing - the ability to play one's best tennis in the big moments and big events.
Federer - Cañas
What's the deal with Roger Federer losing to Guillermo Cañas again in a Master Series event? At the time, Cañas' victory in Indian Wells appeared to be an anomaly with Federer playing poorly and looking disinterested. He also had an issue with a blister on his foot. One would have thought that Federer would relish the chance to play Cañas again, and so quickly so that he could erase any lingering doubt over his dominance. Well, it didn't turn out that way as Federer was once again vexed by the speedy Argentine, this time in 3 sets. The Swiss Master was in control of the match in the third set, but seemed to self destruct with a flurry of stupid shots and he opened the door for Cañas to hang around into the latter stages of the final set. That's a dangerous proposition when playing a human backboard and you're feeling the pressure to win as it was apparent that Federer was. Let's give Cañas some credit as well. I certainly didn't figure on Cañas being able to take out Federer twice in a row, and now he has reached the final of the event. The man is on a roll and now we are left to wonder how long this roll will last? Is it temporary or is this the level we should expect from the Argentine for the remainder of the season? My instinct tells me that Cañas will come back down to Earth in the next few months as we get into the clay season, but nevertheless, he's opening some eyes with his success on hard courts.
Ladies Final
Today's Ladies Final was a worst case scenario for me in terms of rooting interest. My disdain for the Belgian Bellyacher has been well documented on this site and I am certainly no fan of the Williams sisters. So when I picked the match up at 6-0, 5-4 in favor of Henin, I was unsure of how to feel about that. What was remarkable about the tennis is that we were able to see some characteristics of these ladies' games that make them intriguing players. Justine showed us that even though she's a multiple major event winner, she's vulnerable to nerves at crucial moments, but often comes back to snatch victory on those occasions. Serena's theme for 2007 seems to be fight, fight, and keep on fighting. She's a vicious competitor and I think she has improved her consistency by switching racquets to a more stream-lined model. Her previous racquet looked more appropriate for a 3.0 player, not one of the world's best. Serena took a 2-0 lead into the third set and it looked like it was all but over. But as Justine often does, she clawed back into the set to even the score at 3 all and it appeared that we had a match again. Alas, it was not to be as Serena completed her comeback with a 6-3 final set victory with some help from the Belgian's errors. With the victory, Serena inches her way back to the top of the game and based on her current form, one has to wonder if there is anyone out there who can beat her. She's made Maria Sharapova look absolutely stupid in 2 consecutive matches and other top players are faring no better. Perhaps the clay court season will help the rest of the ladies out, but if Serena can stay healthy and committed, there is no reason that she can't dominate the tour perhaps more than she has ever done.
Ljubicic
Every time I watch Ivan Ljubicic play a match against a top player, I'm keen to see how he will sabotage himself into a loss. I've been tracking Ljubicic in this way for the past couple of years and he rarely lets me down (such as my prediction that he would lose his first round Australian Open match to Mardy Fish this past January). Friday night's semifinal match versus Guillermo Cañas was no exception. Silly errors, poor shot selection, frustration with the wind were all self created opportunities for the Croat to give the match to Cañas. Ljubicic sees himself as one of the world's best players, and from a physical standpoint, he certainly is. But until he manages to become more mentally tough, he'll never be viewed as one of the game's greats. He'll be remembered as a very good player who didn't have what it took to win the big events. So even though Ljubicic thinks that Rafael Nadal is only a good player because he is left-handed, he underestimates the mental strength of the young Spaniard and that is perhaps where Ljubo needs to dedicate more attention to in his own game. He has the physical tools to be a dominant player, but he lacks what so many before him have been missing - the ability to play one's best tennis in the big moments and big events.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Roddick Gets a Scare
For a while last night, it looked like Andy Roddick might go down in the first round of the Australian Open, and I can't tell you how overcome with glee I was at that prospect. That result would have destroyed my men's tournament bracket on the Tennis Channel website, but so what? I won't win that anyway and a Roddick loss would be oh so satisfying. Why do I dislike Andy so? A few reasons come to mind. First, I can't stand the way he acts on the court when he tries to be so confrontational. Stare-downs, yapping at his opponents, strutting around the court and begging everyone to "look at me" are some examples of behavior that are straight out of the video game, in-your-face generation that I can't stand. In his match yesterday, he called his opponent, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, a "f***ing prick". Am I supposed to respect that kind of behavior? It would be one thing if something came up during a match and that was said in the heat of the moment, however it's different when this type of episode occurs in nearly all of his matches. Oh and what about that sickening Lacoste ad with Andy playing with his shirt off and begging for attention? That was exhibit A for why I can't stand this guy.
Yes, it's now official - I'm old and out of touch. Well, so be it. By the way, don't expect his behavior to get any better with Jimmy Connors as Andy's new mentor. Jimbo is king of the pricks and if anything, he'll encourage his student to be even more brash and confrontational on the court.
Reason number 2 for hating Andy Roddick - since he's an American, I feel like the media is telling me that I have to like him. That strategy isn't going to work with me. I have a very strong contrarian streak in me (can you say Yankee fan in New England!) and I don't like being told for whom to root. Plus, tennis is an individual sport so why do I have to cheer for Americans, especially if I don't like them? It's not like I have never rooted for any Americans - Jim Courier and Pete Sampras come to mind as two Yanks that I enjoyed watching - but some of the Americans just aren't as appealing as other players from around the world. So stop telling me I have to like Roddick because he's an American. That just ticks me off.
The last reason that I can think of, at the moment, has more to do with Andy's fans in the tennis blogosphere, many of whom are beyond rational thought. I'll admit that my bias against Andy is a bit on the irrational side, but some of Roddick's supporters are so detached from reality that I can't help but engage in schadenfreude.
Is Andy Roddick playing well? Yes. Has Jimmy Connors made an impact on his game? Absolutely. Will he have a good season in 2007? I would bet on it. Will I ever root for him? Not a chance.
Yes, it's now official - I'm old and out of touch. Well, so be it. By the way, don't expect his behavior to get any better with Jimmy Connors as Andy's new mentor. Jimbo is king of the pricks and if anything, he'll encourage his student to be even more brash and confrontational on the court.
Reason number 2 for hating Andy Roddick - since he's an American, I feel like the media is telling me that I have to like him. That strategy isn't going to work with me. I have a very strong contrarian streak in me (can you say Yankee fan in New England!) and I don't like being told for whom to root. Plus, tennis is an individual sport so why do I have to cheer for Americans, especially if I don't like them? It's not like I have never rooted for any Americans - Jim Courier and Pete Sampras come to mind as two Yanks that I enjoyed watching - but some of the Americans just aren't as appealing as other players from around the world. So stop telling me I have to like Roddick because he's an American. That just ticks me off.
The last reason that I can think of, at the moment, has more to do with Andy's fans in the tennis blogosphere, many of whom are beyond rational thought. I'll admit that my bias against Andy is a bit on the irrational side, but some of Roddick's supporters are so detached from reality that I can't help but engage in schadenfreude.
Is Andy Roddick playing well? Yes. Has Jimmy Connors made an impact on his game? Absolutely. Will he have a good season in 2007? I would bet on it. Will I ever root for him? Not a chance.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Australian Open Preview
The first Grand Slam Event of the 2007 tennis season, the Australian Open, begins soon, and with both the Men's and Women's draws in hand, let's play the role of prognosticator and analyze the field. As we did for our US Open preview, we'll note a player's seeding in parentheses, and we'll also refer to each quarter of the draw by the highest seeded player in that section.
Men
For the men, the top four seeds are:
Second Round - Baghdatis vs. Monfils
Third Round - the Baghdatis/Monfils winner vs. Gasquet: the winner of this match would probably play Tommy Robredo.
Third Round - Djokovic vs. Juan Carlos Ferrero (24): Ferrero isn't the same player who won the French Open in 2003, but he could still give the enigmatic Djokovic a tough time on the Rebound Ace surface.
Federer's first tough match looks like Mikhail Youzhny (25) in the third round. Youzhny conquered Rafael Nadal at the 2006 US Open before falling to Andy Roddick in the semi-finals, but he should not trouble the world number one. The pick for this quarter: Roger Federer (shocking, I know).
The next quarter of the draw is the Ivan Ljubicic quarter and this one looks rather competitive. Some of the other seeds here are: Andy Roddick (6), Mario Ancic (9), David Ferrer (16), Radek Stepanek (20), and Marat Safin (26). The hard-serving Aussie, Wayne Arthurs is also lurking in this portion of the draw. On recent form, Roddick is the player to beat here, but let's look at some of the potential encounters before declaring a pick for this quarter.
First Round - Ljubicic vs. Mardy Fish: Fish has played well so far in 2007 and if there is a vulnerability in the Ljubicic game it seems to be his underwhelming performances in Grand Slams. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Fish win this one.
Third Round - Ferrer vs. Stepanek
Third Round - Ancic vs. Dominik Hrbaty (22)
Third Round - Roddick vs. Safin
Fourth Round - Ancic vs. Roddick/Safin winner
Athough Andy Roddick seems to be playing very well at the moment, he has a potential killer draw starting with the third round. If all of the seeds were to hold, he would play Safin, Ancic, Ljubicic, and then Federer in the semis. Tournament play is not only about winning matches, it's also about taking the path of least resistance to the title. With the amount of effort required to get out of this section, it's difficult to pick Andy to win the tournament, but we think he emerges from this quarter to face Federer in the semifinals.
Next up is the Davydenko Quarter. This doesn't look like one of the stronger quarters of the draw, but it's not terrible either. Aside from Davydenko, other seeds are: David Nalbandian (8), Tommy Haas (12), Tomas Berdych (13), and Xavier Malisse (29). Davydenko recently pulled out of Sydney with a foot ailment and told the world that no one cares about the Sydney tournament. Sounds like he's saving himself for Melbourne so I don't think his injury will be an issue. Malisse won his first event of 2007 which included a win over world number 2 Rafael Nadal in the semifinals. The X-Man has always been known as a talented player who can beat anyone at anytime. We'll have to see how far that actually carries him in this tournament as there are times when he can be as bad as he can be good. Here are some potential matches in this quarter.
Fourth Round - Nalbandian vs. Haas
Third Round - Malisse vs. Davydenko
Fourth Round - Berdych vs. Malisse/Davydenko winner
This is one of the tougher quarters to pick as there is no obvious choice and the health of the number 3 seed Davydenko is a bit of question. Let's go out on a limb on this one: Tommy Haas!
The last quarter of the draw is topped by Rafael Nadal, the number 2 seed, but the best player at the moment in this section is probably James Blake (5). However, Blake has a tough opening round match versus the man he beat today in the Sydney final in three sets, Carlos Moya of Spain. Wouldn't Nadal be grateful if his compatriot from Mallorca could eliminate his nemesis? It's certainly possible, but we think it's unlikely. Other seeds in this quarter:
Lleyton Hewitt (19) - the Aussie is going though a rough patch at the moment as he recently split with his coach Roger Rasheed and may have a slight muscle tear in his calf. On the bright side, the Open tournament committee might have made the courts a bit faster per Hewitt's liking although the verdict on this seems to be mixed.
Andy Murray (15) - fans around the world are waiting for the Brad Gilbert magic potion to take affect on his latest charge. Will it happen in Melbourne in '07? Will it ever happen?
Fernando Gonzalez (10) - Gonzo has been playing better tennis over the last year and is playing smarter. His forehand is as dangerous as any in the game so he simply cannot be overlooked.
Intriguing potential matches:
First Round: Moya vs. Blake
Third Round: Hewitt vs. Gonzalez
Fourth Round: Gonzalez vs. Blake
Fourth Round: Nadal vs. Murray
The pick for this quarter is James Blake. I don't want to pick against my boy Rafa, but I don't have a good vibe about his game right now. I hope that I'm wrong, but I don't know if he has figured out how to combat Blake's strategy against him. If the courts are faster, that's an advantage for James, but the high bounces that come off of the Rebound Ace surface favor Nadal. I'm just not sure that's enough of an advantage for Nadal to stifle Blake's power game.
So our semifinal matches are Roger Federer (1) vs. Andy Roddick (6) and Tommy Haas (12) vs. James Blake (5).
Federer vs. Roddick - Although Roddick beat Federer in Kooyong today in the final of an exhibition tournament, I give that result very little weight. Attaching any significance to this loss for Federer is directly parallel to those who read something into Roger's defeat versus Andy Murray last summer in Cicninnati. There's nothing there to read, and as Nikolay Davydenko so eloquently stated earlier this week in Sydney, the player's don't really care about these events when there is a Grand Slam on the horizon. With that being said, Andy Roddick does seem to be playing better tennis these days, but as we stated earlier, the path through a draw is a significant factor in determining the champion. Unfortunately for Roddick, his path looks too tough and I expect him to be a little fatigued by the time he reaches this match. Federer in 4 sets.
Haas vs. Blake - Tommy Haas is my darkhorse in this event, but his run ends in the semis. Blake takes him down to move into his first Grand Slam final.
Federer vs. Blake - This is simply a bad match-up for James Blake, and he knows it - kind of similar to Blake being a bad match-up for Nadal. Blake's game doesn't have the same affect on Roger that it has on other player's and James doesn't handle that well mentally. While this match may be competitive at the outset, Federer will eventually take control and win another Grand Slam title.
Women
The top four seeds in the Women's draw are:
Three missing players of note are the 2006 finalist, Justine Henin-Hardenne (personal reasons), Venus Williams (wrist injury), and Lindsay Davenport (retired). Even with those ladies not in the draw, the 2007 Australian Open Women's Singles is still a very interesting tournament. The tournament will also be somewhat special for the fans as 2007 is Kim Clijsters' final season on the WTA Tour and this will be her last appearance in Melbourne as a player.
The Sharapova Quarter
Maria Sharapova is at the top of the draw, and her quarter looks relatively straight-forward. The next highest seed in this section is Patty Schnyder (8), but she could have a difficult Fourth Round match against Anna Chakvetadze (12). A couple of other players of note in this section are Ana Ivanovic (13), Samantha Stosur (24), and Alicia Molik. Stosur and Molik will be sure to have the hometown support throughout, but Sharapova emerges from this quarter with little resistance.
The Clijsters Quarter
In her final Australian Open, Kim Clijsters is seeded fourth and has been presented with a relatively easy path to the quarterfinals. Who she meets in the quarters is very open to debate. Some of the possible matches to watch in that section of this quarter are:
Third Round - Na Li (19) vs. Dinara Safina (9)
Third Round - Sania Mirza vs. Hingis (word is that Mirza may be playing better again after a dismal 2006)
The winners of these 2 matches would meet in the fourth round, and would most likely be playing for a chance to tackle Clijsters in the quarters. Based on her performances in Sydney, Clijsters is the pick in this quarter.
The Kuznetsova Quarter
This quarter of the draw appears to be the most wide open of the four. Aside from Kuznetsova, other notable players are Nadia Petrova (5), Jelena Jankovic (11), Shahar Peer (16), Tatiana Golovin (20), and Serena Williams. It may seem strange that I included Serena in this list, but I did so only because of her past accomplishments and for her ability to bring attention to herself. Potential matches in this quarter are:
Third Round - Petrova vs. S. Williams
Fourth Round - Petrova vs. Jankovic
Third Round - Golovin vs. Peer
Fourth Round - Kuznetsova vs. Golovin/Peer winner
I expect that the quarterfinal match-up here will be Jelena Jankovic vs. Svetlana Kuznetsova. The pick here is Jankovic. We love her game. Her groundstrokes, athleticism and court movement tell us that she has a chance to be a great player.
The Mauresmo Quarter
This quarter isn't that deep, but there are three players with a legitimate chance of advancing to the semi-finals: Amelie Mauresmo (2), Elena Dementieva (7), and Nicole Vaidisova (10). Vaidisova and Dementieva are scheduled to meet in the fourth round with the winner most likely taking on Mauresmo. Our pick for this quarter is Nicole Vaidisova.
The semi-final matches are Maria Sharapova (1) vs. Kim Clijsters (4) and Jelena Jankovic (11) vs. Nicole Vaidisova (10).
Sharapova vs. Clijsters - The sentimental pick will be for Kim in her final tournament Down Under. Based on her current form, the sentimental pick seems to be the right pick, so we'll go with Kim.
Jankovic vs. Vaidisova - These 2 young ladies just played a highly competitive match in Sydney and Jankovic won in 3 sets. We expect something similar in Melbourne. Pick: Jankovic.
Clijsters vs. Jankovic - Another rematch from the Sydney tournament. Jankovic held a match point versus Clijsters at 6-4, 5-4, but was unable to close it out. Can she close out Kim on an even bigger stage? We're not sure that she can based on her meltdown at the US Open versus Justine Henin-Hardenne, but perhaps she learned from that. Regardless, Kim Clijsters is our pick as the 2007 Australian Open Women's Single Champion.
Enjoy the tournament!
Men
For the men, the top four seeds are:
- Roger Federer
- Rafael Nadal
- Nikolay Davydenko
- Ivan Ljubicic
Second Round - Baghdatis vs. Monfils
Third Round - the Baghdatis/Monfils winner vs. Gasquet: the winner of this match would probably play Tommy Robredo.
Third Round - Djokovic vs. Juan Carlos Ferrero (24): Ferrero isn't the same player who won the French Open in 2003, but he could still give the enigmatic Djokovic a tough time on the Rebound Ace surface.
Federer's first tough match looks like Mikhail Youzhny (25) in the third round. Youzhny conquered Rafael Nadal at the 2006 US Open before falling to Andy Roddick in the semi-finals, but he should not trouble the world number one. The pick for this quarter: Roger Federer (shocking, I know).
The next quarter of the draw is the Ivan Ljubicic quarter and this one looks rather competitive. Some of the other seeds here are: Andy Roddick (6), Mario Ancic (9), David Ferrer (16), Radek Stepanek (20), and Marat Safin (26). The hard-serving Aussie, Wayne Arthurs is also lurking in this portion of the draw. On recent form, Roddick is the player to beat here, but let's look at some of the potential encounters before declaring a pick for this quarter.
First Round - Ljubicic vs. Mardy Fish: Fish has played well so far in 2007 and if there is a vulnerability in the Ljubicic game it seems to be his underwhelming performances in Grand Slams. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Fish win this one.
Third Round - Ferrer vs. Stepanek
Third Round - Ancic vs. Dominik Hrbaty (22)
Third Round - Roddick vs. Safin
Fourth Round - Ancic vs. Roddick/Safin winner
Athough Andy Roddick seems to be playing very well at the moment, he has a potential killer draw starting with the third round. If all of the seeds were to hold, he would play Safin, Ancic, Ljubicic, and then Federer in the semis. Tournament play is not only about winning matches, it's also about taking the path of least resistance to the title. With the amount of effort required to get out of this section, it's difficult to pick Andy to win the tournament, but we think he emerges from this quarter to face Federer in the semifinals.
Next up is the Davydenko Quarter. This doesn't look like one of the stronger quarters of the draw, but it's not terrible either. Aside from Davydenko, other seeds are: David Nalbandian (8), Tommy Haas (12), Tomas Berdych (13), and Xavier Malisse (29). Davydenko recently pulled out of Sydney with a foot ailment and told the world that no one cares about the Sydney tournament. Sounds like he's saving himself for Melbourne so I don't think his injury will be an issue. Malisse won his first event of 2007 which included a win over world number 2 Rafael Nadal in the semifinals. The X-Man has always been known as a talented player who can beat anyone at anytime. We'll have to see how far that actually carries him in this tournament as there are times when he can be as bad as he can be good. Here are some potential matches in this quarter.
Fourth Round - Nalbandian vs. Haas
Third Round - Malisse vs. Davydenko
Fourth Round - Berdych vs. Malisse/Davydenko winner
This is one of the tougher quarters to pick as there is no obvious choice and the health of the number 3 seed Davydenko is a bit of question. Let's go out on a limb on this one: Tommy Haas!
The last quarter of the draw is topped by Rafael Nadal, the number 2 seed, but the best player at the moment in this section is probably James Blake (5). However, Blake has a tough opening round match versus the man he beat today in the Sydney final in three sets, Carlos Moya of Spain. Wouldn't Nadal be grateful if his compatriot from Mallorca could eliminate his nemesis? It's certainly possible, but we think it's unlikely. Other seeds in this quarter:
Lleyton Hewitt (19) - the Aussie is going though a rough patch at the moment as he recently split with his coach Roger Rasheed and may have a slight muscle tear in his calf. On the bright side, the Open tournament committee might have made the courts a bit faster per Hewitt's liking although the verdict on this seems to be mixed.
Andy Murray (15) - fans around the world are waiting for the Brad Gilbert magic potion to take affect on his latest charge. Will it happen in Melbourne in '07? Will it ever happen?
Fernando Gonzalez (10) - Gonzo has been playing better tennis over the last year and is playing smarter. His forehand is as dangerous as any in the game so he simply cannot be overlooked.
Intriguing potential matches:
First Round: Moya vs. Blake
Third Round: Hewitt vs. Gonzalez
Fourth Round: Gonzalez vs. Blake
Fourth Round: Nadal vs. Murray
The pick for this quarter is James Blake. I don't want to pick against my boy Rafa, but I don't have a good vibe about his game right now. I hope that I'm wrong, but I don't know if he has figured out how to combat Blake's strategy against him. If the courts are faster, that's an advantage for James, but the high bounces that come off of the Rebound Ace surface favor Nadal. I'm just not sure that's enough of an advantage for Nadal to stifle Blake's power game.
So our semifinal matches are Roger Federer (1) vs. Andy Roddick (6) and Tommy Haas (12) vs. James Blake (5).
Federer vs. Roddick - Although Roddick beat Federer in Kooyong today in the final of an exhibition tournament, I give that result very little weight. Attaching any significance to this loss for Federer is directly parallel to those who read something into Roger's defeat versus Andy Murray last summer in Cicninnati. There's nothing there to read, and as Nikolay Davydenko so eloquently stated earlier this week in Sydney, the player's don't really care about these events when there is a Grand Slam on the horizon. With that being said, Andy Roddick does seem to be playing better tennis these days, but as we stated earlier, the path through a draw is a significant factor in determining the champion. Unfortunately for Roddick, his path looks too tough and I expect him to be a little fatigued by the time he reaches this match. Federer in 4 sets.
Haas vs. Blake - Tommy Haas is my darkhorse in this event, but his run ends in the semis. Blake takes him down to move into his first Grand Slam final.
Federer vs. Blake - This is simply a bad match-up for James Blake, and he knows it - kind of similar to Blake being a bad match-up for Nadal. Blake's game doesn't have the same affect on Roger that it has on other player's and James doesn't handle that well mentally. While this match may be competitive at the outset, Federer will eventually take control and win another Grand Slam title.
Women
The top four seeds in the Women's draw are:
- Maria Sharapova
- Amelie Mauresmo
- Svetlana Kuznetsova
- Kim Clijsters
Three missing players of note are the 2006 finalist, Justine Henin-Hardenne (personal reasons), Venus Williams (wrist injury), and Lindsay Davenport (retired). Even with those ladies not in the draw, the 2007 Australian Open Women's Singles is still a very interesting tournament. The tournament will also be somewhat special for the fans as 2007 is Kim Clijsters' final season on the WTA Tour and this will be her last appearance in Melbourne as a player.
The Sharapova Quarter
Maria Sharapova is at the top of the draw, and her quarter looks relatively straight-forward. The next highest seed in this section is Patty Schnyder (8), but she could have a difficult Fourth Round match against Anna Chakvetadze (12). A couple of other players of note in this section are Ana Ivanovic (13), Samantha Stosur (24), and Alicia Molik. Stosur and Molik will be sure to have the hometown support throughout, but Sharapova emerges from this quarter with little resistance.
The Clijsters Quarter
In her final Australian Open, Kim Clijsters is seeded fourth and has been presented with a relatively easy path to the quarterfinals. Who she meets in the quarters is very open to debate. Some of the possible matches to watch in that section of this quarter are:
Third Round - Na Li (19) vs. Dinara Safina (9)
Third Round - Sania Mirza vs. Hingis (word is that Mirza may be playing better again after a dismal 2006)
The winners of these 2 matches would meet in the fourth round, and would most likely be playing for a chance to tackle Clijsters in the quarters. Based on her performances in Sydney, Clijsters is the pick in this quarter.
The Kuznetsova Quarter
This quarter of the draw appears to be the most wide open of the four. Aside from Kuznetsova, other notable players are Nadia Petrova (5), Jelena Jankovic (11), Shahar Peer (16), Tatiana Golovin (20), and Serena Williams. It may seem strange that I included Serena in this list, but I did so only because of her past accomplishments and for her ability to bring attention to herself. Potential matches in this quarter are:
Third Round - Petrova vs. S. Williams
Fourth Round - Petrova vs. Jankovic
Third Round - Golovin vs. Peer
Fourth Round - Kuznetsova vs. Golovin/Peer winner
I expect that the quarterfinal match-up here will be Jelena Jankovic vs. Svetlana Kuznetsova. The pick here is Jankovic. We love her game. Her groundstrokes, athleticism and court movement tell us that she has a chance to be a great player.
The Mauresmo Quarter
This quarter isn't that deep, but there are three players with a legitimate chance of advancing to the semi-finals: Amelie Mauresmo (2), Elena Dementieva (7), and Nicole Vaidisova (10). Vaidisova and Dementieva are scheduled to meet in the fourth round with the winner most likely taking on Mauresmo. Our pick for this quarter is Nicole Vaidisova.
The semi-final matches are Maria Sharapova (1) vs. Kim Clijsters (4) and Jelena Jankovic (11) vs. Nicole Vaidisova (10).
Sharapova vs. Clijsters - The sentimental pick will be for Kim in her final tournament Down Under. Based on her current form, the sentimental pick seems to be the right pick, so we'll go with Kim.
Jankovic vs. Vaidisova - These 2 young ladies just played a highly competitive match in Sydney and Jankovic won in 3 sets. We expect something similar in Melbourne. Pick: Jankovic.
Clijsters vs. Jankovic - Another rematch from the Sydney tournament. Jankovic held a match point versus Clijsters at 6-4, 5-4, but was unable to close it out. Can she close out Kim on an even bigger stage? We're not sure that she can based on her meltdown at the US Open versus Justine Henin-Hardenne, but perhaps she learned from that. Regardless, Kim Clijsters is our pick as the 2007 Australian Open Women's Single Champion.
Enjoy the tournament!
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Sportsman of the Year and Nadal in India
Over the past couple of weeks, I've read a few articles decrying Sports Illustrated's choice for 2006 Sportsman of the Year, Dwyane Wade, rather than tennis superstar Roger Federer. While I don't disagree with the premise that Federer is a more deserving candidate based on his 2006 accomplishments, and his graciousness on and off court, I'm completely unsurprised by SI's choice. Tennis is a faint blip on the American sports radar screen and it's a blip that is fading more and more with each passing day since the departure of Andre Agassi at last year's US Open. Without an American male or female at the top of the game, tennis won't garner the attention of the provincial American sports fan, and that attitude is mirrored by magazines like Sports Illustrated. At this moment in time, I think SI's Sportsman of the Year could only come from one of the following sports: Football, Baseball, Basketball and NASCAR. Two notable exceptions to candidates from these sports are Lance Armstrong and Tiger Woods. Both of these men are American icons and no other participant from their respective professions would have a chance. So while we all may disagree with Sports Illustrated's choice for 2006 Sportsman of the Year, we can't really be surprised by it, can we???
While it's fun to discuss Sports Illustrated's perhaps controversial choice for Sportsman of the Year, it doesn't address the real problem of why no tennis player will win this particular award, regardless of accomplishment, in the near future. First, there are no American players, male or female, at the top of the game and there don't seem to be any on the horizon. Andy Roddick and James Blake you say - I think not. With Federer around, these two men won't have a chance to reach the pinnacle of the game. However, Roddick and Blake are two American men in the top 10 so you would think that that would garner some media attention. The fact of the matter is that it hasn't and it makes me pessimistic that the rise of an American superstar can rescue tennis from the dustbin of the American sports landscape. One or two players near the top may not be enough - we may need a dozen or so in the top 30! Of course, the likelihood of this happening diminishes each day as community based programs for soccer, football, basketball, baseball and lacrosse organize and attract more American youth. Does the USTA understand this? Does it understand that the next great American champion isn't likely to come from some upper middle-class white community where children don't have to work for what they want? There are millions of great athletes in this country and many of the best ones don't have tennis as a choice. The USTA needs to consider that when trying to grow the game in America.
Nadal loses in Chennai
I found the news today that Rafael Nadal lost to Xavier Malisse in straight sets at the Chennai Open to be a little deflating. I was hoping that Nadal would begin to return to his place as the clear-cut number two player in the world, and this loss is giving me some doubts about his ability to do that. While Malisse is a quality player, under no circumstances should the true number 2 player in the world lose to him in the semi-final of a tournament. This is exactly the kind of match that Nadal should be winning in straight sets if he is to mount a true challenge to Roger Federer at this year's Australian Open. There was a part of me that really wanted to predict a Nadal triumph in Melbourne in 2007, but that part of me has retreated to the background to lick its wounds after today's disappointing result. Perhaps I'll feel differently when the draw for the Open is released, but until then, I can't shake the feeling that Roger Federer will continue his domination over the sport with another title in Australia.
While it's fun to discuss Sports Illustrated's perhaps controversial choice for Sportsman of the Year, it doesn't address the real problem of why no tennis player will win this particular award, regardless of accomplishment, in the near future. First, there are no American players, male or female, at the top of the game and there don't seem to be any on the horizon. Andy Roddick and James Blake you say - I think not. With Federer around, these two men won't have a chance to reach the pinnacle of the game. However, Roddick and Blake are two American men in the top 10 so you would think that that would garner some media attention. The fact of the matter is that it hasn't and it makes me pessimistic that the rise of an American superstar can rescue tennis from the dustbin of the American sports landscape. One or two players near the top may not be enough - we may need a dozen or so in the top 30! Of course, the likelihood of this happening diminishes each day as community based programs for soccer, football, basketball, baseball and lacrosse organize and attract more American youth. Does the USTA understand this? Does it understand that the next great American champion isn't likely to come from some upper middle-class white community where children don't have to work for what they want? There are millions of great athletes in this country and many of the best ones don't have tennis as a choice. The USTA needs to consider that when trying to grow the game in America.
Nadal loses in Chennai
I found the news today that Rafael Nadal lost to Xavier Malisse in straight sets at the Chennai Open to be a little deflating. I was hoping that Nadal would begin to return to his place as the clear-cut number two player in the world, and this loss is giving me some doubts about his ability to do that. While Malisse is a quality player, under no circumstances should the true number 2 player in the world lose to him in the semi-final of a tournament. This is exactly the kind of match that Nadal should be winning in straight sets if he is to mount a true challenge to Roger Federer at this year's Australian Open. There was a part of me that really wanted to predict a Nadal triumph in Melbourne in 2007, but that part of me has retreated to the background to lick its wounds after today's disappointing result. Perhaps I'll feel differently when the draw for the Open is released, but until then, I can't shake the feeling that Roger Federer will continue his domination over the sport with another title in Australia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
