This one is pretty easy: cool in the mornings, with periods of sun mixed with clouds and a 40 per cent chance of light showers. But when that thunder starts to roll in from Spain. . . Run for your lives, it's women and children first, stay out from under the trees, and if there are any men left, dial 1-800-Save-Us-From-Rafa!
That's pretty much how it's been for about the past three years, with Rafael Nadal going on perhaps the greatest run of clay-court tennis every put together by a male player. The only guy who might hold his own in that conversation would be Bjorn Borg, whose prowess on red dirt was comparable to Nadal's, but who played in an era that generally had less depth-of-competition, especially on clay. So why should things be any different this year? Well, because things change - maybe not on a predictable or annual basis, but everyone embarking on that red clay road is different from the person and player he was 12 months ago (How Zen is that?).
But seriously, let's look at some of the top clay-court contenders and evaluate their chances in the upcoming season on clay.
No. 1, Rafael Nadal: You know what I'd like to know? Whether Rafa is at that point in life when he can look at the spring clay-circuit in Europe and think: Same crap, different year. How many more danged times do I have to win Monte Carlo? It says a lot for Nadal that he's entitled to think that way, even though he's nowhere near the third stage of greatness, which is when most great players begin to experience the equivalent of metal fatigue, fall prey to ennui, or simply start looking to re-order their priorities as they exhaust their non-renewable mental resources.
This sudden appearance of a blue-chip event in Madrid on the calendar may come at a good time for Nadal, because his indecision about playing the event (the last I heard, my sources said it was "fifty-fifty" that he'd wind up in the Magic Box) introduces an unknown into a scenario ruined only by the fact that it has lacked unknowns. And Nadal is too aware and experienced a competitor not to go on Stage 2 alert when the customary order has been disrupted.
Nadal left Miami enveloped in some mystery, alluding to "personal" issues that may have prevented him from playing his best, most fully focused tennis. I didn't get the chance to write about this before, but I will now: In his quarterfinal loss to Juan Martin del Potro, Nadal seemed mostly to be going through the motions. The sure sign was that his shots lacked their customary depth; most of his groundstrokes landed closer to the service lines than the baseline. That made del Potro look awfully good, much like Andy Roddick made Roger Federer look good in that unfortunate Australian Open semifinal of 2007 (Roddick got just six games).
In Roddick's case, the issue was execution - he fed balls right into Federer's strike zone, begging for punishment that Roger was all too happy to provide..Nadal last week seemed less a victim of over-eagerness or thoughtless impetuousity than distraction. He went through the motions, waving at all those forehands and backhands like a man swatting flies while his mind was on other things. That's what happens when the ideal, total degree-of-focus is absent. You put on a game face and try to make a match of it. But even your most prodigious swing often leaves the ball six or eight feet short of its intended mark.
So Nadal goes onto the clay with unspecified distractions playing on his mind (although they may be banished by the time the first major event [Monte Carlo] rolls around) and some doubts about whether or not he ought to play Madrid, where the high-altitude may be an impediment to ideal preparation for the French Open (there's a mere one-week break between the Madrid Masters event and Roland Garros).
It may seem counter-intuitive, but these two challenges (and it's impossible to quantify the potential impact of the first one) could stimulate Nadal rather than trouble him. His rivals will find themselves thinking, I hope he's just not that into me. . . . But I don't believe Nadal is the type to fall asleep at the switch, so I look for him to have another outstanding year.
No. 2, Roger Federer: He may have been relieved that the hard-court swing is over, but it's hard to imagine how the world's second best player on clay can find a whole lot to get fired up about as the tour moves to clay. There's this little matter of Nadal. Just how many more times does Federer need to lose to Nadal before what was once a wake-up call becomes a requiem? And how does Federer turn around his growing habit of losing interest, or focus, or confidence, or determination, or (fill in the blank) as a match progresses toward crunch-time? And then there's that bad back narrative. . .
I never thought I'd find myself writing this, but the same talented rivals who once were given to thinking, Sheesh, I've got to find a way to stay with this guy before he hits the afterburners. . . can now be justified in thinking, I've just got to stay with him and keep the pressure on, because there's a chance he might crumble.
Federer fans undoubtedly will be outraged to read that. But that's exactly what any ATP guy who's prepared to man-up will be thinking. You might as well get used to it.
However. . .let's remember that one of the nice things about clay is that it gives a player a chance to feel around and find his game. On clay, both in practice and matches, you hit enough balls to get in whatever groove is available to you, and you can get into intimate contact with some of the more artful and delicate weapons at your command. Federer knows how to have a conversation with the ball. Inside every container of tennis balls sit three Mr. Wilsons, or Miss Penns, hoping they'll be extracted from the tube by Federer, thinking, Me talk pretty one day. . .
To me, this clay-court season will tell us something about how much Federer really wants to play, how much he still enjoys what Andre Agassi would describe as "the process." His big enemies will be impatience and a low tolerance for frustration, along with the temptation of skipping work on clay in order to better plot his ultimate revenge in a few months time at Wimbledon.
My feeling is that the impatience will win out.
No. 3, Novak Djokovic: The Djoker is in a situation comparable to Federer's, if that can be said of a guy who's got one Grand Slam title, a dozen short of Federer. But Djokovic also has far fewer miles on his odometer, and (presumably) greater reserves of ambition, youth and stamina. So the clay season is a great time for him to embark on a makeover of his game, which has gotten stuck in the twilight zone of incertitude. Lately, the guy simply doesn't seem to know what kind of game to play, and whether to attack or dig in and trust his considerable ability to change the direction of the ball, exchange savage groundstrokes, and cover his flanks. I don't think he needs to attack, at least not by the traditional definition (rushing the net). But he does need to be aggressive and to trust his strokes, following where they lead.
In this regard, the nature of clay-court tennis will work in his favor, even though it doesn't exactly reward the most common attack strategies. But the number of balls he'll have to hit may help him get back in touch with the bold quality missing lately from his game. He doesn't have to dive around, spearing volleys, but setting himself up get a ball that he can whale on off either wing in the mid-court will serve the same purpose - which is rekindling his sense of purpose.
With Djokovic, you always have to factor in strange physiological reactions and issues, all of which makes me unwilling to predict that his results will be unpredictable.
No. 4, Andy Murray: He's perhaps the biggest question mark of the clay-court season. According to Djokovic, Murray's ability to transition from defense to offense is as good as that of any player. He's the best counter-puncher since LLeyton Hewitt in is heyday. But if you look at Hewitt's record on clay, you'll see that exploiting those strengths may be harder on clay than any other surface. The transitions just can't be pulled off that quickly, because you know how it is on clay - there's always that extra moment for the other guy when you turn the tables on him; there's always that extra ball to hit.
On the other hand, Murray's quickness and inventive use of court space will enable him to do a lot more than react, and he's superb at mixing up pace and spin. In recent years, Nadal has been able to hit right through guys who have those talents, and Federer has been able to match them, short-angle for short-angle, drop shot for drop shot, and use other elements in his formidable arsenal to end the conversation with Mr. Wilson. But few of those guys have had the range of Murray, or a wingspan that makes it difficult to slide the ball by.
Murray's short-term problem may be motivation and enthusiasm. Given the hard-court season he's just finished, you can understand why he might want to coast a bit, biding his time as he feels around for just the right balance between dictating and exploiting his great skill as a counter-puncher. My feeling is that he'll be more dangerous as the weeks roll on, and use the warm-up tournaments as a way to seek out his best strategy for Paris.
No. 5, Juan Martin del Potro: Delpo doesn't have a single win in a Masters Series on clay; he's strictly a hard court hombre. In three years at Roland Garros, he's won exactly one match. He's got an awful lot of body to lug around in endless clay court matches. On the other hand, he obviously has a chance to pick up a bushel of ranking points if he can win a few matches here and there on clay, so I wouldn't write him off entirely. A guy with a huge serve and groundies can come up big on clay, because the slowness of the surface will enable him to get to more balls, and draw a bead on them, than he might reach on a faster hard court. He could be a pleasant surprise.
Best of the Rest: Jump all over me if you like, but remember that a young Andy Roddick (he's no. 6) leapt onto the tennis radar off of clay courts, and had a pretty nice little run in Paris the first time he played there (2001), taking down Michael Chang in five sets in the second round. Given the way he's ramped up his commitment, and the new pride he takes in his fitness, he could make an impact, especially on the Grand Slam stage, where his abilities as a competitor have the greatest value.
Gilles Simon (no. 7) has RGAS (Roland Garros Aversion Syndrome, a strange disease that afflicts players of French extraction at the French Open). Simon has won exactly one match in four outings at Roland Garros, but hey - they also play in Monaco, Rome, Madrid. . . He's definitely better suited to hard courts, but I wouldn't write him off. Fernando Verdasco (no. 8) has good clay-court credentials, his game is on the upswing, and he should be in nice comfort zone for the next few months. Nikolay Davydenko (no. 9) is still out with injury, and Gael Monfils - no. 10 and a semifinalist at Roland Garros last year - has plenty of potential, but someone needs to remind him that he's not Olivier Rochus - he's 6-4 and packs a wallop, so maybe it's time to junk the rope-a-dope and hit the gas.
Posted: 12.04.09 18:50. Post subject: сразу хочу заметить,..
сразу хочу заметить, что этот блоггер - своеобразный автор. на своем сайте он сразу предупреждает, что надо быть достаточно "толстокожим", чтобы его читать. тем не менее, ИМХО, этот пост дает вполне трезвый взгляд. не размещаю это в "прессе" в теме Федерера, дабы никто не принял это слишком близко к сердцу, так сказать...
quote:
Federer’s marriage: The right and wrong of it. Posted by tennisplanet on April 11, 2009
In the big scheme of things, it’s undoubtedly the right decision. It legitimises the kid and rights the ship of having a kid without marriage (not a model for most of the world today) as soon as he could.
The day after the news of the baby would have been ideal, but in today’s world where the stigma of an unwed mom is fast eroding, better late than never.
The two are now a family in the traditional way. With so many kids and people looking up to Federer almost in a cult like manner, Federer will continue to remain a model citizen to the world.
There will always be some who will fault Mirka for expediting this culmination of their relationship, but can she really be blamed after what almost a decade of being in the limbo?
While tennis unquestionably be the victim in this case, life is much larger than that.
No matter what Federer says publicly, this was the last time he wanted the baby and the marriage to happen. But everything happens for a reason.
Federer’s refusal to accept these facts may be one of the bigger reason for his recent form and outbursts on and off the court.
Federer’s whole outlook on life will go through some major transformation, eventually placing tennis in it’s proper place on the big canvass to provide a less irritating drop from the top.
The days from the time they found out about the baby to this day must have been quite stressful given it meant a drop in focus from the passion Federer has had all his life. While he and many may fight it, it’s a natural progression that’s inevitable mentally.
If nothing else it may provide Federer the much needed crutch to blame all his on court woes to. Of course, there are many precedents where players have continued on without losing a beat professionally, this current scenario Federer is in, however, may not be the one pushing that envelope.
This could just be another boulder getting attached to the baggage Federer is already burdened with in his attempt to move up.
But stranger things have happened. It could also mean putting to rest an issue he had been carrying for almost a decade that must have pulled at his strings, releasing him to feel less burdened and shackled.
Each of us respond differently to situations from marriage to love to whatever. But given the stats from the past year or so and the inevitability of this union, it’s less likely that this will provide any shock treatment to the downward journey Federer is on to change course dramatically.
Nevertheless, it’s a joyous day for the two families which deserves celebration devoid of any strings and judgements from lunatics at the basement.
Congratulations to Federer and Mirka. Hope you don’t end up being another stat in divorce court like Borg, Becker, Justine, Agassi, McEnroe, Evert etc.
Posted: 13.04.09 17:55. Post subject: The Net Post: Paul A..
The Net Post: Paul Annacone would be perfect fit for Roger Federer The Times Tennis Correspondent says Pete Sampras's former coach could help rebuild the shattered confidence of the former world No1 Neil Harman From Times Online April 13, 2009
When it comes to probing anything to do with Roger Federer, words have to be chosen wisely, for having sat courtside and witnessed so many memorable matches, to have been up close and exceedingly personal (the front row of the press conference in Miami last week after Federer's loss to Novak Djokovic when he constantly dabbed at his eyes, was not a comfortable spot to be in) and allowed to share a comradeship on what is a lonely road, anyone would feel a special need to get things just right. And there is his legion of supporters who take any word against him as akin to blasphemy.
As Federer put it as the announcement of his weekend nuptials appeared on his website, his marriage to Mirka Vavrinec in Basel was an 'incredibly joyous occasion' and for that, the Net Post offers the happy couple its felicitations and the hope that they will enjoy a blessed life together and with at least one more significant other, for the couple are expecting a child which could, or so we hear, be delivered as soon as Wimbledon time.
Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi and Albert Costa (not three names you usually mention in the same sentence) have won grand slam titles this century while married, so nothing ought to stand in The Fed's way of taking his tally to No.14 and beyond. I sincerely believe that he will, but something dramatic needs to happen for it to occur. It is too easy to say 'hire a coach' and everything will suddenly fall into place but there does come a time when a player should harken to advice, respectfully offered. This is not a sign of weakness, but one of strength.
As Federer wished his many global disciples a Happy Easter, so there can be no more appropriate time for one to respond in kind to him and simply say "Keep The Faith."
One recalls a press conference similar to Federer's in Miami the week before last at Wimbledon in 2002 when Sampras had lost in the second round to George Bastl of Switzerland and it felt as if his whole world was crumbling apart. Sampras and Federer are similar in many ways, tough to get to know but once you break beyond the initial shyness, both are splendid, sensitive people who are as much touched by their place in the sport as the sport itself has been touched by them.
Sampras' chin trembled when he spoke of his loss to Bastl, how he felt as if he had been affronted by playing on Wimbledon's Court No.2 (they haven't done that to Federer since he became the champion), and that he thought his last chance of a 14th grand slam had been scuppered by a commmittee. He was 30 at the time; Federer is not 28 until August (their birthdays are four days apart). But read this from Sampras's recent book "A Champion's Mind", and what do you make of it?
"I felt utterly empty (after the Bastl defeat) and had no answers to explain it. Marriage may have had something to do with it, especially with Bridgette being pregnant. Maybe all these big life changes were subverting my focus, or putting me at war with myself. But I felt I knew what I wanted: my wife, our child, a good, clean, normal life - and to squeeze every last drop of poential out of my career. I had spent more than a decade beating people for a living, putting all of my mental, physical and emotional energy into the task. I beat people. That was that I did, that was who I was. I had to ask myself Am I still that person?."
It strikes me that that is where Federer is right now. Is he still that person? If he is, he has to play like he is, remember the innate satisfaction he gleaned from lifting those trophies (his last, the US Open of 2008 was not that so long ago), to get his head around the fact that though Rafael Nadal is a titan, he is not unbeatable, nobody is. He remains the tennis player whose many gifts most would kill for. For him it should not be enough simply to walk around and behave like a champion, he has to start playing like one again. For that is how he is best suited. There is plenty of time for him to match and break the Sampras record, as long as his self-belief is not destroyed.
It was all going so swimmingly until Nadal came along; then Novak Djokovic and now Andy Murray. Between them, these three 'youngsters' have contrived to play havoc with Federer's equilibrium, they have sewn doubt where there was once total certainty and clouded his judgement where once there was sureness and clarity.
They have attacked the weak points in his game and, as of now, he is finding it very difficult to get back at them because he does not quite have the belief in himself he used to exude. His strategies have been mixed, the shot selection uncertain, the mood swings evident with the smashed racket in Miami when his game was sagging against Djokovic.
There have been hundreds of applications for the post of Federer's coach, from all manner of well qualified persons and the odd oddball, one of whom suggested that poetry was all that was required to turn him around. Perhaps it is time to sift through them more vigorously. The Net Post - if The Fed does not mind - has a suggestion.
Though he is currently employed by the Lawn Tennis Association, where is he overseeing the progress of Britain's younger male players, could not Paul Annacone be released from his contract for a couple of years and take Federer on? I sincerely believe they would sit famously together. Annacone coached Sampras after the death of Tim Gullikson and did wonders for a stricken superstar, he can do so again.
By sheer co-incidence Annacone said this, this week: "There are definitely some parallels (between Federer's current situation and Sampras when he was in a pickle) "Just as it was for Pete, it’s a particularly interesting, challenging time in Roger’s career. But I would look at it with Roger in the same way as for Pete. For guys like that, it is daunting but not that daunting. They are so skilled they can adjust, but a lot of the adjustment is mental."
Sampras recalls: "Paul knew that different people needed to be handled in different ways. He could coach me or he could have coached Andre (Agassi). He was a good reader of character and temperament, knowing what I needed to hear and how to say it. And that is a huge - repeat (itals) huge (itals) - part of being a high-level coach. You have to understand the guy and work in his comfort zone, avoiding the temptation to change him or make him conform to how you want him to be - even when you know that change would be beneficial. His bedside manner was great. He realised I didn't want to talk about my tennis a lot - I was kind of possessive about the game. He was a great tactician, though I often resisted his strong emphasis on attacking tennis. Tim (Gullikson) was great when it came to my game, Paul was great when it came to the games of guys I would need to beat."
And that is where Federer is right now. He should take a leaf from Sampras's book. He should bring in Annacone, a coach who will tell him what is happening, where he is going wrong and how he might put it right. And, above all things, he must keep the faith.
Posted: 20.04.09 19:23. Post subject: Monte-Carlo Mastery ..
Monte-Carlo Mastery By Richard Evans Sunday, April 19, 2009 Tennisweek.com
Andy Murray and, in an excellent final, Novak Djokovic, did their best but the King of Clay remains just that — unassailable on his favourite surface. Despite dropping his first set at the Monte Carlo Country Club since Roger Federer managed to nick one off him in the 2006 final, Rafael Nadal won his fifth straight title here by beating Djokovic 6-3, 2-6, 6-1.
Prince Albert stepped up to proceed with his customary hand over of the silver bowl to the first man to win five titles here since New Zealander Anthony Wilding before World War 1 and a capacity crowd, with Spanish flags prominent amongst it, cheered the man they may be cheering for a few years yet. Or will they? It would be ridiculous to suggest that Nadal is not undeniably dominant on this surface but in Saturday’s semifinal Murray started to look as if he was getting an idea of how to penetrate the Spanish wall and Djokovic certainly played a brilliant second set against him in the final.
Murray, who surprised himself by reaching his first ever clay court semifinal, was handicapped by a couple of nasty blisters on his racket hand but still had the determination to keep fighting and staged a thrilling rear guard action from 2-5 down in the second set to push Nadal into the tie break. It was by stepping in and upping the power of his forehand that Murray almost managed to turn things around and he, along with clay court coach Alex Corretja, will be mulling over future tactics during a week’s training in Barcelona in the next few days.
Djokovic admitted that he went for a little too much after a difficult rain-affected week and stamina may remain one of the Serb’s most pressing problems. But he has now been in consecutive ATP Masters 1000 finals and, for this week at least, has held off the challenge of Murray for his No 3 world ranking. But Djokovic is defending a lot of points in Rome where he won last year. The battle is hotting up and men’s tennis has rarely been more fascinating.
But the fascination here this week has not centered solely on happenings on court. This is the tournament that Etienne de Villiers, the former CEO of the ATP, whose European offices are 200 yards up the road from the Country Club, saw fit to try and downgrade. He managed to inflict that punishment Hamburg — winning a Delaware law suit to prove it at vast cost to all concerned — but Monte Carlo dug their heels in and forced a compromise. The result was that this 104 year old tournament retained its 1000 status but came off that list of tournaments that players must enter.
So what was the outcome? A triumph for the tournament. First of all, nine of the top ten turned up even though they didn’t have to — Andy Roddick was busy getting married and probably wouldn’t have come anyway — and the crowds arrived in record numbers. Expanding capacity to meet ATP guidelines for 1000 events, the Stadium Court — the one that backs on the shores of the glistening Mediterranean — to 10,000 and generally upping capacity by 3,000 over previous years, tournament director Zeljko Franulovic, who won this title himself in 1970, was able to announce a record attendance of 124,000. That’s up 8,000 on last year.
Just as important, the tournament did not suffer from the economic downturn at the corporate level. The title sponsor Rolex and others like the ever loyal BNP Paribas, stood solid giving tennis a one-up over the Formula One Grand Prix next month which, is, I understand, struggling to maintain its corporate income.
"Obviously it was vital that we maintain our top tier status," said Elisabeth de Massy, the President of the Monte Carlo Country Club as we chatted in the Club’s hospitality tent. "When Etienne threatened to downgrade us I told him I would take the ATP to the European court if we lost an initial court case. Finally he came to his senses but it still cost us $2 million in legal fees and it must have cost the ATP, too. It was madness."
The lesson which should be learned is simple. Don’t tamper with success. Monte Carlo is not Indian Wells or Miami. It is Monte Carlo — a traditional, iconic event that ranks amongst the best known tennis tournaments in the world. It is what it is. Geography as much as anything else restricts its physical growth but it is geography that lends it splendor and prestige. You cannot replicate this place with its terraced courts carved out of the foothills of the Alps as they cascade down to the sea. Even Charlie Pasarell would not be able to build anything like it anywhere else. And while the public come from all walks of life, the scene on the terrace at lunch time is what helps make this event unique.
No where else would you get Prince Albert chatting with Nikki Pietrangeli, the Italian maestro with the sublime backhand who won this title three times while, a few tables away, former French No. 1 Pierre Darmon or the Wimbledon champion of the 1950’s Budge Patty tuck into their smoked salmon surrounded by flamboyantly attired ladies showing off whatever is considered the latest fashion. It’s a show; a celebration of the start of another European tennis season; a festive gathering of those who play; coach; promote; run or simply watch tennis.
Two years ago Nadal and Federer gave a press conference here which signaled the end of the de Villiers regime at the ATP. They came out in vociferous support of the tournament and criticized their leader for trying to damage it. The players were right and the message was clear: don’t mess with Monte Carlo.
Posted: 25.04.09 09:17. Post subject: The Talent Pyramid: ..
The Talent Pyramid: What It Takes To Be a Tennis Legend
When you watch Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer, you know you are witnessing players who only come around every so often in the sport.
It is when you compare them to the multitude of "others" in the game that you begin to wonder what makes a player mediocre, great, or legendary.
So, I have created a pyramid to illustrate what I think the ingredients are when it comes to mediocrity and remembrance for all time.
1. The Base: Talent
Talent is the biggest part of Tennis. Without extraordinary talent, players could not make the tour in the first place. There is also a gap in talent between the good, great, and legends.
Some players are very well-rounded, while others excel at a few aspects. Or in the case of Federer and Nadal, they excel at many aspects of the game. Without talent, there is no foundation for the rest of the pyramid.
2. The Second Tier, Part One: Mental Fortitude
In my opinion, while talent is the base, the ability to be mentally strong and resilient is probably one of the most important parts of the whole pyramid. Nadal is a prime example of a player who plays specifically in the moment, and focuses completely on what he needs to do.
Andy Murray is learning to do it, and if you go back in time, Mats Willander and Bjorn Borg were much like Nadal. If a player is strong mentally, then they make other players realize that they will have to beat them, and that they won't beat themselves.
3. The Second Tier, Part Two: Confidence
When you watch Nadal, Murray, or legends like Sampras, Agassi, or Borg, you see confidence dripping off of them.
This goes hand in hand with being mentally strong. Knowing you are an excellent player, and that you believe you can win any game is just as important as the skills that you own.
Federer is a prime example of a player who is beginning to doubt himself a bit, and it is showing in big moments and matches against players he is struggling against.
David Nalbandian is an example of someone who is not completely confident that he can win at any time. When you combine awesome talent with mental strength and confidence you are probably well on your way to becoming a great player.
4. The Third Tier, Part One: Work Ethic
Hard work. Besides talent, it's the backbone of every player, or at least, it should be.
Nadal and some other players are well known for logging a great amount of time on the practice court. It's necessary if a player wants to improve his game and truly evolve.
Nadal has evolved greatly into a complete player. Federer has honed his craft to an art, although he needs to work on his weaknesses.
Also, this greatly helps in consistency on the court. Being able to win long rallies and paint the lines takes work. You don't learn to do that by accident.
5. The Third Tier, Part Two: Fitness
When Nadal (or in the past, Agassi) would run around the court, he would make it look like someone having fun, while his opponent would be simply wishing he could collapse and die from exhaustion. And thus we see that tiring a player out is a good way of breaking down their concentration and their game in the match.
Posted: 25.04.09 22:47. Post subject: He’s one of a kind: ..
He’s one of a kind: Bud Collins talks about Roger Federer and the story behind those pants By Josh Krueger Daily News staff Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:23 AM EDT
NEWPORT — Roger Federer has won his last Grand Slam title. That’s the opinion of tennis aficionado Bud Collins, who was at the International Tennis Hall of Fame last week filming some material for the Tennis Channel.
In between shooting 24, 52-second “vignettes,” which will air during the Tennis Channel’s coverage of the French Open and Wimbledon, Collins took some time out to talk about tennis — and his colorful pants.
“He’s still one of the great players, but some other people have surfaced — (Rafael) Nadal, (Andy) Murray, (Novak) Djokovic, (Juan Martin) Del Potro — and, all of a sudden, there are guys who can beat him,” Collins said of Federer. “We went about five years when nobody could beat him. It’s nice to see competition, frankly.
“Five straight Wimbledons ought to be enough for any man.”
Not long ago, it was a foregone conclusion that Federer someday would overtake Pete Sampras’ record of 14 career Grand Slam titles. Now, it wouldn’t be farfetched to opine that Federer will remain stuck at 13.
“I think he’s probably got chasing Sampras on his mind,” Collins said. “He could win Wimbledon again. He’s a great champion, no matter what happens.”
Tennis trivia: Which player had won the most Grand Slam singles championships, and how many, before Sampras broke the record? Roy Emerson won 12 in the 1960s.
“We never used to think about this stuff when Emerson was playing. He didn’t even know he held the record,” Collins said. “When Pete got to about nine, or maybe eight, I started writing that he was stalking Emerson.
“Emerson said, ‘Gee, I suddenly see my name in the paper being chased. When I was doing the thing, nobody gave a damn.’”
Collins isn’t exactly writing off Federer. And even though the torch clearly has been passed, anointing Nadal as the next challenger to Sampras’ majors record is premature.
“It’s a long way off yet. To win eight more majors is a pretty hefty load,” Collins said. “The way he plays, I’m concerned about his knees. He has had problems with them.”
In choosing a locale for the Tennis Channel’s short takes on players, matches, etc., in Grand Slams, Collins said the Hall of Fame made perfect sense.
“The place stands alone. The ghosts of all the greats are here,” he said. “Anytime you can come to this place, maybe I’m prejudiced, but to me, it’s one of the great tennis locations in the world.”
And it’s one of the places Collins can wear his trademark wacky pants and no one will bat an eye.
Anyone who’s attended the Campbell’s Hall of Fame Tennis Championships or Hall of Fame induction ceremony should be familiar with Collins’ affinity for one-of-a-kind pants. He runs the gamut of styles and colors, ranging from solid tangerine — with matching shoes — to purple with giant strawberries.
He even had a pair made, after covering the “Rumble in the Jungle” — the George Foreman-Muhammad Ali heavyweight title fight — with Foreman’s head on one leg and Ali’s on the other.
The story behind Collins’ pants begins in 1966 during his tenure at a local Boston TV station.
“A guy in Cambridge named Charlie Davidson had a store there called The Andover Shop, and one day he said to me, ‘You look awfully dull on television,’” Collins said. “I was usually wearing white trousers and a blue blazer, and he said I looked like some jerk at a yacht club.”
With some material from India, Davidson offered to make Collins a pair of unique trousers. Collins, begrudgingly, wore them to the Davis Cup in Cleveland.
“I wished I’d had a raincoat on. You wouldn’t give them a second look today. They were just red and white madras plaid,” Collins recalled. “I started to climb the stairs to the press box and started to hear whistles and, ‘Ooh! Look at those!’ and things like that. I wanted to disappear.
“But after I got to the top, I thought, ‘That was kind of fun.’”
The fun hasn’t stopped. Davidson still makes pants for Collins, and Collins isn’t shy about wearing them.
“Now, if I’m dressed nicely, not in pants like this, people say, ‘Where are your pants?’” he said. “Davidson is still going. He’s about 83 or so.
It’s a spring Sunday ritual. Take a walk, lie in the park, examine New York City as it turns green all around you, and then go back home and watch Rafael Nadal pummel some poor glum soul into the red European dust. After yesterday’s version of this scenario played out as anticipated, I began to wonder whether it was finally time to add a third item to the brief list of life’s absolutes: Can we now say, “Death, taxes, and Nadal on clay”?
Last week I stated that there isn’t much new to say about how Nadal wins, on clay or any other surface. At 22, he’s already reached the stage where he’s hoisting trophies for the fifth straight time, as he did on Sunday with the supersized cup that he can barely lift over his head each year in Barcelona. So, seemingly with nothing left to observe about the guy, I put down the notebook for Nadal’s final yesterday against David Ferrer and sat back to watch as a spectator.
But that’s the thing about Nadal. Within his seemingly regimented—“one-dimensional”—game, he rarely fails to come up with something unexpected, something you haven’t quite seen even after watching him hundreds of times. Against Ferrer it was Nadal’s down-the-line forehand that looked new to me. He routinely cut off the angle on his opponent’s crosscourt backhand near the service line and, without stopping to set up in any conventional sense, drilled his forehand into the corner for an easy winner. I associate this “running through the ball” style of transition attack with Roger Federer, not with Nadal, but the Spaniard had the confidence yesterday to throw all grind-it-out caution to the wind.
That said, there’s one other notable aspect about Nadal that continues to stick out this clay season: Even while he’s doing something unprecedented, and even while he can appear for long periods to be utterly invincible, he remains human on the court. That is, he remains subject to anxieties, dry spells, inexplicable shanks, and even the occasional tactical blunder. After winning the first set over Ferrer pretty much at will, Nadal’s level dropped in the second, and more than a few shots flew wildly off his frame. John McEnroe once said of Federer at his peak that he screwed up just enough to let you know he was human, before rising to the occasion and becoming infallible again. This combination made Federer even more impressive than if he’d been perfect all the way through. If anything, I’ve always felt this was even truer of Nadal: He lets you know that winning is work, and that one missed shot here or there—Ferrer nearly reached set point on Nadal’s serve in the second—is all it would take for him to end up on the losing side of any given day. As with Federer once upon a time, this only makes the fact that Nadal doesn’t lose those key points that much more impressive.
I went to bed Sunday night having just listened to Tennis Channel commentators Jason Goodall and Robbie Koenig call the Barcelona final. This morning I woke up, turned on the TV, and heard them announcing first-round matches at the Masters event in Rome—the tour is in full swing. As Nadal himself said after the final in Indian Wells, while contemplating a late flight that same night to Miami, “The good thing of tennis is when lose you have another chance next week. The bad thing is when you win, next Tuesday you are [playing] another time.”
It’s not that bad, Rafa: This week you shouldn’t have to play until Wednesday. But as I write this, the first round in rainy Rome is going on (speaking of spring rituals, James Blake is about to lose to a no name). The other members of the Big 4, Federer, Murray, and Djokovic, will all come to the Foro Italico with more rest than Nadal. Can any of them take him off my short list of life’s sure things?
First Quarter The question for Nadal, and for this tournament, is how he feels in regard to his French Open preparation. Does he need some rest, or can he keep going at full speed all the way through Sunday? This question is tied up with whether he plans to enter Madrid in two weeks—apparently he’s wary of playing at altitude there so soon before Paris. Last year Nadal was in a similar situation when he came to Rome, and he lost early to Juan Carlos Ferrero. While he cited blisters afterward, he didn’t seem too broken up about getting a few days off before playing in Hamburg the next week and making the final push to Paris.
This year Nadal didn’t have to work overly hard in Barcelona. He won his semi and final in straight sets and didn’t have to play a quarterfinal at all after David Nalbandian pulled out. So I would expect Nadal, despite some trepidation, to go after the title in Rome the way he usually does, and to be fresh enough physically to do it.
But even with a couple days off, his first round could be tricky. Nadal will play the winner of Andreas Seppi, who has beaten him on hard courts, and Sam Querrey, who has challenged him on clay. The other half of his section is relatively stacked—Verdasco, Tsonga, Gasquet, Almagro, Gulbis, and Andreev are all there, but Nadal will only have to face one of them, in the quarters.
First-round matches to watch: Almagro-Gulbis, Tsonga-Gasquet. Semifinalist: Nadal
Second Quarter After reaching his first clay-court semifinal in Monte Carlo, Andy Murray continues his learn-the-dirt campaign of 2009. Think of it as a tennis version of Hillary Clinton’s crafty “listening tour” of New York state in 2000. Murray is taking the pressure off himself by saying that this spring he's essentially conducting research for the future.
He’ll have to be a quick study, because his first opponent might be Argentine dirtballer Juan Monaco. The two played a three-setter on hard courts on Miami last month before Murray prevailed. If they play again in Rome, we’ll get an idea of how the Scot matches up against a guy who makes his living on this stuff.
If he succeeds there, Murray might have to play either Nikolay Davydenko or Fernando Gonzalez in the quarters. He beat Kolya, a more natural clay-courter who seems revived after coming back from an injury, in a tough two-setter in Monte Carlo. If they play again, it should be equally tight. Semifinalist: Davydenko
Third Quarter Which Novak Djokovic will we see in Roma? He’s the defending champion, and he’s coming off a Monte Carlo run that brought out his best tennis of the year so far—more than at any time in 2009, he fought well when he had to and didn't let his emotions get the best of him.
But if we’ve learned anything about the Serb over the last year, it’s that he’s more prone to unpredictability and mental inconsistency than we once thought. Still, I like his draw. Of the guys in his immediate vicinity, only Safin and Robredo seem at all capable of beating him, and those two play each other in the first round. On the other side we might get a showdown between Del Potro and Wawrinka, a match I’d give to Stan based on current form. Semifinalist: Djokovic
Fourth Quarter Do you have a clue as to how Roger Federer might play in Rome? If so, you’re a step ahead of me. No matter what he says, his personal life must be a bit of a distraction at the moment, and so far it’s one that hasn’t relaxed him on the court.
Federer’s draw won’t help take the edge off, either. Last year he lost to Radek Stepanek in Rome, and he might find himself across from the Agitator again this time—they’re slotted to play in the third round. That is, if Federer gets past his potential opening match against Ivo Karlovic, never a fun thing to do, no matter what the surface.
On the other side, Simon, Ferrer, Berdych, and the improving Italian Fognini will fight it out to make the quarters. I got burned picking Ferrer to reach the final in Monte Carlo, but I liked the way he dictated much of the play in the second set against Nadal in Barcelona. Semifinalist: Ferrer
Semifinals: Nadal d. Davydenko; Djokovic d. Ferrer
Posted: 30.04.09 09:24. Post subject: Who can do the impos..
Who can do the impossible against Nadal?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Posted by Stephen Tignor, TENNIS.com
The list of life's absolutes is short and grim. There's death. There are taxes. But today's ATP pros have it even worse. They must face one more harsh certainty: Rafael Nadal on clay.
Nadal has lost just two matches on the surface in the last two years. The year before that, he didn't lose any. For the next six weeks, you must begin each tournament by picking Nadal to win and then asking who has the best chance, percentage-wise, to stop his march to the trophy ceremony. The rest of the field has three more opportunities this spring -- maybe two, if, as Nadal has hinted, he skips the event in Madrid because he fears the altitude will throw off his preparation for Paris. Who, as of today, stands the best chance of doing the impossible?
Roger Federer: He has won once in 10 tries against Nadal on clay, at Hamburg in 2007. Since then, Nadal has extended his hex over the former No. 1 to grass and hard courts. And the way Nadal leveled him in Paris last year, you can't have high hopes for Federer to be the miracle worker. His forehand has only become more erratic since then, and Rafa has only gotten better. Chances: 10 percent
Andy Murray: Of the top players, Murray has the most confidence against Nadal. He beat him at the U.S. Open last year and gave him a scare for a set on clay in Monte Carlo. The trouble for Murray, as he showed with his opening-round loss Wednesday in Rome, will be getting to Nadal. He can only face him in the semis or finals, and that's a lot of dirtball for a guy who is still learning how to win on the stuff. Chances: 12 percent (docked because he's out for Rome)
Novak Djokovic: The testy Serb found his groove against Rafa in the Monte Carlo final. But even Djokovic's best wasn't enough, as Nadal won going away in the third. Djokovic is a more accomplished clay-courter than Murray, and less prone to early-round upsets, but he can't have a lot of confidence that he can seal the deal against Nadal on clay, even when everything is clicking. Chances: 15 percent
Nikolay Davydenko: His ability to move his opponents off the court and punish short balls has given Nadal fits on clay. But the Spaniard seemed to go out of his way to demoralize him in straight sets last week in Barcelona. Still, the Russian remains a wild card in a two-of-three-setter, and he may play Nadal in the semis in Rome. Chances: 12 percent
Fernando Verdasco: You remember their match at the Australian Open in January. But do you remember the way Nadal beat his fellow Spaniard like a redheaded stepchild at the French Open last year? Chances: 7 percent
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga: Jo Willie has the game and no fear of Nadal, whom he has generally played very well. But Tsonga's behind even Murray in his clay-court evolution, having missed the spring season last year. If it's two-of-three and he's serving lights-out, he could sneak one past Rafa. If not, he can't. Chances: 6 percent
Juan Martin del Potro: The Argentine kid seems to have made hard courts his specialty. He beat Nadal on them in Key Biscayne last month. That may be unfortunate if he faces Nadal. The Spaniard likes to use the clay season to stop any momentum that a player could build against him. Chances: 5 percent
Fernando Gonzalez: Gonzo has the guns, but he usually misfires against Nadal. He lost to him in straights in the Rome final two years ago and in the Olympic gold medal match last summer. Still, if he catches Nadal on the early side, he has a puncher's chance. If it's in a final, forget it. Chances: 6 percent
Then again, as I'm writing this, I'm watching Nadal make two of the most outrageous gets I've ever seen in his opening match in Rome against Andreas Seppi. Right now, all those percentages I've cited just look like lonely, pointless numbers. At the moment, I'd say these guys have about as much chance of beating him as you or I do of not having to pay our taxes.
Posted: 30.04.09 09:35. Post subject: Viewpoint: The Weake..
Viewpoint: The Weakest No. 1s in History
By Donal Lynch www.tennis.com
Men
5. Yevgeny Kafelnikov: An Olympic gold medal and two Slams is nothing to sneeze at, but Kafelnikov was lucky to squeeze his brief reign in between the dusk of the Sampras-Agassi era and the dawn of the Federer-Nadal golden age.
4. Juan Carlos Ferrero: He won the French Open during a stretch when, it seems, every Spanish player claimed at least one Roland Garros crown. But despite achieving the top ranking in 2003—the same year he won the French and made the final of the U.S. Open—“The Mosquito,” currently ranked No. 100, never established himself as a dominant player.
3. Thomas Muster: By winning 11 clay court titles in 1995, including the French, the Musterminator claimed the top spot in the rankings. The respect of his peers was harder to come by, however. Andre Agassi, for one, said Muster would only be deserving of the ranking when he won a Slam on a surface other than clay.
2. Carlos Moya: If there were a tennis player-card trading, you could probably swap twenty Moyas for one Pete Sampras. The likeable dirtballer was another Roland Garros one-hit wonder.
1. Marcelo Rios: With only one career Slam final (at the 1998 Australian Open, which he lost, 6-2, 6-2, 6-2 to Petr Korda), Rios—also the surliest player in memory—is the weakest men’s No. 1 in history. When Marat Safin is calling you a wasted talent, you know you could have done better.
Posted: 05.05.09 19:12. Post subject: Pebble in the Shoe P..
Pebble in the Shoe Posted 05/04/2009 @ 4 :37 PM by Pete Bodo TENNIS.com
At some point, the superlatives fail you, and just putting them down on paper makes you feel like a phony because they're not supposed to roll off your tongue (or fingertips) left and right. They're called "superlatives" for a reason - and dispensing them as if they were gummy bears seem, well, contrary to the whole notion of the superlative. So what am I going to say about Rafael Nadal, now that he's won his fourth Italian Open, and pulled ahead of all those other legendary players who once trod the golden clay of the Foro Italico?
Just this: Nadal might make us re-think how we view tennis history, and our collective baseline for greatness. That's what I found myself thinking this morning, trying to digest the full meaning of the news that Rafael Nadal had just won his third clay-court tournament in as many weeks, and bagged his 15th Masters Series title, moving ahead of Roger Federer - and just two titles shy of Andre Agassi's record 17 wins in those blue-chip events. All this, at age 22.
A few years ago, I wrote a post noting the odd (and counter-intuitive) way tennis in the Open era keeps churning out players who are are instantly hailed as unique talents of unprecedented dimensions, or once-in-a-lifetime grade champions. The claims hold water only if the "lifetime" in question is that of a dachshund. In my own career, I've seen half-a-dozen players singled out as potentially "the greatest," only to have someone come along in their own time to show the boast premature.
As I got my bearings in the game, I came to the realization that everybody can't be the greatest, ever. Some of this talk was just hype, some of it just an outpouring of enthusiasm. But there was also this uncomfortable disconnect at the bottom of it all: how could the game be that much "tougher," the standard so much higher, and the the players so much better when tennis keeps producing players who dominate, and accumulate major titles at a clip that puts many of their talented forebears to shame?
Pondering this, I came to one conclusion: the magic number that separates the top dogs from the not-quite-great is seven. If you've bagged seven or more majors, you're right there in the first rank with the best players ever, and whomever the GOAT is. Check out the theory; I'm pretty confident it's useful.
The other issue I resolved in my mind has to do with players of historic importance who did not get to play in the Open era. Our standard of judgment might be very different if, say, Pancho Gonzales had been able to play all the majors through the best years of his career. By refusing to allow professionals to compete at the Grand Slam (or other ITF sanctioned) events, the tennis establishment ensured that we would never have a truly accurate picture of the game's past, or establish a self-evident baseline for greatness. Hail, Pancho Gonzales, with his great grass-court game, might have won 20 or more majors (remember, he wa a force on the tour into his 40s) in that period with three of the four majors were on grass. How would we feel about Sampras, Laver, or Federer then? And how about Laver, the onlhy player ever to record two Grand Slams, one each in pre-history (the amateur era) and the Open era.
It's just something to think about. Anyway,Bjorn Borg had the entire world spellbound and lying on its back with four paws in the air until John McEnroe suddenly came along. Pete Sampras made us forget McEnroe (as well as McEnroe's own nemesis, Ivan Lendl), but then along came Roger Federer, piling up Grand Slam singles titles so fast that at one time, a fan could predict that Federer would wind up with 20 majors and not get laughed out of the room.
And then came Nadal, to perform one of the most visceral and graphic reputation demolitions we've ever seen. The Nadal vs. Roger Federer rivalry started as a charming pas de deux, danced out on clay (where Nadal led) and grass (where Federer led) with great discretion, politesse, and a ritual formality that did not challenge the status quo - that is, the notion that Federer was safely advancing toward GOAT-hood. Oh, Nadal might be remembered as the "go figure" guy - the exotic dude with the crazy strokes who just happened to present Federer with problems no other player could articulate. Sheesh, Roger lost that semifinal at Roland Garros to that kid Nadal, with the clamdiggers and ugly strokes. . .Go figure.
This theme was simple: Nadal was the pebble in Federer's shoe - more of an irritant than threat. And it was a good thing that Federer had some push-back from him, because you wouldn't want the prospective GOAT's journey to be too easy. So what if Nadal's prowess on clay, even two, three years ago, made a powerful statement about Federer's mortality? Sampras never won the French either, and many pundits felt that his collection of 14 major singles titles wiped out whatever caveat his failings at Roland Garros suggested. So let's say Roger never wins Roland Garros, but ends up with 16, 18 majors. . . surely he has to be the GOAT, right?
Right. Or is it? Over the past year, the pebble in the shoe has become the boulder on the chest. Maybe it's just me, but everything Nadal has accomplished in the past 12 months has seemed just as relevant to, and a comment on, Federer's quest for Goathood. It all goes back to the perceptive line Mats Wilander dropped at the U.S. Open of 2007: How can a guy be considered the greatest player ever if there's a guy he can't beat in his own era?
Almost everything Nadal has done since I first published that remark (I paraphrased it here, but it's very close to the original) has underscored the oxymoron at the heart of this rivalry. Nadal's success couldn't be more damaging to Federer's case if the express purpose of Nadal's existence were to besmirch Federer. That realization has helped me understand why fans are so polarized when it comes to this rivalry, and it's made me question if this really is a "rivalry" at all. Rivalries usually involve two parties who are more or less equal; this rivalry has never quite conformed to that model, at any number of levels, including the head-to-head (in which Nadal has a disproportionate lead, 13-6).
Up to this point, I haven't thought of Federer vs.Nadal as a rivalry as much as a chase - the saga of the upstart Nadal trying to lift his game sufficiently to catch Federer. It only became a rivalry last summer, when Nadal proved that he could take the measure of Federer on a surface other than clay. Those last two majors in which the men met in the finals represented major no. 14 and 15 for Federer. Is there a more telling fact when it comes to the dynamics of this rivalry? I hope this isn't the case, but this rivalry might be less about two stars on a parallel track than two trajectories - one rising, one falling - that happen to coincide for a few brief and glorious Grand Slam moments.
Sometimes it doesn't seem like either man is eager to engage in a rivalry - for instance, can you imagine Federer and Nadal doing anything like those "guerrilla tennis" television commercials featuring Sampras and Agassi? Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert, Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, they knew how to use their natural rivalry as a way to simultaneously exploit and enhance each other. Their rivalries took on a life of their own, and they added up to something that was far more than a sum of the parts. I haven't sensed that kind of synergy coming from Roger and Rafa. To me, Roger has basically tried to pretend that Rafa doesn't exist, and Rafa has tried to pretend that he's just a humble, hard-working lad, trying to improve his game.
A few hours ago, I filed a post for ESPN on Federer and how he'd be best served if he looked ahead to the next few weeks as a time of opportunity (and no, I did not write the teaser caption on the tennis home page). I understand that Roger is holed up in Switzerland with the mysterious Monsieur Pierre Paganini, and not because they're collaborating on a violin concerto. Nadal hasn't officially dropped out of the Madrid Masters yet, and I'm very curious to see exactly what he's going to do. When you analyze how playing - or skipping - Madrid might affect Nadal, or Federer, you begin to see how shoehorning an event of Madrid's status into the ATP tournament schedule has far-reaching implications.
Because Madrid is a Master Series event, Nadal is automatically entered. Will he withdraw? It's like a game of chess, sometimes, and some guys take more time than others, and not just because they need to adjust an undergarment.
Posted: 11.05.09 20:39. Post subject: Musing on Madrid Pos..
Musing on Madrid Posted 05/11/2009 @ 12 :30 PM TENNIS.com
In traveling from Rome to Madrid, we’ve gone from the peeling to the gleaming, from the historic to the high-tech, from the solemn-sounding Foro Italico to the postmodern-sounding Magic Box. And what did we find when we got there? Marat Safin with his hands in the air and his racquet bouncing on the clay in front of him.
The center court in Madrid looks great from what I’ve seen over the last hour on TV, though my first thought was that the light and atmosphere reminded me of the light and atmosphere in the similarly high-tech main stadium in Hamburg, the tournament that was booted off the schedule this year to make room for this one—the new has been replaced by the even-more-new. Otherwise, it sounds like it’s been a shaky start in Madrid, with Spaniards Nadal and Robredo noting the site’s deficiencies: few practice courts, buildings still under construction, cramped locker rooms, a silly blue clay court, and an owner, Ion Tiriac, with delusions of world domination. Are these legitimate beefs, or the gripes of touchy pros who have had their routine disturbed for the week? We’ll find out in the days and years ahead. What’s interesting so far is that Nadal, who is dead set against Tiriac’s idea of Madrid becoming a “Fifth Slam,” is turning out to be just as much of a traditionalist as his predecessor at No. 1, Roger Federer. Why would either of them want the sport to do anything differently? It might mess with their mojo.
The biggest change is that Madrid is a dual-gender event, which, according to most of the sport’s observers, is the best way for each tour to maximize its appeal. That means we have two draws to break down: Both of them feature virtually every player of importance in limited, 56-person draws—it felt a little early in the week to see Safin play Tsonga today. But both of them will have their own very different storylines playing out.
The Men
First Quarter It may sound illogical, but the men’s event is now less about who can beat Nadal than whether he can keep winning all the way through to another French Open. That would mean five straight tournament titles, more than he’s ever pulled off in one spring. While that kind of sustained dominance may seem unlikely, what’s even more unlikely is that he’ll lose a match on clay in the foreseeable future. We’ll see if Nadal’s early irritation with the facility and the surface has any affect on his attitude.
Nadal’s quarter is loaded with fellow Spaniards—Ferrer, Verdasco, Ferrero, Montanes, Granollers, Lopez, and Almagro. Plus, there’s Argentina’s Juan Monaco, who nearly reached the semis in Rome two weeks ago. Of those, Verdasco and Ferrer have the best chance of making some inroads against Nadal. I might say the same thing for Almagro, except that I haven’t seen him once during this clay season, which isn’t a good sign. First-round match to watch: Almagro vs. Kohlschreiber—nice backhands. Semifinalist: Nadal
Second Quarter This time Novak Djokovic, after losing to Nadal in the Monte Carlo and Rome finals, has the honor of appearing in the same half as the top seed. He’s slotted to play the winner of Tsonga and Simon in the quarters. Before that, he doesn’t have a lot to worry about—Sam Querrey has already knocked out 15th seed Radek Stepanek. I’m curious to see whether either Tsonga or Simon will make some kind of move heading into Roland Garros. There’s an opportunity here for each of them. Semifinalist: Djokovic
Third Quarter After a couple weeks of rest and practice, Andy Murray picks up his clay campaign again. He’s opposite his old friend Juan-Martin del Potro in this section; he’s near Tommy Robredo; and he begins with the perhaps tricky Simone Bolelli, an Italian who knows his way around a clay court. Will Murray’s momentum be slowed by his early loss in Rome? I don’t think so—he has the big picture in mind and seems to have learned not to sweat the day-to-day and point-to-point as much as he once did. On del Potro’s side is Stan Wawrinka, who could easily reach the quarters or beyond. Dark horse: Tomas Berdych. He won his first event of 2009 last week, and he might face del Potro in the second round. Semifinalist: Murray
Fourth Quarter Roger Federer may not have it easy to start. He could get Igor Andreev, who had him on the ropes at the U.S. Open last year, in his opener, and then perhaps James Blake, who made an unexpected surge last week in reaching the Estoril final. On the other side are Roddick, Haas, Gulbis, and Davydenko. Why do I like Roddick’s chances, despite the fact that he’s coming off his honeymoon? He’ll already have nothing to lose on clay; now he’ll have even less than nothing. And despite most evidence to the contrary, he isn’t that bad on this stuff. Semifinalist: Roddick
Semifinals: Nadal d. Djokovic; Murray d. Roddick Final: Nadal d. Murray
Posted: 15.05.09 07:18. Post subject: Between The Covers: ..
Between The Covers: Players Cite Favorite Books By Adrianna Outlaw Thursday, May 14, 2009 Tennisweek.com
You watch the ATP's top players at work between the lines, but what do they like between the covers?
When the world's best players unwind with a good book what do they choose to read?
Lately, there's been an abundance of top tennis books published from A Terrible Slendor to Little Pancho to Abe Segal's Hey, Big Boy to Strokes Of Genius.
The pros — those who do read — tend to stick to fiction. Some of the more memorable responses are here:
Novak Djokovic: "The Power of the Present Moment."
Sam Querrey: "My favorite book, probably the Da Vinci Code. Dan Brown is a great writer."
Gilles Simon: "I really don't like to read, I never read any book."
Rafael Nadal: The City Of The Beast."
David Nalbandian: "Lord Of The Rings."
Tommy Haas: "I am interested in people. I like biographies probably Lance Armstrong's."
Andy Roddick: "That's a tough one. Probably Angels and Demons by Dan Brown. I read it while I was actually in some of the cites that the book was taking place."
Roger Federer: "I read a lot of magazines and newspapers and autobiographies."
Andy Murray: "I don't read. I haven't read a book since the second Harry Potter novel."
Jamie Murray (on his brother's reading habit): "Yeah, he doesn't (read) and it shows in his intelligence, I think (laughs)."
Posted: 15.05.09 07:22. Post subject: Ranking Revision? By..
Ranking Revision? By Tennis Week Thursday, May 14, 2009
Andy Murray surpassed Novak Djokovic for the third spot in the ATP rankings on Monday, but neither man is giving up ground in the debate over the ranking system.
T.S. Eliot wasn't talking about tax season, the WTA Tour's player withdrawal issues or an April Fool's Day prank gone bad when he called April "the cruellest month."
Novak Djokovic found the ATP ranking system causing cruelty on a May day earlier this week. Djokovic, who has appeared in four consecutive ATP finals, won the Serbia Open title in his hometown of Belgrade on Sunday only to lose his World No. 3 ranking to Andy Murray on Monday. Despite his title triumph, Djokovic lost the 1000 points he gained winning the 2008 Rome title, enabling Murray to surpass him and leaving the now fourth-ranked Serbian feeling slighted by the system.
"Playing three Masters Series finals in a row and winning a 250 event (in Belgrade) is incredible success and even then you are dropping a spot down in the rankings," Djokovic said at the Madrid Open. "That shows how cruel the ranking system is in this sport."
Pointing to the Grand Slam dominance of Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, Djokovic suggested the ATP needs to address its ranking system.
"Federer or Nadal have been winning four or five Grand Slams in a row and they haven't won a single point," Djokovic said. "I think this is an issue we have to talk about."
Murray said today the only time Djokovic seems to be talking about a rankings revision is when his ranking declines.
"There always seem to be problems and now it's obviously the rankings," Murray said after advancing to the quarterfinals of the Madrid Open. "It's great that Novak's done well the last few weeks but the first three or four months of the year I played a lot better than him so I think the rankings reflect very well how the guys are playing. Until this week I've never heard anyone complain. I think maybe only in the last week it's become a problem for Novak."
World No. 1 Nadal, who had an extensive run at No. 2 before finally surpassing Federer last summer, suggests a ranking system that factors in the prior 104 weeks or results rather than the current system, which relies on the past 52 weeks of results, would be a better system.
"I think a ranking based on two years would be much better in terms of being relaxed and, from my point of view, would allow me to lengthen my career," Nadal said. "It's an important change."
He plays with excellent variety, his serve has improved in leaps and bounds, he has become a master of the drop shot, and he can hold his own from the back of the court. When he is playing well, he can be an absolute joy to watch.
He started 2009 by saying he could be World No. 1 by the year's end. And yes, technically he could have. But realistically? Not a chance. Not with Rafael Nadal's iron grip over men's tennis.
Despite this, the British media all too happily jumped on the bandwagon, and ever since I have regularly heard Murray described as "the future World No. 1"—by commentators, news reporters and fans alike.
Rafael Nadal has stated that he believes Andy Murray will, at some point become the World No. 1. He did not, however, specify when.
There is a high possibility that Murray will, at some point in the future, get to that coveted top position. Whether that future is near or distant, is difficult to say. Particularly with Murray's difficulties on clay, and Nadal's complete dominance on every surface.
Really. It's a tough one to call.
Murray has improved in ways I could never have predicted. There was a time when he was almost embarrassingly bad on the red dirt, and now he goes deeper into those clay court tournaments than he ever has before.
His prowess on hard courts has been incredible, and lifted him to No. 4 in the ATP World Tour rankings last year. Now he sits on the position of No. 3. And if we're being honest—he got there by default.
His hard court points from the end of last season and the start of this season have carried him thus far. Despite being knocked out in his first match in Rome, because Novak Djokovic did not retain his title, the pair swapped ranks.
Novak Djokovic has reached the finals in Monte Carlo and Rome, he won Belgrade, and reached the semifinals in Madrid.
Andy Murray reached the semifinals in Monte Carlo, went out in R32 in Rome, and reached the quarterfinals of Madrid (He did not play in Belgrade)
Murray has never reached a clay court final. To be a World No.1, you must be versatile enough to win on all surfaces.
Had it not been for Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer would long have been the best clay court player in the world. Perhaps not the best ever, but the best of the generation.
Novak Djokovic is currently playing like the World No. 2, yet has been bumped down to fourth in the world because of Murray's previous successes on hard courts.
So yes—Murray may well become World No. 1 one day, but it will only happen when Rafael Nadal releases the world of men's tennis from this lockdown, and Murray improves his own game further on clay.
The British media, however, has different ideas.
Blinded by patriotism and the fallen dreams of previous tennis players from our country, they pile all the broken hopes and unfulfilled expectations of past generations onto the shoulders of whichever poor soul happens to be talented enough to make people outside of Britain see the potential they have.
Of course, because of this we get second-to-none tennis coverage on the TV, but that is not the point.
The obsession of the media in Britain extends far enough that they do not mention the epic encounters between two champions in their daily news reports—namely Nadal and Djokovic in their Madrid semifinal—preferring instead to talk about Murray's hopes for the French Open.
The way Andy Murray is talked about in Britain, you would think he already was the World No. 1. Higher even, if that is possible, because it would be insanely difficult for anybody to deserve the kind of praise he gets.
And this is without even winning a Grand Slam.
It's not fair on the British people who are loyal fans of other players, it's not fair on the people who have to play against Andy Murray in front of a home crowd—and it's not fair on Andy Murray, because that kind of pressure is not something anybody ever wants to have to deal with.
There is nothing wrong with a bit of patriotism. But to the exclusion of all else? It's madness.
Posted: 19.05.09 17:30. Post subject: Не знаю, куда запост..
Не знаю, куда запостить и было ли это на старом форуме. Это не статьи, а ссылка на передачи Ч.Роуза, в которых он беседовал с разными теннисистами. Там есть совершенно прекрасные интервью! (с Андре просто шедевральное, на мой взгляд; интересное вью с Федерером 2004г., Джонни Мак, Сампрас, Курье, Марат, Ллейтон.... Много чего интересного, короче).
All times are GMT
3 Hours. Hits today: 0
You can: smiles yes, images yes, types no, poll no
avatars yes, links on, premoderation off, edit new post yes
- user online
- user offline