Now that's what I call a TV schedule: LA QF Preview

Haas v Safin

Not a problem if I start with the biggest and baddest draw ticket first, is it?

It's not the biggest title in the world, but a win here will set both of them up well and proper ahead of the Open.

With the success Tommy had at Wimbledon, and with it being Marat's swansong, most will I believe like me, be backing Marat. Who's not done anything of note since Wimbledon last year. And who's probably the only guy on tour that's got more fans locked in one of those collective global good-will seances, than Ernie has.

It could happen, couldn't it? Yes it could. Mind you he could also edge past Tommy and go out in the very next round to someone like Dudi Sela. Which would be pants, if you don't mind my putting it like that.

Ok I'll do it. *Deep Breath* Marat in three. Must.Not.Do.Pants.

Sela v Querrey

If Dudi gets through this one it'll only be to put paid to Marat. I'm going to regret saying that, no?

Having said that, he's down a set to Querrey as we speak.

Sam's had a mildishly interestingish kind of year. Little surprised he lost that match against Ginepri last week. But I can't see him losing this one.

Sam in two.

Isner v Ball

Dunno Don't Care.

Isner should get through this in straights seeing as I know absolutely nothing about Ball, and seeing as I'm guessing Isner is probably twice his height.

Fish v Mayer

Still Dunno, definitely don't care.

Mayer fought his way past Ouanna (of RG-fame) and Kunitsyn to get to this point. If you're at all interested.

Oh I dunno, Fish in three?


Read More...

Now that's what I call a TV schedule: Stanford QF Preview

Huzzah! We are graced with tennis at last.

From Stanford at least. Which incidentally has turned out to be be a good little event.

If only we here were able to have seen more of it.

Managed to catch bits'n snippets of Serena and Venus last night. Both through, in their own very different ways.

With us being at or around the QF stages both here and in LA, me thinks it's time to be resurrecting those match previews.

So who's left?

Serena V Stosur

Haven't seen anything of Stosur since Wimbledon, and playing all of two rounds to make it to the quarters, is an indication of precisely nothing. Though she has gotten through both those encounters rather more cleanly than Serena has, and she took out Cibulkova 6-4, 6-3 in round one.

I normally bare my teeth menacingly at anyone who takes out any of my faves in straight sets -- Dominika's the type of player we could do with more of -- anyone except Stosur that is; hers is a game so well rounded I consider it a macrobiotic to the WTA's digestive tracts.

Serena, by her own admission, has been playing with a view to peaking at the US Open, though that sometimes has no bearing on how one sided things can still get out there.

Serena in three.

Jankovic V Bartoli

Anyone who's heard of the pre match mud pies these two have been slinging at each other knows what a potential cat fight we have on our hands.

I like what I've been seeing (and hearing) from JJ this event. Getting past Lisicki was a good achievement, even though it adds further fuel to my growing belief that Sabine has issues (physical and otherwise) with three set matches.

Bartoli has had mixed results this year, though she's subdued JJ quite easily in their last two encounters.

JJ in three, though expect sparks and quite a lot of fur to fly.

Hantuchova V Dementieva

Getting the better of Radwanska was an excellent result, though I suspect Dani managed that because Aggie gave her space to play and breath. I expect Elena to suffocate her, however.

Elena in two. And be nice.

Sharapova v Venus

I have no idea of the scheduling in Stanford, but they should put on the 'catfight' above as a precursor to the main event. No don't look around, that's this match right here!

To be honest I have no idea how it'll turn out. Venus looked far from secure yesterday, storming through the first set (like she sometimes does), and having a let down in the second (like she always does).

But it'd be a mistake to read too much into the way Maria got the better of Petrova, whom I reckon sometimes has only a quarter of a half life on court, and as great as the Shaza comeback appears to be going, it's difficult to bet against Venus as the form player coming into this.

Venus in three.


Read More...

Call that a TV schedule? Combined Edition

I really like that Sharapova came through her match against Petrova with such ease, but I'm not sure there's that much to be read into the result.

I didn't see the match (much like the rest of the week, though the quarters and the finals have been deemed fit to broadcast for some reason), but have seen Nadia check out of matches like that in the past. A trait that remains unchanged in spite of her top ten position.

What I'm saying is that, for it to have been so easy, I'd guess it happened again. And if I were to go with what I've read, it seems I'm right.

Not that any of this should matter to Shaza of course, who should be looking to string a set of wins together -- preferably strong ones like this -- in an effort at building up those depleted levels of confidence ahead of the US Open.

She'll play the winner of Venus and Kudryavtseva next.

"Its always great to come back and play someone who's at the top of the game and playing pretty well. I always relish playing the top players," she said. "I'd love to play against her."

(BBC)

Not sure what form Venus is in, but if she is anywhere near the top of her game, it should be a good matchup - I always enjoy these two teeing off against each other. It's visceral, feral tennis at it's best. Not very pretty, but full of the right kind of drama.

"No, not the slice Elena, not even the drop shot, but never the slice..."
(Photo: AP)

Dementieva took out Kirilenko just as easily. I quoted her a couple of days back as saying she was unaffected by that semi final loss to Serena at Wimbledon. Which I think is rather impressive; it would have been so easy to relapse into that slump she'd been in earlier on this year. Also bodes well for her ahead of the Open.

Customary racquet throwing pic - is he deliberately trying to sport that nostalgic clean-shaven US Open 2000 look?
(Photo by Stephen Dunn/Getty Images)

In LA, Ernie went down in three sets to Safin, in a match that despite the 26 63 64 scoreline, was actually quite close. Yes feel free to double take. Not often you see or hear of Marat getting through many of those. But playing so much (don't forget that exho with Pete) has caused him to snap out of that dreamy state he was in earlier on this week, and his recent pressers sound more grumpy. Guy's nearing the end of his career and it seems he can't wait to reach the finish line.

"You're ok kid, you'll do alright" Or something like that...

(Photo by Stephen Dunn/Getty Images)

Not that I blame him, of course. With the amount of excess energy he's consumed in those mental outpourings over the years, I should say he's spent. Not unlike Pete Sampras was, in that regard.

As far as young Ernie goes, it's not this loss, I'm just not ready to buy into him as a concept. Not just yet. At his peak I'd put him right up there with the del Potro's and Roddicks of this world; but Ernie's not the first and will definitely not be the last young player that failed to capitalise on his talent.

Looking at his stats, his only result of note is that QF at RG last year. Apart from that nothing. Not at the 1000 level, not below it. Not a single ATP title in fact. Isn't it time he picked up one of those unintrusive clay court titles in Europe? The ones I bitched about a week or so ago, because of their particularly suspect calendar positioning.

It might be better to start with something as small as that. Something that doesn't cramp the style of the big boys, but puts you on the map. He really needs to get that monkey off his back before it burgeons in to a snorting gorilla.

I'd go as far as to say he should have played something like Gstaad instead of LA this week.
Read More...

Arthouse Braggarteer...

I promised I'd not bore you all with another one of those pointless posts on the meritocracy of the rankings system.

But this week saw all and sundry get involved.

And you can hardly expect me to hold back when JJ somehow manages to elevate her usual levels of no-good, 'braggarteering' trash-talk to something approaching arthouse material.

"I think I'm the best player and I should always think like that but if I had to pick someone after me, I'd pick Serena," said Jankovic, who was the 2008 year-end number one and is now sixth. "Serena moves well, is strong and more complete.

"To be number one, you should be complete and if you are number one you have to be beating the Williams sisters," Jankovic said.

"I'm one of the rare players who has a positive record against the Williams sisters. Safina has beaten them twice. If you want to be number one, you have to be up there with them."

You don't sully material as good as that by analysing it. You simply experience it by letting it wash over you and flow through your senses; in the way you might perhaps luxuriate in a Rothko, by standing no more than two feet away, and taking it in.

And then you go talk to Venus.

(Photo: AP)

"Both players have their results and know their results and we shouldn't put one player down and one player up," she said. "They both did their best."

What, if anything did you expect from her, if not the quiet and dignified voice of reason? Ennobling the debate with a much needed dose of old-fashioned foolproof 'kool'.

Not to be outdone, Elena waded in too.

Elena Dementieva spoke up for her fellow Russian. "We were working a lot on our ranking system during the past years and it's better," the world number four said.

"The ranking system has improved and I think you get a lot of points by winning a grand slam, so it's really weird to see a number one without winning a grand slam. It's very unique but give Dinara credit; she was winning so many (other) tournaments. She deserved to get this number one position, but I'm sure if Serena continues to play like that she will get that position very soon."

If only things could always be this nice. Let's all hold hands.

Even Serena seems to be on board.

"I guess I needed to win Rome and Madrid and I could have done better at the French. But I can't complain."

Until Dinara learns to follow through and deal with those big moments, and Serena picks up some Premier level silverware, I suspect both healthy and toxic discussion will continue unabated.

And until and unless Jelena comes out with something equally as outrageous again, I'll not be drawn into any of it.

Read More...

Anne Down...

Now that's just plain wrong.

"I tried to avoid the fence and in doing so I twisted my knee," Keothavong said last night. "I'll have to rehab for the rest of the season. Of course, I'm disappointed to be out for the rest of the season, but I'll continue to work with my team and look forward to coming back next season."

(The Independent)

As if the girl hasn't had enough heartache this year, in being double bagelled by Safina and needled to the point of tears by the British Press, fate conspires and puts her out of action for the rest of the year.

Those points from that third round at the US Open last year will also be coming off. Which is kind of a big deal for anyone ranked outside of the top fifty. Get well soon. Read More...

Call that a TV schedule? LA Edition

What's with LA?

No seriously.

For one thing, it's the most charisma-laden tier-two field of psychotic ne'er-do-wells I've seen in a while.

And before your eyes have had a chance to adjust to the luminescence of the awesomeness, they've started winning matches.

Safin, Gulbis, and Baghdatis have all posted impressive wins in the past 48 hours and I'm sure Haas will follow suit as he takes to court opposite wildcard homeboy Jesse Levine.

Noteworthy I think, as the guys they took out (Robby Ginepri, Lu Yen-Hsun and Frank Dancevic respectively) weren't the usual breed of also-rans, you make special time and take special care to ignore.

"Robby is playing really well," the mercurial Russian said. "He is a tough player and it was a well-played match from both of us. I was able to go up a break at the beginning of the second set and that helped me to turn the match around."

(Yahoo! Sports)

Robby, in case you didn't know it, won Indianapolis last week. That may or may not have had a bearing. But in any case, such well-constructed, genteel, debonair analysis from Mr Mercury is a bit like witnessing a rainstorm of frogs and fishes. Just as rare, and maybe a little freakier.

"Now what sort of a Safin post would this be without a pic of him losing his racquet?"
(Photo by Stephen Dunn/Getty Images)

Something in the air?

He might still be on a wave of feel-good comeliness after that reenactment of the 2000 US Open final with Sampras, the organisers thought they'd put on to tickle our senses. Safin came out on top in that one too. Frilly nonsense, but also a lot of fun.

"Pete took the loss with good humour, and took a moment to auction off some of those '14' shirts"

(Photo: AFP)

But what about Ernie's win over Lu? Remember Lu at the Olympics last year? One of only a few players able to hand Andy Murray a straight sets loss during a period that saw Murray rampaging through top ten players like they were ranked outside of the top fifty.

Is Ernie's win also frilly nonsense, or a much anticipated start of something bigger and better? Dude's got a horde of fans worldwide relying on him, locked in a collective global seance aimed at jumpstarting his rise to the top. Don't disappoint'em Ernie.

And what of Baggy's win over Dancevic?

(Photo: Stephen Dunn/Getty Images)

'Baggy' as in Marcos' nickname; not Franks shorts.

That 'look' might have been at the root of Frank's problems. That's dire, that is. That's what comes of an unrestrained love affair with oversized shorts. Which are to gangly legs, what garlic-infused-belches are to witty conversation.

Not to mention the camera angle makes it looks a little like what's left, when Bjorn Borg throws up over Nadia Petrova's wardrobe.

But Dancevic is no slouch (as we all know); in fact, when he's not pratting about in skirts, I'd say he's rather talented. I had him earmarked for much success after first seeing him play in 2007. That it hasn't happened, in no way detracts from the importance of Baggy's win.

The last time I remember watching Marcos, he was being stretchered off court at the Ordina Open in Holland, his face contorted in pain. He's dropped to #146 in the rankings which is simply not on, whether you're a fan of his or not.

But more to the point Marcos, like Ernie and Marat, is that rare blend of charm and organically certified talent. With the US Open Series still in it's early stages, there's rich pickings to be had, and a chance to build up some confidence and much needed ranking points. It's "nice work if you can get it" - and with their gifts, I'd say they should almost certainly try.

Marat takes on Ernie next.

Families around the world have been issued with desensitising goggles, and have been advised to relocate their teenage daughters into one of many specially built bunkers resistant to the awesomeness radiating from LA. Worries persist however, that many may not make it in time and risk not surviving the climactic charisma overload.
Read More...

Call that a TV schedule? Stanford Edition

UK TV seems intent on pretending that large parts of the US Open Series simply don't exist.

Sensible coverage set to resume for Montreal.

Boo, you whores.

Expect my coverage to be equally intermittent. And stroppy.

Though I do have a comment or two on the following Stanford results:

Dementieva (3) bt Keothavong 6-1, 6-4

(Photo by Jed Jacobsohn/Getty Images)

Anne Keothavong's season much like the economy, shows little signs of an upturn, though you can hardly talk her down for being taken out by the #4 player in the world. That, my compadres, is one of those rare signs of order in the WTA. Dementieva insists she remains unaffected by that Wimbledon semi-final :

"It's not something that ticks me off," insisted the 27-year-old, who will play either Maria Kirilenko or Anna Chakvetadze in the second round.

"It was a good experience and a good match. I was just disappointed in the way I lost."

(BBC)

Here's someone you can talk down, should you be of that persuasion.

Radwanska (7) bt Cirstea 6-0, 6-1

Aggy is a fab player, but really, there's no excuse for this kind of a result. With the big wins Sorana has had recently she should be looking to work her way up the rankings, and make a bid for top ten entry.

It's the magnitude of the loss more than anything else, that bothers me. Against a player whom her game seems custom built to subdue. Aggy is a former top tenner, but her game is not built around pace and she remains vulnerable to heavy-handed tennis; a fact Sorana with that serve of her's, should be poised to take advantage of.

Having said that, I find it difficult to complain whenever I see Aggy beat up on big hitters.

Sharapova bt Sugiyama 6-4, 6-7, 6-1

Shaza squandered a 5-2 lead in the second before closing it out quite neatly in the last set. Which suggests to me, that despite her shoulder being "one hundred percent", there's still the need to get match fit.

(Photo by Jed Jacobsohn/Getty Images)

"I had so many chances to close out the match and I didn't," said Sharapova, currently ranked 62nd in the world. "I couldn't raise my level when had to.

"But in the third set I didn't do anything wrong, I was steady and kept doing the right things."

(Sky Sports)

Fortunately there remains plenty of time to do just that, ahead of the US Open.
Read More...

Worth Celebrating...

(Photo: ROLAND MAGUNIA/AFP/Getty Images)

Just because Hamburg is his first title of the year, and just because that expression deserves some kind of homage.

And all at once, Constantine's back in the top ten.

Gimme a Kolya over a Gilles or even a Jo-Willy any day of the week.

Read More...

Consistency, Quality and other Slovenian Strawmen

I've been propping up Dinara's cause with what looks like insolent bias over the months, but must admit her decision to play Slovenia this week really grates my cheese. Thank goodness it wasn't a clay court event.

This piece at Tennis Talk Anyone mentions a lot of what I find questionable.

(Photo: HRVOJE POLAN/AFP/Getty Images)

I can only assume she did it as some kind of a confidence booster.

It really does make the job of deflecting those daggers Serena and the rest of the 'real number one' posse seem intent on sending her way, rather difficult.

Especially when you hear of Zeljko's own attempts.

"If she [Serena] thinks she can only play 4 tournaments a year & will be #1 in the world she is wrong and has problems with mathematics."

-- @dinaupdates via Twitter

Serena's flunking all the high school maths papers in the world wouldn't change the fact that she, along with anyone with an opinion on tennis, is right to draw attention to the apparent paradox Dinara's ranking presents.

But the bigger problem with Zeljko's line of defence, if that indeed is what it is, is that it's a bit like saying, "Yeeeaaah she'll only ever be a 'consistent' breed of player (and what a disease that is), what of it?".

What of it?

Well it's not very motivating for one thing. Embracing her fate as the 'Consistentina' of the tour (to Nikolay's 'Constantine'), also undermines Dinara's credibility as a top ten player, let alone a world #1.

It's true that everyone already knows that Dinara is not (and probably won't ever be) the player that either of the Williamses are.

But that's neither here nor there. I'm not going to bore you again with what I think the debate is about.

There is of course some merit to Zeljko's assertion that Serena doesn't play enough events outside of the Slams. Trouble is, with this futile little Slovenian venture of her's, there's probably now rather more to the observation that Dinara plays too many of them.

Not to mention how difficult she's found it to ensure that it's her mentally bolstered self, and not that self-confessed chicken, that takes to court when she does make those Slam finals. A more worrying situation when you consider that not all of them were opposite Serena.

I don't have a problem with those that question Dinara's ranking, provided they're prepared to acknowledge (preferably in the same breath) that this debate wouldn't even be a debate, if Serena played and won more at the Premier level.

I just don't know which I hate more: that people will now 'strawman' the discussion about her ranking by ridiculing her Slovenian win over a field of tier three players; or that she gave them reason to ridicule by supplying them with that Slovenian strawman.

Read More...

Holy Monozygotics Batman!

(Photo: AP)

I have it on good authority they're not to be found anywhere behind that bush, sir.

There's two of them wrapped up somewhere within what looks like an early European Monastic Retreat where sons and grandsons of the aristocracy were sent to be cultured in the fineries of philosophy and theological rhetoric.

Are all Swiss Clinics like that?

Let's tackle this in some sort of order then.

Myla Rose and Charlene Riva are two of the more tasteful sounding names I've heard for celebrity-bairns. We've seen the way other celebs have gone (you know who you are Nicholas Cage).

Bravo/Otlichno to Team Federinec, for keeping it real.

It's not just frothy mouthed fans speculating what these two, with their RF inscribed double-helix DNA, could go on to achieve in the game.

"wimbledon womens champs in 2029-2040 .... the federer girls :) congrats to the new parents!"

-- Andy Roddick, via Twitter

Will we be be seeing R^F in Montreal? Maybe. Don't quite think it'll be at the forefront of his mind right now though.

Read More...

Masha, Kimmie, and WTT...

Still wondering whether I should care about World Team Tennis. Way I see it is it's escaped my attention for 20 years, so what's there to grab it now?

Elton John? Not in a million years. Multicoloured courts? (Unlined multicoloured courts? No really)

What's piqued my interest this week though, and that I imagine of any semi-avid tennis fan, is the involvement of Sharapova and Clisjters.

Shaza first.

As you've no doubt already heard by know she's pronounced her shoulder as "one hundred percent recovered", which is of course very good news for the tour, considering the renewed round of assaults on the integrity of Dinara's #1 ranking this week.

(Photo: AP)

More tellingly she discussed at some length her time spent away from the tour.

"By no means was it easy. Definitely I had ups and downs," she said. "I had days where I had to push myself more than I've ever had to mentally than physically.

"It all pays off. Obviously just getting to be able to play tennis again is an achievement in itself. Now it's about preparing myself, forgetting about what I went through, getting back into the form where I was -- and even better."

...

"At 22, you consider you've been playing on the Pro Tour that many years, [a comeback's] definitely not a surprise," she said. "It is a little surprising to see so many girls kind of coming out of the woodwork, and they're so many years younger than you. You're like, 'Where did the time go?'

"But I enjoy every single year of it. As I get older, I become a much wiser person on the court. I learn a lot in life. A learn a lot from my profession, from what I do. I'm definitely not sad that the years are going by."

...

"It's not something you just stop when it feels good," she said. "You have to keep working on it. You have to keep getting it stronger.

"For the rest of my career I'll be doing shoulder exercises. It won't be as fun as I want it to be. It's all a routine. But everyone has to do it. Everyone has injuries. It's part of the game."


(USTA.com)

Needless to say, I'm loving this maturation. That it's been acquired through a process of rehabilitation somewhat unwittingly grafted on to her, only adds to it's appeal. I think I might have mentioned before that she once more or less 'tossed her head' at the idea of playing into her late twenties. Not my favourite moment of her career.

But we sometimes expect too much of our younger athletes (she was no more 18 or 19 at the time), whom let's face it are more or less forced to grow up under the glare of the public eye. It was the same with Murray, who was roundly castigated for those churlish displays, mostly directed towards Brad Gilbert.

But she speaks now like a woman beyond her years, using language you might expect more to hear from the 30 year old Nathalie Dechy, who announced her retirement this week.

The whole episode speaks volumes about her mental strength: unequivocally her greatest asset. It's rescued her many times on court. That it should come to her aid and see her through her greatest off court battle should perhaps not surprise us.

Maybe this renewed commitment will push her to greater heights than might have been possible without the injury.

The other great comeback is of course that of Kim Clisjters. Not quite at the level of Shaza in the mental stakes it must be said.

But a much better athlete and with more of an all round game (she'd banana-split her way back into court long before Jelena of Sveta did). It certainly wasn't just me glad to see her lift her only Slam trophy back at the US Open in 2005.

Let's also not forget her record at those she didn't win: four Slam finals and a staggering seven semis. More substantial IMO as they were all acquired within that competitive WTA hothouse that featured Henin, Sharapova, and the Williamses, all arguably at the top of their respective games (Venus, I'll grant you, did have a rather horrible time of it up until that Wimbledon title of 2005).

In some ways her decision to return isn't that surprising. The iron, as they say, is as hot as it'll ever be. The tour seems deflated, and pales in comparison with anything going on during the time of her last outing. I'm sure she isn't expecting to reach those heights , at least not with such regularity. But don't be surprised to see her bag some prominent scalps over the next few months and maybe more.

Both their additions should breath life back into the tour. Which is near asphyxiation.

I think I'm destined to remain sceptical of WTT though. I just read Elton John wrote the theme song for the Philadelphia team.

I just don't want to risk having to witness anything like this ever again.



I think I preferred just the rain delays. Both thankfully banished, by that gleaming roof.
Read More...

Hamburgers and French Fries...

Alright enough.

Even I know when to call a halt.

So enough on the 'American Beauty' of single handed backhands.

Enough with the fanciful and giddy kung-fu tennis fusions.

And Enough with the Andy Murray film scripts that sound like they've been written by an intern. During their lunch break.

We're returning to tennis we are.

But biding time is fun. Know that I intend to do a lot more of it. Especially when the most interesting thing to report on tour is that Gilles Simon continues to have only a slightly worse time of it than the German Open itself. That's the new no-frills deMASTERised ATP 500 name for Hamburg btw.

A tournament that's had it's new director Michael Stich mucking in at doubles this week in an effort at staving off declining interest. A tournament Simon (the #1 seed) was unceremoniously ejected from by a qualifier, a wildcard no-name somebody called Daniel Brands. So sorry Danny. Congratulations, until yesterday I hadn't heard of you. Now you're a label in my tag cloud. A label that's currently too feint to be detected. But Go Germany, nevertheless.

And that wasn't the end of it. Wawrinka, of Wimbledon single-handed shootouts under-the-roof fame: comprehensively duffed-up, I think is the phrase. Tommy Robredo, clay-court extraordinaire, supposedly out of a funk: Now he's out of the event too. And Melzer out to Uruguayan qualifier Cuevas. Remember folks, it's the depth in men's tennis is what it is.

There's still a watchable enough cast with Davydenko, Sod, Ferrer and Kohlschreiber holding fort, I suppose. But it won't stop me feeling that the event's effectively been crippled, an event that was already having trouble these last few years, with it's placement immediately prior to Roland Garros. A situation that meant the marquee names either didn't show up at all, or came hobbling in after taking part in some of those other historic battles of Rome.

Well it's been pinioned alright, and moving it to mid July, that no-mans-land of the tennis calendar seems too much like adding insult to injury.

It also goes without saying, but I'm going to anyway (even at the risk of sounding smug), that I was largely unimpressed with Simon's rise to the top. And now, as they say, those factory-fed chickens are coming home to roost. They're set to arrive over the next few months as the points he accrued over that marvelous run of last year drop off.

But Gilles is an easy target. His top ten position is after all reflective of a 52-week rankings system. It seems to be swipe-Simon season, but I'm not much more impressed with Tsonga either. Great start to the year with those titles in Jo'burg and Marseille and that quarter final appearance in Oz, but now beginning to settle into what looks like a Nalbandian-like hangover, recovery from which is only possible late into the indoor season. If that.

I haven't much time for French tennis these days. It's easy on the eye, but not on the nerves. Monfils' short-lived stay in the top ten has rightfully come to an end. One wonders if Gasquet can rebound from Dopesville. Not by the sounds of it. Not if 'Pamela' has anything to do with it.

But it's like that across the board. If anything I see Simon as a lower case Dinara, castigated for the failings of a necessarily imperfect system, that rewards every win you've had in the last year. Wins, the totality of which is against only a slice of the field anyway. Not that reflective of very much at the best of times.

The unglamorous reality is that apart from a handful of guys and girls at the very top, most every player has an inconsistent shoddy looking performance sheet. Full of potholes and pockmarks. And bunkers, to bring in those recent golfing metaphors I lovingly introduced. It's the point at which I think the rankings system really comes into its own. Seemingly custom built to mediate between a field of wildly fluctuating neurotics.

Nice to know it's good at something.

Read More...

You Overwhelm Me...

I'm taking my love affair with the single handed backhand a little far I know, but you can blame 2Hander for this one. And for leaving me on the verge of tears.



This should be prescribed as therapy.

I think it's the music -- not actually that great -- but has a haunting nostalgic quality about it that hearkened back to those D&D/RPG 16-bit games of the early 90s, I wasted countless hours on when I should have been studying.

It seems to be have been compiled by someone intent on showing Roddick up, though Gasquet's pass off of Nadal's smash right at the very end is my personal fave. Truly scrummy.

I could fall asleep to this in the way some do to those noises of the sea crashing into rocks.

In fact I might just do that now...

Read More...

Be water my friend...

This NEEDS to be reenacted on a tennis court.



Needless to say I was a MAJOR Bruce fan growing up. That'd be Lee, not Springsteen. Or Forsyth for that matter.

His fluidity, philosophy, and economy of movement translate to the tennis court rather well I think, given it's arguably more of a mental than a physical game.

'Enter the Dragon', to this day remains one of my favourite movies, a deserved cult classic and the GOAT of the martial arts genre.

Can you imagine the speed, and the levels of hand eye coordination he would have brought to the game, if he'd ever picked up a tennis racquet?

Alas, that's destined to remain a fantasy.

What's not a fantasy is the way Federer hits his forehand; I've always thought there's something Bruce-like about the way in which Fed keeps his eyes centred at the point of impact well after the ball has left his racquet.


"Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all the heavenly glory..."
Read More...

Muzza - The Movie

This had better be a wind up.

Andy Murray has three major Hollywood studios competing to make a blockbuster movie of his life, says a report.

Insiders told the Daily Star Sunday that film companies are prepared to pay "millions" for the rights to make a production based on the life of the 22-year-old tennis star.

They said that the Hollywood "bidding war" started after film executives discovered that Andy had survived the Dunblane massacre.

Andy was a pupil at Dunblane Primary School when Thomas Hamilton shot dead 16 pupils and a teacher in the school gym on March 13, 1996.

It has been reported that the Wimbledon semi-finalist rarely speaks of the tragedy but sources allegedly told the newspaper that he may be persuaded to allow them to include this event in a future biopic.

Film producers at Fox studios have claimed that they would "easily match" Murray's career earnings of £4.7million to buy the rights to his life story.

An executive said: "This guy is an absolute inspiration."

Fox faces competition from Universal and Steven Spielberg's DreamWorks studios who are also believed to be in the running to obtain the rights to make a film of Murray's life.

(Source: stv.tv)

If it does turn out to be true, and I'm still not convinced it is (mainly because I think of the Daily Star as the tabloid that makes even the Mirror's toes curl), it raises some pretty serious questions about whoever's in charge of Murray's PR team.

The biography was premature by about 7-10 years. A biopic -- not always a good idea at the best of times -- should perhaps only be considered well after his career is over. And then only if he's won a bunch of Slams.

Only someone like the Williamses, R^F or Woods could carry off a biopic while their career is still active. And I wouldn't be much in favour of that either.

In any case, I'd say the Williamses provide, by far, the most compelling and inspirational material for a Hollywood flick, and would have thought, if the movie execs ever did give a green light to a tennis biopic, that they'd be at the top of the list.

Not that I don't think there's some good material there.

Movie Title: Muzza! (What else?)

Tagline: "There will be blood"/"'Nice' don't win you no titles"/"On a Collision with Destiny"/"Where ambition meets talent"

-- The early years. Grainy slide projector images of a five year old Murray hitting a sponge ball, playing swingball, interspersed with the main plot. The audience is given a glimpse of Andy's competitive spirit with a scene in which a play fight with elder sibling Jamie threatens to turn ugly. Father Willie steps in.

Murray's soon to be coach, witnesses a five year old Murray's desire to win, and his ability to hit a ball with that soon to be iconic double handed backhand; cue slow-mo close-ups and heartbeat sounds.

-- Dunblane

Expect this to take up around 40% of the first half of the movie.

-- Parental Separation

-- Sibling Rivalry - Emerging from brother Jamie's shadow who at the time was the #3 under-12s player behind Gasquet and Nadal.

Jamie is shown scoring an overly-dramatised win over a wirey young thing that turns out to be Gael Monfils. Andy suffers several demoralising one sided losses to Jamie, before beginning to get the better of his older sibling. A final decisive win at Solihull makes the turning of the tide official. Andy celebrates the occasion with much needling and derision of his older sibling. Older sibling punches his hand so hard, his nail ends up embedded in his skin.

-- Winning the Orange Bowl. More excuses for emotional frappery and slow-mo sweat beads. More interestingly, the audience is introduced to a lanky young lad called Juan del Potro, who takes a dim view of the way in which Andy/Judy celebrate points. Seeds of discord offically sown.

-- Talent spotted by Glasgow Rangers FC (possible guest appearance op for Ally McCoist maybe?); signs up to Footy school, eventually deciding upon tennis once again.


-- Move to Barcelona - largely prompted by the shock revelation that "that Nadal kid" trains with the world #1 Carlos Moya, while Andy must train with loveable but significantly less illustrious "big bruv". Staying at home no longer an option, though staying away from home, proves to be less easy than he thought. Much heartache and emotional frothery ensues.

Look out for a locker room scene in which Andy bumps into a 16 year old cocky young thing calling himself Novak Djokovic. After being initially repelled, Murray begins to warm up to this slightly suspicious character, after appreciating that his brash exterior houses a competitive spirit as strong as his own.

-- Winning The US Open Juniors (Cue black and white slow-mo sequences of the action; cue drowning out of all sound except the digitally-remastered echo of the thud when racquet meets ball; cue further close ups of sweat beads; cue slightly suspicious-looking stand-in for SergiyStakhovsky, his opponent in the final)

-- Being awarded the BBC Young Sports Personality of the Year - Rushes to board a plane back from a tournie he was playing in Spain and only makes it to his hotel with 30 mins to spare; look out for the comic moment where he gets locked into the bathroom (#frenetic jazz soundtrack) and has to get a guy from reception to bust the door down. All true BTW. Runs out without a tie with only one hand in the sleeve of his his ill fitting tux (#frenetic jazz soundtrack ends)

-- Called up for Davis Cup Duty - Backgammon lesson from Tim Henman. What? That's right, Murray didn't actually play the Davis Cup in 2004 despite being called up, and instead ended up playing backgammon with Tim Henman.

Sorry, but this has got the makings of a classic moment, the heart of the movie right here. It actually has a kind of Ocean's Eleven feel to it, as Tim -- the old-school, middle-class darling of the nation -- masterfully drubs a naive Murray over and over while using the moment to pass on some well meaning advice about dealing with the press, the burden of the nation's expectations and his future in the game. The Changing of the Guards. Right there. And nothing symbolises that better than backgammon with Tim Henman.

That rounds up my picks of what I think will make for the best movie material. But don't expect either of the following to be missing either.

-- Goes senior (2005), youngest player to play Davis Cup for GB

-- Thailand Open final, loss to Federer

-- Defeating Roddick at Wimbledon (2006) - "I've really arrived now"

-- Remarks on England Football team. And subsequent fallout.

-- Beating Federer in Cinci 06. Close up live shots of Federer seething. The fact that this was the worst ever match I remember Federer playing prior to 2008 is airbrushed out of history and super-imposed with an image that presents Federer as a kind of Apollo Creed figure, unimpressed and slightly irked with the young upstart.

-- Split with Gilbert

-- Dubai 2008 - Second win over Federer. Federer really seething now. His image as the faltering and somewhat cranky champion is given further fuel with the revelation of his post match assessment of Murray as essentially a "grinder".

-- "You and your Mum, always the same" - I'm Juan. Remember Me? Gangly kid from the Orange Bowl? The scene milks the appeal Murray might garner for something as universally virtuous as standing up for your mum. Both players are subsequently shown to have buried the hatchet.

-- Wimby 08, and that "Bicep Moment"

-- "Grapple in the Apple" (Or the US Open 2008) - Even though he lost in straights to Fed, I see this playing out as a kind of Mohammad Ali "When We Were Kings" styled documentary mini-feature. With contributions from Don King ("Murray's loose as a goose"), Will Ferrell (doing his Zoolander Mugatu thing) and Richard Branson (looking pleased as punch with himself, like he always does).

-- Ice baths with Team Murray. Sorry to put that grizzly image in your head. But ice baths are a common feature of Murray's rise to the top. And tend to be 'Team' events.

Read More...

Woods, Federer and The Quest for Perfection...

Tiger Woods has failed to make the cut at the Open in Scotland this week.

If you even know what 'making the cut' means, you're more of an golfing aficionado than myself. I had to go and look it up.

But whether you're an aficionado or not, you'll understand how seismic it is for Woods not to be involved in the latter stages of a Major.

A bad day at the office...
(Photo: Getty)

Put simply, as the first two days of a four day major begin to draw to a close, the officials designate a cut-off point: a score competitors must not exceed in order to remain in the event (golf rewards lower scores, as it means you've used fewer strokes to make those holes - something even I knew :P). That'll mean that only around 25-30 from an initial field comprised of maybe 70 players will remain in the latter two days of the event.

This is probably the first and last time you'll find a golf-related posting being made here.

But I think it warranted mentioning, as it's apparently only the second time this has happened in the context of the Majors during his entire professional career (the other followed the death of his father at the US Open in 2006, which would have to be considered extenuating circumstances), and with all the recent comparisons being made between Federer and Woods, I feel merits further examination (as well as giving me an excuse to make some other comparisons between the two sports, on the back of the ramshackle base of my fairly sketchy golfing knowledge).

To put the result into context, the equivalent would be for Federer to not make the second week of a Slam, crashing out in round two or three in a raggedy bout of ill-humoured play.

I know that comparing different sports is not always greatly meaningful, but I'm going to do it anyway, because as minds both more enquiring and nobler than my own have frequently observed, I can.


The Open, or 'the' Open, to give the event it's more accepted name in the UK, is one of Golf's four majors, the only one held outside the US.

American hosts may unwittingly, and justifiably, refer to events held in their own country as 'the Open', but I'm still not convinced the use of the lower case 't' by the media here, isn't in part, a subtler form of reverse prudery. A surreptitious 'bigging-up' of one's own event.

Yes I know it's recognised as 'The Open' by an entity no less than the PGA itself, and that there's grammatically no other casual way of referring to it.

But how uber-confident do you have to be in your home event's already very singular sounding name, when you can afford to lower the case of it's definite article?

Let's not forget that even after all these many years, Wimbledon continues to distinguish itself (and perhaps more surprisingly, continues in some quarters to be referred to) as 'The Championships'.

However, having said all of that, I'm siding with my homies on this one, in a somewhat short-lived wave of patriotic fervour.

In tennis at least, the sport's major events are held in four different countries. But if the US has somehow found it's way to hosting three of the four Golfing Majors, we're well within our rights to have ours termed 'The Open' - and to drop the capital 'T' as and when it suits us.

But enough of that. the Open, is held at a number of locations in Scotland and England, and this year it's Turnberry's turn, in southwestern Scotland.

I mention that because it might help explain why some of the course's holes are named the way they are. But you needn't adopt a Glaswegian accent, to understand why my favourite names are, 'Fin-Me-Oot' and 'Roon-the-Bend'.

Spend a little time and you might even catch (or in the case of Tiger Woods, and Ana's squeeze Adam Scott, have caught) Reteif Goosen, Vijay Singh and Jim Furyik long-putting their way on 'Duel in the Sun', 'Tappie-Toorie' and 'Ca'Canny'.

Absolutely love it.

And no I'm not about to suggest that we begin renaming our sport's best known arenas around the world in this way (though you have to admit that there's something immensely satisfying in knowing that Juan Monaco defeated Tommy Robredo in the 'Tickly-Tap' Arena this week; or that Soderling blasted his way past Vinciguerra out in the 'Woe-be-Tide' Stadium).

For one thing, tennis courts (surfaces and climatic variation not withstanding) are the same wherever you go. What makes such wonderfully colourful names possible for Golf holes, is their manifold variation; a carefully tailored mix of nature, prevalence of hazards, mood as well as climate and locality, that's designed to reward the more tactically astute styles of play.

Given such personalised attention to crafting courses, suddenly the idea of naming a hole 'Endless Bite' or 'Postage Stamp' doesn't seem that far-fetched after all.

I also don't think we're quite ready (rightfully) to let go of the time-honoured tradition of naming tennis's most prestigious arenas after the sports's more illustrious personages.

However I do think the time has come to recognise and make amends, where we've fallen woefully short. And maybe there, it wouldn't hurt to factor in some of that colourful golfing inspiration.

There's plenty of unimaginatively named courts on tour, but I think the worst offender by far, especially considering it's fifth Slam pretensions, has to be Indian Wells' daringly named 'Stadium Court'.

Which dunderhead came up with that one? I could have done better than that. It's like hosting the FA Cup final at a venue called 'Arena Pitch'.

I also think, and this one's more controversial, that it's time to rename Wimbledon's Court One. Centre Court is an iconic part of the tennis landscape, and continues to be an important feature of players' careers (both past and present), and of the fans' fevered imagination. You don't mess with history.

But the other showcourt, Court One, sounds like something I'm used to putting my name down for at my local tennis club, or one of those untended park courts where you can play a different sort of 'grass court tennis'.

(Photo: Courtcare.com.au)

I suppose it's all part of that image that seeks to project a pristine and uniquely understated elegance, unsullied by corporate sponsorship: 'Slazenger' is the only Sponsor's name you'll see over the entire two weeks.

But would it be out of place for me to point out that Wimbledon's attempts at minimalism must at least know some bounds if it allows for the event's officials to sport those rather dapper Ralph Lauren uniforms? Not to mention the amount of corporate hospitality that goes on behind the scenes.

Besides, I think the 'Bunny Austin' Arena or the 'Fred Perry' Stadium chime rather well historically. What exactly is so mainstream about that?

But I digress. Quite astonishingly.

After all, we're meant to be discussing all things 'Wooderer'.

What I find perhaps more surprising than anything is Woods' own explanation that nothing other than a bad day at the office was to blame.

"No doubt I'm frustrated, it just didn't happen for me," he said. "I played three holes very poorly.

"Up until the 7th I was doing fine, I was where I needed to be, but bogey, bogey, double bogey got me going the wrong way.

"Until 8 I felt I was in there for the tournament. I thought if I could finish under par I might finish the day in the top 10. But I didn't, I went the other way.

"I birdied two of the last four and I think that's not going to be enough. You can't make mistakes and expect to not only make the cut but also try and win a championship."

(Source: BBC)

Or perhaps more succinctly:

“I know how to win majors: you have to play clean,” he said. “I just couldn’t do that here.”

(Source: The Times)

I'd hazard a guess that Federer didn't think he'd been playing that 'cleanly' coming into the French Open this year. Or for that matter, for much of 2008.

So much has been written on the subject of how similar these two champions are. But I think that last quote by Woods there is the most revealing of all.

When he speaks of playing 'cleanly' he's not referring to subjugating the field with the razzle-dazzle strokeplay he's famous for. Though there's plenty of that on offer too whenever you watch Federer or Woods.

He's seems to be alluding more to that higher ideal, that mixture of on-demand accuracy and fluency of execution, that have enabled both him and Federer to post such intimidating numbers over the last decade, and blow away the rest of the field almost as an unintended side-effect.

A 'quest for perfection', you might call it.

You get a sense of this, even in his earlier comments. You might think that Woods is a little presumptuous in the way in which he speaks of finishing in the top ten in the same breath as discussing why the preponderance of his very own set of UFEs, led to him not making the cut.

But like Federer, Woods is probably best placed to 'take what you give him', ready to pounce on any opportunity presented. It probably seems to him a mere natural step, to go from cutting out those horrible errors to finishing up in the top ten: transforming a particularly ugly spell of play, into a winning opportunity in the blink of an eye.

But beyond that I think Woods, like Federer is a hybrid of the best traits of a whole host of top players, while also being an entity unto himself.

It's interesting to note -- and yes being as uninitiated as I am, I had to go to Wikipedia for this, which is also an entity unto itself -- that his approach at it's core, is cautious - his dominance comes not from regularly posting extremely low rounds, but instead from avoiding bad rounds.

You might think that attention to consistency reads like Lleyton Hewitt's genetic blueprint, but let's also not forget how Woods shocked the golfing world in his earlier years with those monstrously long drives of his, the accuracy of which made necessary the so called 'Tiger-Proofing' of courses: adding yardage to their tees in an effort to slow down long hitters like Woods. A bit like the slowing down of the grass at Wimbledon, maybe?

Just how much of a 'grinder' can he be with weapons like that?

No, that somewhat low key ability to quietly sustain high levels of play has an enigmatic quality about it that leaves observers unable to explain what they've just witnessed and how he came out on top: an attribute he shares with Federer, but also to a lesser extent with Andy Murray.

Still, when I picture Federer playing, my analytical skills fall far behind my appreciative ones. On dozens of occasions I’ve tried to describe to myself how he won a particular match. Often all I can visualize is Federer patiently slicing his backhand from behind the baseline, and then . . . winning the set 6-3. But this year’s French Open and Wimbledon crystallized for me what it is that he does better than anyone else, on and off the court: He takes what you give him.

(Source: Tennis.com)

This 'taking what is given' is what Murray is all about, though not in the same way as Federer and Woods of course, and sometimes to his own detriment. But it's a style of play that's allowed him to subjugate the rest of the field with impressive regularity.

Looking through Woods' achievements I was at first struck by the fact that Woods has only once won three Majors in a year. Not quite Federer like, but it's there that you're forced to recognise Tennis and Golf are two different disciplines: one pits you in one-on-one combat against a selection of the field, the other in a more measured and continuous battle against the rest of the field.

It's that difference in nature that gives rise to such disparities. Hardly surprising it should prove more difficult to sustain high levels of achievement in such circumstances.

But the year Woods won those three Majors, he also went on to win the fourth that eluded him at the beginning of 2001, making him the only player of the modern era (which in Golfing terms I understand, begins around 1960) to hold all four concurrently - the so called 'Tiger Slam' (which like it's Serena counterpart in tennis couldn't strictly be termed a 'Grand Slam' as it wasn't achieved in a calendar year).

Incidentally I also came across this bit of information in his Wikipedia bio:

He plays fewer tournaments than most professionals (15–21 per year, compared to the typical 25–30), and focuses his efforts on preparing for (and peaking at) the majors...

Which to me also sounds quite a bit like Serena, and Federer too. Except that is, when you complete the sentence.

...and the most prestigious of the other tournaments.

And then the similarity is reduced back to only Federer once again.


There's plenty of other similarities and parallels I could quote, such as Woods astonishing record from 1998-2005 of making 142 consecutive cuts (which, if you've been paying attention, should now be able to define), that mirrors with a kind eerie precision, Federer's record of 21 consecutive Slam Semis, achieved from 2004-2009 (and counting).

But more interestingly I thought, they both have what we in tennis have come to know as 'The Aura'. And what's more, I've got the numbers to prove it. Well an enigmatic lady that goes by the name of 'Jenny' does actually.

A related effect was measured by economist Jennifer Brown of the University of California, Berkeley who found that other golfers played worse when competing against Woods than when he was not in the tournament. The scores of highly skilled (exempt) golfers are nearly one stroke higher (i.e. less valuable) when playing against Woods. This effect was larger when he was on winning streaks and disappeared during his well-publicized slump in 2003–04. Brown explains the results by noting that competitors of similar skill can hope to win by increasing their level of effort, but that, when facing a "superstar" competitor, extra exertion doesn't significantly raise one's level of winning while increasing risk of injury or exhaustion, leading to reduced effort.

There you have it: Statistical proof of The Aura's existence, and the so called 'Weak-Era' theory partially^* debunked in a single shot by a number-cruncher from Berkeley. That sort of thing doesn't happen everyday.

What else? Woods is chasing Niklaus' 18, which most reasonable minded folk expect him to make. Fed has already achieved 15. Excuse me, that one you probably did already know.

Ok then, Woods is considered the Greatest Closer of All Time, with Jack Niklaus, for the time being at least, sharing Fed's GOATly status. I wonder who the best ever closer is in tennis?

One other thing Woods shares with Federer is his share of critics. There's those who believe he's been nikefied, that his dominance is bad for the sport, that he's not a good role model, that he's not modest enough; there's even those (though not as many as there are in tennis thankfullly) that consider his success to be due in large part to a 'weak-era'.

Nice to know we don't suffer alone.

* There is of course a lot more to be debunked, but that sadly lies beyond the scope of this post.
Read More...