Tennis Is Served...

Oz: The Non-Bracketology Post.

2012-01-25T21:24:00.000Z

It’s happened.

Nole has been drawn against Murray. Fed will play Rafa in the semis of a Slam for the first time since RG 2005.

Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Nole	Murray	~~Delpo~~	~~Berd~~
~~Ferrer~~	~~Kei~~	Federer	Rafa

Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
~~Woz~~	Vika	~~Maka~~	~~Errani~~
Kim	~~Aga~~	Pova	Petra

Legend

Hoity-Toity

Upwardly-Mobile

Sympathy Vote

Ideas above their station

Stacked

Let me guess, the counter-conspiracy theory goes something like this: Oz are merely performing an elaborate tap-dance, so we might lower our guard to all that nasty draw-rigging that regularly goes on at every Slam. There’s even Maths involved.

Whatever. But this is weird – Vika comes into this 1) uninjured and otherwise healthy, 2) having won an event just this weekend 3) drawn as far from Serena as is geometrically and humanely possible.

Anyone that’s followed Vika’s GS career knows that this is akin to jellyfish discovering a colony of unicorns on Mars. Knowing her luck it’s probably best to wait and see exactly how it plays out.

Other bits and bobs:

1) Murray goes through Ryan,Ernie, Gael and Tsonga before even getting a crack at Nole. In as much as there is a short straw, I’d say he drew it.

2) Tomic/Fer (R1)..…just, AHAHAHAHA.

3) Pova/Dulko (R1)….NOT FUNNY….NOT COOL

4) Maria goes through Dulko, Sveta/Sabine and Serena before even getting a crack at Petra….so short it barely qualifies as a straw.

5) The Chak is back!

6) Other than a R16 encounter with Milos (which sounds completely groovy), can’t imagine Nole will have much trouble making the semis.

7) I’d like Fed/Delpo to be the QF blockbuster some are hoping for….Delpo just doesn’t seem quite there yet.

8) Not to be unkind, but Rafa’s section is full of has-beens. There’s a small chance the likes of Nalbie nabs a set off him but that’s it.

9) Would be nice to see Grigor make something of his life…at some point. Especially after interviews like this.

10) LRob has just qualified to play JJ in R1. She almost squeezed a set from Maria last year. I’m not predicting an upset, but it should be colourful. More than anything involving JJ usually is.

11) Kim/Li R16….When was the last time two current Grand Slam Champions played each other this early????

12) Difficult to know what to expect from Woz right now – I can see her getting through her early rounds, although I can also see Lucie upsetting her…maybe even in straights. Hope she survives – kinda want to see her go through Kim. It will be a big big Mountain Gorilla off her back.

13) Marion aside, Petra’s draw is kinda cake-walky (sorry Sam). As is always the case with Petra, this has absolutely no bearing on her chances of winning or losing ANYTHING.

Potential Early Round Mashups:

MURRAY/RYAN (R1), Troicki/Gael (R3), Dolgo/Tomic (R3), Grigor/Baggy (R3), Rafa/Young (R3)

Lucie/JJ (R3), Kim/Dani (R3), Vika/Watson (R1), Flavia/Peng (R3), Fran/Julia (R3), Bepa/Kanepi (R3), Domi/Serena (R3), Sabine/Sveta (R3), POVA/DULKO (R1), Sam/Nadia (R3), Marion/Zheng (R3), Pavs/Ana (R3), Kiri/Petra (R3)

Maybe it’s just me, but are WTA third rounds usually this stacked?

R4 meet’n not-greets:

(ATP) Nole/Milos, Janko/Ferrer, Murray/Gael, Fed/Dolgo, Rafa/Nalb
(WTA) Woz/JJ, KIM/LI, Vika/Peng, Fran/Aga, Bepa/Serena, Pova/Sveta, Sam/Marion

QF drive-bys:

(ATP): Nole/Ferrer, Murray/Tsonga, Delpo/Fed, Berd/Rafa
(WTA): Woz/Kim, Vika/Fran, Serena/Pova. Marion/Petra

Oh yeah. And that small matter of Petra/Serena facing off in the semis.

Oz: Magnificent.

2012-01-23T18:00:00.001Z

Djokovic d. Hewitt 61 63 46 63

There’s those who “leave it all out there on court”. There’s those that “don’t know when to stop”. There’s the sensationalist lunacy that lies beyond that. And then (and only then) there’s Lleyton Hewitt.

Bernard, Donald and Ryan better have been bloody watching.

Even the seagulls got involved.

Goodnight you irrepressible, foolhardy and quite ridiculous Creature of the Night.

It's ok. You can admit to welling up a little. Or more than a little.

I know I did.

(Pics: Getty)

Oz: Define “upset”

2012-01-23T17:45:00.001Z

Kanepi,Bepa,….Serena Williams?

Makarova d. Williams 62 63

Not the first time Maka's sprung this shit. Oh sorry, "upset". Won’t be the last either.

Don't mean to suggest Serena wasn't laughably below par (she was) and I won't pretend Maka can hang with either her or the likes of Kim; but if there's a vulnerability to be exploited (as there was today), an upset to be sprung, forged or otherwise effected, Maka will be on it.

She seems to have an incredible knack for that sort of thing. Many don't. Just saying.

(Pics: Getty)

Oz: Ode to Lleyton….a night to rememborize.

2012-01-22T14:17:00.001Z

Hewitt d. Raonic 46 63 76 63

Let the record reflect Raonic is a good egg. Measured and competent both on and off court. Proof that you need neither overwrought showmanship to make people like you, nor brattish confidence tricks to make things happen.

But his lack of experience showed today (not having ever played on RLA before can’t have helped either).

Not that he doesn’t have time on his side.

But tonight (and it always seems to be a night) belongs to the Rust.

…and to his fratty, Balboa Troubadours.

Exactly the kind of match Milos needed to win.

But I just don’t know how you don’t root for the (181st ranked) guy that set the benchmark for “(counter)punching above your weight” for over a decade, in what may be his last appearance here.

He’s not everyone’s cup of tea….

The ride’s sometimes been bumpy….

And at times, downright garish….

But his efforts have never commanded anything other than ABSOLUTE RESPECT. (Not as common as you’d think in an era of confidence tricksters, cry-babies and injury timeouts that are just….timeouts)

And I just can’t get past those four hip ops over four years.

He even lobbed Milos on MP. ALL 6’5 OF HIM. Yeah, lobbing gangloids is a thing now. All the cool kids are doing it.

A week ago, he was a forgotten relic on my tagcloud…..

Now he’s in R4 of his home Slam.

Heckuva run O polarising one…..

record scratch (mp3)

Oz: Kind of a big deal, no?

2012-01-20T15:21:00.001Z

Quite simply the biggest R4 match up you’ll likely see at any Slam this year.

No really. When was the last time two reigning Grand Slam Champions met this early at any Slam?

I’ve not been able to find out. Seems to me this is kind of a big deal.

Anyone?

Oz: Don’t Jurrrdge Me.

2012-01-20T15:07:00.001Z

Sorry people, but as obnoxious as the the whole Henin-like challenge-fakeout thing was (and it was), Bernard continues to interest me.

He’s clearly cemented his murky hobgoblin nature in the minds of most with this latest, incredibly silly stunt (probably fair), but the hobgoblin has GAME. And I just….can’t not take notice of it (same holds true for Dolgo).

Whilst it’s true the incident taints his win (and wasn’t really necessary), it’s also true the match was five sets long.

I’m not suggesting turning a blind eye but, just as with Nouni’s blunder only a couple of days ago (which many have sadly sought to dress up as something more insidious than a blunder), we’re missing a trick if we distil those five sets into just one incident of juvenile delinquency.

The fact is, however flamboyant and adorable Dolgo’s brand of ‘kooky’ might be, he simply doesn’t have the type of patience Bernie (love him or loathe him; loathe mostly) brings in spades, particularly in longer rallies. And I think that bore itself out over five sets.

All the same, I’m glad a match that promised so very much went the full five sets. And if that still leaves you feeling miffed, know that Fed will probably vanquish him (and avenge all you Dolgo fans) in straights. At least I think he will (God help us all from the interplanetary bratGasm if he doesn’t).

Let’s also not forget, Dolgo’s not dead, and lives to…..do whatever it is he does another day.

(Pics: Getty)

Oz: Day Three Drive By

2012-01-18T17:01:00.001Z

1) Let’s be clear about this. I like Kader. And I like Daveed. None of that is likely to change very much.

Isner d. Nalbandian 4-6 6-3 2-6 7-6 10-8

Kader made a dud call by not allowing David to challenge. And David was right to feel hard done by that. An ignominious end to what sounded, otherwise, like a sensational match.

But I’ll never not be suspicious of those that attempt to explain away entire losses on the basis of one incident – it’s the goto-play of the desperate. Kader could have been Alves-like in his ump-misdemeanours, and it still wouldn’t change the fact that tennis was being played both before and after that incident.

Also, we’re questioning Daveed’s charm? On the day Mardy went “Lardy” (again) and Baggy obliterated 4 racquets?? For feeling hard done by a call that even Nouni probably now admits was a shocker??

Magnificent.

2) It’s not news to anyone that Rafa should beat Haas in straights, but am I alone in thinking he should have been made to play this one without pummelling more than two shots in succession high into the veteran’s single-handed backhand? Where have we seen that before?

Seems only fair. And a little more inspired.

3) Lleyton/ARod last (last) on RLA??

Seems to me we ought to know better by now than to schedule either one of Lleyton or Baghdatis in a night match.

The matches don’t always promise to be gripping and there’s practically ZERO chances of them finishing before brekkie the following day. We hold these truths to be self-evident, but for some reason they’re especially true of Melbourne.

I’m not convinced ARod has it in him to go the distance quite like he once did (nor, for that matter, does Lleyton), but if it does, expect more common sense and less delinquency than you’ll find in Gael v Bellucci. Also a night match.

4) You may think grunting is a non-issue (it is), you may point to the fact that the players don’t seem to mind (they couldn’t care less) but I do have a lot of time for the viewpoint (Wertheim’s, amongst others) that says it becomes an issue once it begins “alienating its core clientele”……that would be the fans.

But those Neanderthals?? Mimicking Vika in the stands today? Not part of that clientele. Trust me, our sport’s not in crisis because some stoned pot-bellies (that probably only watch tennis for 2 weeks each year) decided to make a day of it.

Consider them alienated.

(Pics: Getty)

Oz: “He just does…”

2012-01-17T17:11:00.001Z

Andy Murray d. Ryan Harrison 4-6 6-3 6-4 6-2

Will never fail to crack me up how circumspect tennis writing suddenly becomes when trying to explain the mechanics of how Murray actually won a match. #HeJustDoes

Most don’t even try. And you really can’t blame them.

Go ahead and experiment: pick your favourite three outlets and see if you come out of it any more informed or demystified. YOU CANNOT. NOBODY CAN. PERHAPS NOT EVEN MURRAY (Tignor, to his credit does, at least, try).

Maybe that’s what’s bothering him

(Pics: Getty)

Oz: The Artful Dodger

2012-01-16T16:39:00.001Z

Q. Was there any time in the match when his body language showed you something that you focused on?

BERNARD TOMIC: Um, yeah, in the third set. He thought I had a feeling he knew I was going to go away. I eased off, as well, I think on purpose. I eased off and seemed I didn't care, and I think that's what drawed him a little bit tonight. He thought he was going to win that third set, and when the right time came, I broke him.

You know, after that the third set, you know, he started getting a little bit tight and not hitting his shots.

Q. So you set him up a little bit?

BERNARD TOMIC: In that third set, yeah. I knew if I lifted my game early, he would have lifted as well and he wouldn't have let go. I pretended a little bit in the first few games in that third set to not be there as mentally, but in a way to still be there.

Ya know, I’m not quite so sure he’s pulled off the confidence trick he thinks he has.

It doesn’t surprise me to learn that he tried to pull it off (it happens on tour all the time), and not to say that it didn’t influence things, but Dasco, honey, you did this to yourself, all by yourself.

To be fair to Fer, he did mention he was affected by the heat – his undoing was at least as much a function of that as anything else. But, ultimately, the whole rope-a-dope thing (as a form of mental fakeout ) seems to me to be selling Bernard quite short. If he’s rope-a-doping anyone (and he is) it’s because of his style of play, not because he’s pretending to be on the ropes.

His pre-match smack talk re Dasco’s BH (“can’t really hurt me”) may have been derided as childish – it also happened to be spot on. And, from what I saw of the highlights, going deep to that wing seemed to work a treat.

Reminder: Dolgo/Bernie (R3)…..if ‘kooks’ are your thing.

(Pic: Getty)

You Just Knew.

2012-01-11T23:19:00.001Z

Sorry to anounce that I had to withdraw from the Australian Open with a lower back stress fracture.Going back home,will miss my Aussie fans!
— Andrea Petkovic (@andreapetkovic) January 11, 2012

No, that’s just what you expect to happen only hours after you dare to make a post criticising an almost universally popular player.

The long and the short of it is that this stinks. Stress fractures in the back demand to be taken very seriously indeed (just ask Dinara).

Petko made no less than three Slam QFs last year, one of which, of course, was at Melbourne. It wasn’t just me wanting to see her build upon (or at least to defend) that.

After that loss, incidentally, she gave one of the most thoughtful pressers I think I might have seen from any player, ever – commenting in particular on that infamous Sveta/Franny dog fight that had also finished around the same time. It was as sincere, as well-mannered and insightful as anything you’re likely to see, the very embodiment of “giving to your fans”.

In other words, it was Andrea Petkovic (rather than Petkorazzi) at her very best both on and off-court.

I’ll miss her.

***

Not even Caro (wrist injury) has been spared in what will come to be known years from now as the ‘Lucky Loser Bonanza’ of Aus 2012. Is our eventual Champion be a qualifier? Stranger things have happened.

You’d think that if Caro’s not safe, no one is – and yet Vika, of all people, somehow still is.

Caro’s almost certain to lose the top spot now – Petra will be crowned new WTA Prom Queen by simply winning her next two matches. And even if it doesn’t happen now, you imagine it soon will.

In other words (and I know this might be painful for some) , on the grounds of taste alone, it’s time to move on from that “Slamless” thing.

Let it go, Petko - the fans will (still) come.

2012-01-10T18:58:00.001Z

ANDREA PETKOVIC, the entertainer of women's tennis, has been forced to abandon her trademark victory dance after complaints from players and American media, her father said.

…

Petkovic's father, Zoran, said after the match that players had complained about the dance, saying it was over the top.

Petkovic herself said she decided to change the routine ahead of the Brisbane International last week in response to continued questioning from journalists in the US.

''[People] didn't tell me to my face and I don't read about myself so I wouldn't know [if there was criticism], but the questions they started saying, 'Don't you feel like it's disrespectful towards your opponent?' … and this question came up over and over again,'' she said.

''The thing I used to say was always, 'Listen, the soccer players when they shoot a goal and they celebrate with all kinds of things and they don't even win the match, and nobody would ever say something against them. Or the American football guys, when they do a touchdown they do a cha-cha-cha and nobody ever says anything against them.''

Petkovic said the conservatism of tennis made the dance a problem for some commentators. ''It's just our very traditional sport and I think this was kind of strange for people,'' she said.

-- Sydney Morning Herald

Finally.

Voluntary disclosure: I’m beginning to feel about Petko the way some feel about Kim Kardashian.

Where others see charm, harmless fun and even wit(??), I only hear scratchy blackboard noises.

It wasn’t always like this, but it doesn’t take long for gimmicks (coz that’s what they are) to wear out and to be taken the wrong way (just ask Novak).

The comparison with team sports doesn’t wash. Very different dynamic and fan DNA. Little, if anything, to do with ‘conservatism’.

But for me, it’s less a question of the dance being ‘disrespectful’ to anyone (it really isn’t meant that way) than a feeling of flat-out tackiness I can’t seem to dismiss(particularly with ‘Petkorazzi’) . You should certainly be able to see why it might not be to everyone’s taste, especially when you do it after dumping out an injured opponent love-and-Oh.

As it happens, I don’t know that I much understand complaints from the US press either, which seem equally OTT. You’re not compelled to like EVERYTHING you write about, nor to write about anything you so strongly dislike. And, frankly, it’s difficult to take such complaints about Petko giving “offence” seriously in the same week a mainstream US outlet saw fit to label Monfils an “idiot”.

But I’d say we’ve reached a tipping point when more and more players start coming out against the dance (would be interesting to know exactly who came out). Players, your peers – not blogger riff-raff like myself, or anyone that might be dismissed so easily as a “hater”.

It’s naive (and a little conceited) to think that everyone will, or should, like it, as many of her supporters seem to insist upon. Maria certainly didn’t. Maria ain’t riff-raff either. And its only sensible for someone as savvy as Petko to take note.

She said she was surprised by the negative reaction in the US in particular. ''It's strange - on the one hand the Americans really like me and they come to my matches, but they're like really bipolar,'' she said. ''They either love me or they hate me.''

I hope I know her better than to think the worst, but a tennis newbie might be excused for reading this quote as just a little self-absorbed: believe it or not, there’s a silent majority that don’t feature in Petko’s “love-me-hate-me” dichotomy of the US – one that simply couldn’t care less. One can only wonder why those WTA-fan-cliques that kick up such a fuss over Woz making it “all about her” overlook stuff like this.

She seems, in all other respects, an intelligent and likeable person – genuinely affable, her net embraces are second to none (particularly after a loss). I certainly don’t believe in ragging on her for merely trying to bring something a little different to the sport.

But she also seems talented enough and savvy enough to be able to work her charms without resorting to gimmickry, and to know when such gimmickry has run its course. In other words, you’re better than this.

There’s a difference between waging the occasional “charm offensive”, working it effortlessly (and unexpectedly) into the public eye, the way, say, Sveta did this week, and try-hard stunts that (rightly or wrongly) betray a certain craving for popularity.

I want to think well of you (and let’s face it, other than this, there’s a LOT to like), so let it go. Let it go, and believe me, the fans will come (and stay).

D̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶E̶v̶e̶r̶ change: 2012…Why you so 2011?

2012-01-04T21:45:00.001Z

What might we rightly infer based on all of the 4 days we’ve had of 2012?

1) Ana’s still struggling. [Please don’t change your coach]

2) Bartoli’s still not shy of almost double bagelling those that are still struggling (no sadz Jarmila, it’s a Marion thing – she did the exactly the same to Safina this time last year). Still, nice reaction.

3) Kim’s still taking three to do what should rightly be done in two.

Rust, yes? She’s played next to nothing since early last year. Except I’m not completely convinced she wouldn’t have found a way of playing three sets anyway.

4) Gael Monfils is still inventing new ways of incorporating muscle (he didn't even know he had) into set-motions it had NO BUSINESS being part of.

5) Sam Stosur is still losing matches she has NO BUSINESS losing. [Can’t see her or Li repeating last year. Happy to be proved wrong]

6) Serena Williams is still getting headlines for all the wrong reasons.

Well that didn’t take long, did it?

For the record, I dislike it intensely when people give her a free pass for indefensible conduct and, even worse, try and depict even the mildest criticism of that indefensible conduct as a uniquely conspiratorial witch hunt.

I’ll continue to dislike it in 2012, because, being honest, I don’t expect it to go away.

I also don’t expect to see the back of its flipside: that (very mainstream) injury cynicism some are ideologically hell-bent on (we’re calling it “karma” now?) – cynicism that persists even in the face of video evidence (2:27), and even when a subsequent MRI scan confirms the injury:

The ‘Free-Passers’ inspire revulsion, which in turn bolsters the repellent views of the Injury Cynics and vice versa. It’s very obvious the two polarised trends are designed to feed off one another in a deadly embrace from which there can be no escape – my guess is they don’t want to escape.

Sometimes bad conduct is simply bad conduct, which Serena, like many, many before (and I daresay after) her, is neither immune to nor irreproachable for. Sometimes, dearest trolls, it’s not a conspiracy.

And sometimes, dearest hobgoblins, an injury is just an injury – nothing more, nothing less. Not an occasion to use as a cathartic vehicle to air distaste, vendettas, your very personal dislike (or another word some venture that you’d hope shouldn’t be part of this discussion) of Serena, the way some air their soiled undies.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised, then, that this, too, hasn’t changed in 2012. Trolls are still trolls whatever the Gregorian Calendar might have to say about it.

Only Rafa’s unveiling of his new top-heavy frame, and of course Murray’s announcement of what he hopes will be a game-changing (and perhaps shape-shifting) partnership with Ivan Lendl (Murr-dl?) buck this trend of same-iness, but of course neither count as both were announced in 2011.

Either the tennis season’s pulling one hell of a fast one and intends to unleash a seismic gamechanger later this year (which, being honest, would have to be at least as seismic as Novak or even Petra’s year to count), or the season really will prove to be that trite and that unconvincing…

Fare thee well 2011: 43 of the most fugly, flatulent and forlorn moments of the year

2011-12-27T22:01:00.001Z

As good as 2011 was (and it was criminally good even without Nole), it was also filled with that quaint mix of fallacy, melancholia, scandal and fuglies (on and off-court) that, in a strange way, does its bit towards holding the year together – imbuing it with a sense of well-rounded closure without which it would just be a string of tennis matches – some good, some barely worth mention.

As far as I can tell, there isn’t a year end list recounting this phenomena.

I’ve tried to be chronological. I don’t pretend to think the list complete.

Feel free to weigh in if you think I missed something out.

***

1) (Jan, Melbourne) FAIL: Henin re-retires from tennis

Well that blows? Except it didn’t….not quite.

For what it’s worth, I rather enjoyed the few modest successes she enjoyed during the first half of of her comeback in 2010 and felt she was rather unlucky with the elbow fracture.

But when she bowed out for the 2nd time in Aus this year, just days after one of the greatest WTA Slam matches of all time, the pervasive disillusionment and ennui seemed to have rather more to do with that suffocating sense of un-retirement déjà vu, than it did with any purported despair at having lost a much loved (and unloved) legend of the game.

Not a good mix.

2) (Jan, Melbourne) FORLORN: Rafa’s not quite GS

To be honest it sorta felt right that Rafa not hold all 4 Slams – as I said at the time, that seemed to represent a level of perfection that ought to remain beyond us…for now.

But it’s not often you see Rafa slumped sobbing into a towel – not all of it stifled.

And it’s still a little eerie to consider that Rafa got within just two matches of pulling off the holy grail of the Open Era (yes I realise Fed’s been there 3 times too).

Can’t help imagining how his season might have turned out if he did.

3) BONUS: Up’n never-quite-comers

Perhaps I’m being harsh. Perhaps I’m not. Hear me out.

Grigor: A star is not born. It never is.

Ernie: Not even sure he qualifies as a young’un any more. But to quote one of the best tweets all year, “First he was up and coming…then he wasn’t”.

Milos: Do we really need another big-serving gangloid? One that seems rather too prone to injury, in that all too familiar way gangloids often are? Wish him well, but really?

Dolgopoloved: He lures you in with his kooky, flamboyant and very sexy dance moves, that leave the charred remains of Soderling, Wawrinka and Tsonga in their wake. It’s a boat load of fun until he reveals himself equally capable of losing in straights to the 133rd player in the world. And I’m not even convinced that Alice-Band is as charming as it once was.

Harrison/Tomic: “Hooning” and outbursts I wish I could term “uncharacteristic” mar what should have otherwise been a breakthrough year.

All of which leaves Donald Young. Yes, he’s an acquired taste, but if he repeats this year’s success after his much-maligned decision to put ‘Mom’ in charge again, I won’t be sorry.

4) (Feb) MELANCHOLIA: Mario Ancic turns his back on tennis.

Now here’s a retirement that really blows.

5) (March, Miami) FUGLY: When 52 = 100

I’m torn between this and this for WTA meltdown of the year.

Ana’s choke (and it was a choke) was truly the fugly-of-fuglies – you’ve got to be very imaginative and very dedicated to put a positive spin on that (many did).

Even so, 52 UFEs from Caro equals over a hundred from anyone else. You’ve got to rewrite Maths itself to make sense of that.

6) (March, Indian Wells) UNSUNG: “When no one remembers your name”

Or even your face.

I’ve mostly given up on Marion ever receiving much of the right kind of press.

It’s true she hasn’t always made life easy for herself (particularly in relation to her compatriots). She’s not everyone’s cup of tea. And she certainly doesn’t feel the need to pander to the media like a trained baboon.

But this year, this phenomenon seemed to me to reach a head when those nice people at Yahoo! Sports didn’t see fit to include even a single pic of the runner up in their widely-viewed photostream (not unless you specifically searched for it). An event some persist in referring to as “the 5th Slam”.

Try and imagine Petko receiving the same treatment.

There’s laziness, there’s wilful obfuscation, and there’s straight-up disrespect. Take your pick - I’d say it’s all of them.

7) (March, Indian Wells) UNNECESSARY: Dinaroshka’s short-lived and not-so-sweet comeback

The absurd, one-sided set of demolitions Dinara endured at the beginning of the year were both callous and uncalled for, and should probably be the subject of a UN inquiry into the use of excessive force.

Bartoli…..Kim…..and then Pova: neither defeat, incidentally, was incurred through any great fault of her own, yet she was allowed a total of just three games over all three matches. That’s just mean.

And then, after just one more month, her (what I guess we’d call chronic) back injury stopped her from playing altogether. Few believe she’s likely to return.

Sometimes it’s not a beautiful sport.

8) (April) CALAMITY: Bepa fired Sergei for some guy named “Karen”

There are people still undergoing therapy for this.

It was like seeing Kate ditch William and shacking up with Tom Jones.

9) (April, Monte Carlo) FAIL: Jurgen Schmergen

Love Jurgen, but his attempts at what I guess we should call “fighting talk” (coming, unsurprisingly, after his defeat of Fed) made me snigger.

Daveed beat him in straights.

10) REDEMPTION: Robin Soderling

Ok, look. I’m glad Robin’s getting the love he is and only now being truly admitted in from the cold with many Rafa fans even now prepared to concede he may have been “misunderstood” (very popular word).

<brusque-haughty-Southern-accent> Just remember there were a bunch of us on this bandwagon first – we’all already took the best seats back when it was unfashionable to do so, and I’m not even remotely sorry that there’s standing room only. </brusque-haughty-Southern-accent>

In order to convince y’all, our guy had to, 1) put an end to two of the greatest streaks in history by two of the best players to have ever played the game, and 2) to then be sidelined by an illness (6 months and counting), one that has a rather nasty habit of putting paid to entire careers.

The uncomfortable parallels with Delpo, where a gruff, suspicious type gains acceptance (salvation?) after sacrificing themselves on the altar of Fedal, are only too evident.

All of which is to say that after a promising start to the year (and two years of laying siege to the top four), Sod was genuinely missed, not just by us hardcore fans, not just by tennis fans, but by tennis itself (and, I’d like to think, his enemies).

Wait, there’s more – he won’t be playing Aus. :S

11) BONUS: “Rafa had a rubbish year”

Sorry, no he didn’t. He won a Slam, reached the finals of two others, won a Masters title, reached the finals of four others, going out in each instance to a guy that only lost seven matches all year.

In other words, the only reason Rafa lost “all those finals” is that it was Rafa making “all those finals”.

You can certainly argue, as many have, that losing to the same guy so many times leaves scar tissue. That’s almost certainly true, but you’ll have a hard time convincing anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex it would have been very different had anyone else made those finals.

12) (May, Paris) GAG: The Ball-Kid that jumped the gun

Remember him? That poor ball-kid who ran out on court before Viktor had finished putting a smash away?

And when Viktor pretended that was the reason he SPECTACULARLY blew a 5-2 fifth set lead to a hobbling Muzz?

Yeah, that was stupid.

13) (May, Paris) FLATULENCE: The wonder that is AbFab

If there’s an unvarying truth about the tennis season it’s that there’ll be at least one hedonistic atrocity during the French Open and that AbFab will be at the centre of it.

14) (June, Paris) SCANDAL: “I wags when I likes – and I likes when I wag”

Oh get over yourself. Not only have we seen other tennis players do this, we’ve seen other sports people do this. STOP PRETENDING HE THREATENED TO DEVOUR YOUR FIRST BORN.

Rafa fist-pumps with a raised knee, Nole beats his chest and merges his grunts into a celebratory roar. Not everyone likes that either. I think we can tolerate the odd, UNHABITUAL finger-wag from Federer.

Your faux-outrage is convincing no one.

15) FALLACY: The Grunting issue that just won’t go away

Not even in the face of the biggest WTA breakthrough since Maria Sharapova in 2004. Not even after almost every player asked about it has said, in one form or another, that they couldn’t care less.

16) BONUS: “Maria had a rubbish year”

Sorry, no she didn’t. She won two Premier-fives (one on her worst surface), reached the finals of Wimbledon, the semis of RG, the finals of Miami and the semis of IW.

You can certainly argue that Pova’s game has habitually deserted her at the moments she’s had most to play for – that’s not even vaguely disputatious. You can also choose to speak that little thing known as “the truth” in relation to the Wimbledon final: that every last bit of it was on Petra’s racquet – no one with an ounce of common sense considers Petra beatable that day.

The heart of this particular fallacy relies on making a fake conflation between Maria’s admittedly untimely, disappointing play (about which many reasonable concerns might be expressed), and the idea that this somehow precludes her from ever winning a Slam (about which many unreasonable and downright salacious things have been said).

The latter may or may not be true. But the fact is that, as of now, the numbers simply don’t back it up.

Maria’s tennis may be in the gutter, but she is clearly looking at the stars.

Assume for a moment that Vika took more than just that one set from Petra (who can still go AWOL) at Wimbledon and made the final. Can you honestly not see Pova winning that?

17) (Sep, New York) FUGLY: “…on the inside”

Wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the few remaining neutrals in the stadium ended up rooting for Stosur after Serena’s little episode of self-destruction – the only truly “ugly” thing on court that night.

What hasn’t perhaps been emphasised enough – and what made it worse for me – was whom she chose to pick on.

Eva Azderaki??? That’s like picking on Little Miss Muffet.

Equally repulsive were the amount of Serena fans who chose to make light of and, in some cases, to defend it – often from the same group that like to crap on Andy Roddick for his “anger management” issues.

Serena is what she is. She has her ugly side like anyone else. She’s unlikely to change very much. She’s gotten enough heat for it. And not all of her run-ins with authority figures have been her fault.

But it seems to me you’ve lost your right to be taken seriously if you made light of this blunder.

18) (Sep, New York) SCARY: The Slap

Not the Aussie novel, but the single most spectacular moment of this and most other years I care to remember. ‘Decisive’ doesn’t quite capture it.

I mostly included it for the sake of completeness. And because it’s flat-out scary.

Understandably, it’s provoked all sorts of reactions, ire and outrage, euphoria and delirium.

People clearly have a lot of very strong (and not always pent up) feelings over it – feelings they mostly don’t know what to do with.

I don’t rightly know whether it’s a good or a bad thing – or whether it’s even meaningful to think in those terms.

To this day, I haven’t even been able to trace where the ball actually landed.

Fed, of course, dismissed it as “luck”, a child-like “slap” – the kind of ‘street tennis’ he wasn’t brought up to play. Novak’s supporters (and many others), of course, marvel at its sheer audacity.

Where you choose to sit on that divide is largely a matter of philosophy. You should be able to see both sides.

In the end, it got Nole what he wanted. And that, I suspect, is all that counts.

19) (June) BLAH: The Gimelstob/Feli bust up

Noteworthy for the revelation that Feli gets hot under the collar.

Non-noteworthy for the revelation that Gimelstob should get anyone hot under the collar.

20) BONUS: “Murray had a rubbish year”

His post-Oz slump was uniquely icky. He continues to have trouble with Fedalovic at the Slams. And people are right to ‘meh’ over his clean-up of the Asian Swing.

But there’s nothing rubbish about 4 Slam SFs. Or, for that matter, the best clay court season of his career. Next.

21) (June) FAIL: Lynn Barber played at being Rafa iconoclast.

I get what she was trying to do. I just don’t think she got what she was trying to do….let alone the matter of actually doing it.

22) (June) HEGEMONY: “Script-Gate”

I’m told there’s an argument that it would be an existential threat to journalists’ livelihoods and credibility if they didn’t get first bite of the players’ press-conference cherry.

That the only way around this is withholding those pressers from the public domain for at least 24 hours, thereby giving them an ample window within which to work on and release their pieces, well before ‘Boris Blogger’ is allowed to get his dirty mits on them.

I’ve only ever been partially convinced with that explanation.

What’s criminally unambiguous is how much this smacks of snobbery and hegemony.

23) (June, Wimbledon) EPIPHANY: Pironokva discovers the existence of ranking points outside of the Slams.

Simply astonishing.

So ends one of the great mysteries of life – how Pironkova manages to move like a fairy whilst razing the competition at Wimbledon, but is unable to otherwise win two matches together all year.

This year she made the QFs at Wimbledon and was one of only two players to take a set off Petra. No one was very surprised.

I’m still not completely sure this wasn’t a hoax. But I kind of want it to be true as it would explain EVERYTHING (and an awful lot besides).

24) (June, Wimbledon) UNSUNG: Domi made the QFs of Wimbledon meaning she’s now reached the R16 or better at every Slam.

QFs or better if you exclude Oz. She also won her (long overdue) first WTA title.

I get that she hasn’t the fanbase others do. I get that it’s unreasonable to expect non-fans and neutrals to undergo the levels of ecstasy experienced by that modest fanbase (of which I’m unashamedly a member). I’m even willing to concede that she hasn’t always helped her cause .

I don’t get why such a WTA milestone barely gets a mention by any of the outlets (mainstream and those that like to think of themselves as “indie”). Try and imagine the euphoric whiplash if and when, say, Kirilenko or Pavlyuchenkova (nothing against either of them) makes that same milestone.

Players have inspired cults for doing far less. Instead, this was deemed more relevant.

25) (July) FAIL: Janko/Nole stage a mock assassination.

Tasteless, yes. Damning? No.

And before anyone brings it up, no it’s not a “cultural thing” either.

No more than humiliating chair umpires is “an American thing”, or punching your racquet strings to the point of drawing blood is “a British thing”.

26) REDEMPTION: Mardy Fish

I never really got why it was considered “trendy” to hate on Mardy Fish. He has his dark side like most of us (and seems to consider being unable to speak French a matter of pride) – still, the reaction has always seemed disproportionate, out of control and, at times, downright ugly.

In any case, at some point early on this year his image seemed to undergo a transition.

Much of it can be traced, of course, to the fact that he began winning. That usually helps. But it’s also a simple matter of practicality: they simply transferred their bile to a new (and easier) target: Ryan Harrison.

And it all went swimmingly well (for a while): those that would once have pointed and laughed, looked on dotingly as Mardy publicly rebuked Ryan for a childish, braggy tweet.

@ryanharrison92 Those are the kinda tweets that get ya unfollowed...
— Mardy Fish (@MardyFish) November 7, 2011

It was a fair point, but didn’t in my mind seem like it deserved such public censure – older and more mature players than Ryan have gotten away with far worse.

What was more likely is that they’d simply overcompensated in their appropriation of Mardy; an easy mistake to make in the presence of what they deemed a greater and more obviously obnoxious evil – that would be Ryan, for those still with me.
Either way, there was no doubt about it – Mardy’s stock was up.

The fake-out was revealed for what it was with the “don’t-speak-French-dumbass” episode which is when the illusion was shattered, and all those latent Fish anxieties resurfaced once more.

God only knows what 2012 will bring.

27) (July, Wimbledon) HEARTBREAK: Muzz’s Wimbledon SF loss.

I played the blame game.

Difficult to conceive of this being anywhere near as heartbreaking as the Oz final, which I still maintain had much more to do with his own poor performance.

But the Wimbledon SF seemed to me to underline how far he still has to go when Rafa, Fed or Novak are redlining – or whether he’ll even get there. That’s much worse. Isn’t it?

28) (Aug) ENIGMA: Caro parted ways with Piotr

And then sort of didn’t. And then did, again. Kinda. I dunno.

Whatever. Ricardo-Caro on court-coaching will be one of the early highlights of next year.

29) (Aug, Cincinnati) GROSS-OUT: The worst tie-break of the year

The closing moments of this were probably far worse than even Muzz/Haase. Whereas the latter’s atrocities were at least diffuse, this one seemed to have all the toxins distilled into the final set tie break.

At the end of it all, as if in relief, Dasco squatted down and spat on the court (he might just as well have barfed or blown his nose), an apt way to seal in the EVIL. Nevermore to be mentioned amongst polite society. Or, you know, normal people.

30) (Aug, Canada) NUTTY: Canada did its thing…

And it was WACK.

31) (Sep) BLAH: That familiar sound of itchy fanatics undercutting Noles season.

Whatever took them so long?

32) (Sep, New York) BEATDOWN: Rafa’s 2nd worst loss of the year.

He managed to wangle a set out of it. And perhaps just the faintest scrap of dignity. That was all he wangled out of it.

33) (Sep, New York) FLATULENCE: The worst match of the year

Bar none. WTA included. Challengers/Futures....in fact every ITF match played this year.

What happens in Ashe stays in Ashe.

34) FLAT: Li Na and Sam Stosur

Don’t get me wrong. What they’ve achieved this year is MONUMENTAL, each in its own way. Sam winning the USO, in particular, is perhaps my favourite moment of the year. Vindication, for her many long-suffering fans and of their undying belief in her game.

But if you’re gonna manhandle Caro for not being up to scratch in the Slams, it’s only fair that you do the same for those unable (or unwilling) to perform outside of them.

Both Sam and Li are top ten players whose tennis ability is undisputed amongst even the harshest of critics. Both’s non-Slam record this year has been DISMAL. Neither, as far as I can tell, was injured. In other words, there’s no excuse.

What this also means is you really can’t be that confident of their chances next year (the way you might have been with Fran after RG 2010).

Who would you choose to watch your back in a street fight? Pova would be in most people’s top 3, you might imagine Fran or Marion (who didn’t even make a Slam final) would feature highly too…a few might even pick Caro.

Not many would choose Li or Sam. It’s easy to see why.

35) (Oct, China) FAIL: The journo that dared mention the ‘R’ word. Roddick was having none of it.

And no, this wasn’t a “cultural thing” either. We really need to stop confusing flat-out blunders with culture.

36) (Nov) BLAH: Nole’s season finally caught up with him

He pulled out of Paris for which he was flayed alive, and then bowed out quite timidly in London.

No one was very surprised.

37) (Nov, London) UNDERWHELMED: The ATP WTF photo shoot blew

After the Abbey Road and Downing St., I’m, frankly, kinda outraged a bigger fuss hasn’t been kicked up over how rubbish this was.

38) (Nov, London) OUCH: Rafa’s worst loss of the year

The score was true. Just like the man said.

39) BONUS: “I saw her first…No I did…No me….Me”.

Major, MAJOR peeve. Apologies in advance for going on for so long.

Every time we get a new talent emerging – and especially when they have their breakthrough the way Petra did this year – we seem to get a rush of self-satisfied morons who claim to have been in attendance many years ago when talent-x (then a scraggly looking teen) went out in round two of a Challenger event so obscure it probably doesn’t even exist anymore.

The obscurity is deliberately selected and is in direct proportion to the accolade you are now expected to confer upon them for having “a good eye”, as well as being more generally awesome than you in all other respects. No – it’s actually that infantile.

Think of it as their vicarious version of the rags-to-riches tale. Their moment to bask in the radiance of talent-x’s reflected glory.

They remind me of those knobs that sometimes turn up on the IMDB message boards claiming to be Johnny Depp’s 2nd cousin.

What are you – nine years old?

Firstly, NO ONE CARES that Petra was your, my or anyone else’s “discovery”….like, at all. Whatever brownie points they think they might be accruing with these (not even that fanciful) tales don’t seem worth it somehow. Most of us stopped doing this sort of thing at the age of 10.

Secondly, most people I know make it a rule to disregard anything not immediately verifiable – the outlandish and the not so outlandish. So even in the unlikely event that their little unmagical fairy tale turns out to be true, it’ll be treated as guff. And it’ll be entirely proper that it be treated as guff. Most of us learnt this lesson early on in life.

The most frightening aspect of this pre-school behaviour is that it’s exhibited by relatively mature people of a certain age – people that seem well grounded in all other respects, but who then suddenly, mysteriously, take leave of their senses.

Takeout: Pics (and preferably links), or it didn’t happen. And I doubt anyone will care even after that.

40) (December) CLOAK AND DAGGER: Why exactly did it take so long to appoint an ATP boss?

This one had all the political intrigue and mystery of a bestselling spy novel.

Ian Ritchie was wikileaked before any official announcement – that kinda scuppered things.

Krajicek was deemed short on business experience by Federer. But what role did the discovery that he follows the unsavoury Islamophobe Geert Wilders on Twitter have to play?

Then, with only 9 days of this year left, we suddenly hear someone called Brad Drewett has been appointed.

He seems, from what I can tell, to have the right blend of business and tennis experience. Which kinda begs the question, where’s he been all this time?

It seems, to put it charitably, like something they cobbled together at the 11th hour. Or, to put it less charitably, an appointment of last resort.

41) FUGLY: Fed 2nd only to Nelson Mandela

Not that I have any trouble accepting that Federer (or any one below him on the list) should be “liked” or “respected”.

All the same, this made me hurl. And I make no apologies for it.

It would be no different if it were Rafa, Novak or any of the other top 10 most "liked, respected, admired and trusted" world leaders juxtaposed alongside a lifelong activist who forsook all the pleasures of life most of us take for granted in favour of a struggle for freedom and equality that cost him almost 30 of the best years of his life.

But perhaps that's the fault of the survey and iffy sounding metrics like "liked" and "admired".

In any case, the survey also uncovered that older respondents tend to be more critical (not surprising), as do Latin Americans (really?); women tend to be drawn to corporate figures (although also more critical of the female ones) whilst men favour sports stars. World leaders don't fair particularly well at all.

Not to be a spoilsport, but all of that seems far more compelling.

42) FOLIE DE-GRANDEUR: Trial by Noah

Every year an ex-player (not always a legend) makes a tired bid to make themselves relevant again.

This is mostly harmless (if a little embarrassing) and usually takes the form of making the most outrageous picks and forecasts imaginable. It’s something of an annual pageant.

”Fed will never win a Slam again”, “Rafa’s washed up”, “Novak has peaked”, “Murray will win multiple Slams”…that sorta thing.

This year that role was filled by Yannick Noah, who chose to crap not just on Rafa, not even just on Spanish tennis….but on all of Spanish Sport.

It was, to put it mildly, in a class of its own.

There’s kangaroo courts. There’s the many layers of hideous-kinky that lie below that. And then (and only then), do we get to the lowest depths of farce and ego-mania that is the ‘Trial by Noah’.

43) FOLIE DE GRANDEUR: Martina Hingis and the (incessant whiny) tale of the on-again-off-again Olympics mixed-doubles partnership.

First it was “leaked” that Fed’s people had approached her. Then she denied any such thing had happened. Then it seemed to be on-again. And then it didn’t.

By now, most had lost interest and were willing and wishing it would remain “off-again”. Permanently.

The same might be said of all those insufferable “teasers” that would seem to indicate she may be persuaded to compete in Oz. Singles, doubles, I really don’t care.

Only Mc-Wozil-Roy, inspire more tepid and vacuous thoughts. And sometimes, I’m not even sure of that.

The moral of the tale must surely be how it’s possible to kill what might have once been a credible story by running it again, and again, AND AGAIN, through the rumour mill.

And if there’s a “story” here at all, it’s that this was THE MOST BORING NON STORY OF THE YEAR.

Novak Djokovic and the Politics of Admissibility

2011-12-10T15:55:00.001Z

There were certainly a lot of (not terribly consistent) thoughts in the immediate fallout that proceeded from Wertheim’s decision to tweet a link to an Albanian blog post. A well-researched post that he presumably thought put "the other side” of the narrative surrounding Nole’s conquest of the world rather well.

In so far as it was possible to disentangle, my first impulse was actually to agree.

We’d heard, it seemed to me, rather a lot since 2005 on Serbians training in emptied-out swimming pools with little or no mention of the devastation Milosevic and Co. wrought in that region during the 90s.

Perhaps the decision not to mar that early rise of Serbian tennis with reference to those atrocities was the right one. Why, after all, should the country’s athletes (many of whom were pre-pubescent at the time) be expected to shoulder that burden? What can their tennis have to do with the prevailing political circumstances of their childhood?

Well, if you’re going to persist in chronicling the difficulties you faced during those early years (none of which I disagree with by the way) and weave it into an elaborate symphony of national reawakening, it actually has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Its perfectly valid for Ana or Novak to draw attention to how their geopolitical plight placed their tennis development in a vastly different context from, say, Andy Roddick’s formative years. It did.

It’s equally fair for others to want to challenge much of that romantic imagery when you are a self declared nationalist using your (well earned) position to garner international support for your homeland.

Novak’s no different to any self-respecting athlete in wanting to raise his country’s profile in this way, but you can hardly blame others for wanting to relay the other side. Particularly those that lived through and were immediately affected by the conflict.

Quite apart from any of that, a superstar’s personal life and attitudes (both pre and post stardom) have always been fair game. That would have been true even if Novak weren’t an avowed nationalist. Only a tendentious prick will insist those attitudes tell the whole story, yet they always have and always will shape opinion. Not at all at odds with the now burgeoning narrative surrounding Novak’s rise to the top.

All well and good. But that’s when the cracks began to appear.

For one thing, it didn’t seem to me that the Kosovo post told us anything terribly new. Only the very young, in this age of Smartphones and Wikipedia, will have managed to remain wholly ignorant of a conflict that spanned most of the nineties – a conflict described as the most devastating since World War Two.

The Kosovo blog post was certainly a worthy reminder of the last of those conflicts, furnished with facts you may have missed (or forgotten from) the first time round. But it wasn’t, ultimately, all that revelatory.

Secondly, as many have already pointed out, branding Novak a “dangerous nationalist” on the basis of one quote is rash, uncouth and a little confused. You can certainly see why those living, to this day, with the consequences of ethnocentric expansionism might be naturally suspicious of Novak’s patriotic side. That’s a far cry from those neo-fascist extrapolations that are as bizarre as they sound and helpful to precisely no one.

All of which brings us back to Wertheim. Who, on the one hand, deemed it both relevant (key word) and important enough to link to a blog post some might consider tendentious. But then ducked accusations of bias by offering to link to a rebuttal.

I really don’t think Wertheim was taking sides – that is, I’m sure he has a private opinion (one he may have been itching to get out), but I rather doubt that was ever what this is about.

And I’m not sure I buy into the outrage of those that would have us believe that linking to blogs in this way constitutes a new-fangled form of low-rent journalism. Journalists of all spheres and from all walks of life link to blog posts all the time. It’s becoming increasingly acceptable to do so (within certain limits) and we should expect to see a lot more of it.

Nevertheless, it does seem somewhat irresponsible to do so with something as explosive as this. Offering to link to a rebuttal feels too much like offering to call the fire service after burning the house down.

What then? Bravado? Telling “the untold story”? .

Well let’s see: a liberal American journalist posted a link to a blog post highlighting the illiberal nationalism of an Eastern-European nation state with fairly weak US diplomatic ties – a country that until recently was considered by many US politicians as something of a pariah state.

Nothing even remotely radical about that – I daresay he wasn’t trying to be. Nor have I any reason to doubt that he felt it was worth telling that “untold story”. Or AN untold story, at any rate – one it’s politically expedient to tell. Plenty remain untold.

Not to single out Wertheim (the problem’s bigger than any one person), but it’s easy to offer up counter-narratives to a brand of nationalism that’s fallen out of vogue with most of the more liberal west – and it’s easy to deem that kind of discourse “relevant” when it isn’t at odds with any national agenda.

Would he have linked to a Palestinian blog during the Dubai/Peer debacle two years back? There’s an “untold story” there too.

Saying the two situations aren’t comparable because of either the glaring discrepancy between Novak and Shahar’s standing in the game, or simply because there’s no accompanying rhetoric surrounding Shahar that involves training in emptied swimming pools is disingenuous.

What this episode speaks to, ultimately, is the politics of admissibility – the politics that determines what’s relevant and what’s not. Or to put it more crudely, who’s in and who’s out.

Politics that’s bigger than any single journalist – indeed, politics that both subsumes and governs their industry. Like I said, it’s really quite crass to single Wertheim out.

As it happens, I didn’t agree with Dubai back then either – not least because it felt kinda ridiculous for a WTA event to even consider banning a WTA player. But neither did I feel they didn’t have the right to protest against an on going occupation by a country they don’t even have diplomatic ties with (I can only assume that Dubai, like others in the vicinity – to say nothing of the many Jews and non-Arabs worldwide – didn’t take too kindly to Israel’s then recent incursion into Gaza that had resulted in 1400 Palestinians dead, over 900 of them civilians).

But none of that was deemed either “relevant” or “admissible”. Instead, we simply went, as we always do, through the tired old charade of pretending that nothing that’s occurred in that region in the past 60 or so years could have or should have given rise to this state of affairs. Words like “discrimination” and “exclusion” were used by no less than Venus Williams and Andy Roddick as if they were the exclusive provenance of one side, and Shahar in particular.

Well, there’s “another side” to that too. Though you’ll have to cast your net just a little wider to get at it. The absence of a counter-narrative here would be quite laughable if it weren’t so chilling.

***

Novak’s hardly unique in holding views some might find unpalatable. Players, celebrities and superstars have done that since time immemorial.

Nor would it surprise me very much to learn that he may harbour future political ambitions–

When Djokovic won the Wimbledon championships in July -- which catapulted him to the top of the world rankings -- all of Serbia was ecstatic. A euphoric Serb president jokingly offered Djokovic his post, while 100,000 jubilant fans welcomed their native son back to Belgrade with folk songs, fireworks and red-blue-and-white flags.
-- Spiegel

A joke? Really? In a world where Marat gets appointed to the Russian Parliament? Anyone that’s followed Novak’s rise to superstardom knows that he might have been earmarked for Serbian statesmanship as far back as 2007.

"The war also made me a better tennis player because I swore to myself that I'd prove to the world that there are good Serbs, too."

Is that bad?

I’m not going to pretend to be a great fan of nationalism – not least because it’s seems unhealthily predicated upon the alienation of those “unlike” you. But it’s hopelessly naive not to think it plays a rather large role in the lives of many in that region (and indeed of many in the “liberal” west) – the vast majority of whom simply want to live in peace.

Is there any reason, at this point, to think Novak’s nationalism should be any different to, say, that of Goran Ivanisevic?

ATP WTF: Why we shouldn’t [only] be talking about Roger Federer’s longevity

2011-11-29T21:53:00.001Z

Quite.

A most satisfactory end to an event I was afraid wouldn’t live up to either hype or expectation. Or is that now treated as one in the same?

Rightly or wrongly, and for reasons best known (and unknown) to myself, the WTF has become tightly associated in my mind with elemental performances par excellence.

Some of this is undoubtedly to do with the way Federer plays.

Some of it’s to do with the nature of the surface and the type of unforgiving yet strangely tranquil tennis it gives rise to.

Most likely, it’s an irregular fusion of both that’s responsible (usually) for that uniquely hypnotic experience only to be found indoors and at the end of the season - an experience that remains inextricably woven in with either Federer playing tennis that delivers a statement, or someone else playing once-in-a-lifetime tennis that delivers something more akin to a polemic. Yet also an experience it seemed we were to be denied this year until, that is, the final.

I’m not saying the final got it completely right either. And not only because both seemed stuck in that perverse first service purgatory that has successfully demeaned so many a player this year. But after floundering away the week in almost its entirety, it did seem to strike the right balance between daring play on the part of Jo, and Fed imposing the kind of lockouts that had seemed beyond him at some of his most critical moments throughout this year.

Perhaps what’s more interesting than any single match though is all the inevitable talk on Fed’s longevity it’s once again given rise to. All of it quite correct of course, but all of it, also, quite “boilerplate” in nature.

Fed’s turning 30 has undoubtedly imparted a particular resonance to it this time round – tennis twilight for most, when motivation is supposedly dithering even if the body hasn't somehow completely packed up.

Even so, I think we GET that Fed’s mode of play (and I would say genes) confer upon him a longevity that continues to elude other Big Four (or Five or Six) players – not all of whom, by the way, tax themselves the way Nadal does.

You make that longevity a little less amazing each time you recycle and repackage it: I certainly get why people talk about it. I DON’T get why they talk about it to the exclusion of all else.

Doing so seems to me to obscure something that, in my mind, is equally as important and telling.

Could it not simply be that he happens to be an impeccable indoor player? Just like, uh, I dunno, a certain Ivan Lendl, say? It is possible.

I understand why the prevailing theme is longevity – I also understand that 6 WTFs is kind of a big deal. Not all of which can be explained away with lazy allusions to “longevity” (allusions now fast becoming a form of disservice).

Neither can Nalbandian coming back from the brink of death and two sets to love down (2005).

Nor can Kolya’s pwnage of the entire field during the fall of 2009 – pwnage that included all of the top four. Pwnage that also included one Roger Federer.

And I think we might have heard quite enough on fatigue and the length of the season too: Nole played almost EXACTLY as much tennis when he won this event in Shanghai back in 2008 (81 matches) as he did in 2010 (79 matches) We heard next to NOTHING about wear-and-tear back then (an issue of commentary rather than player conduct).

It didn’t appear to affect Murray that year either who saw fit to leave it all out there in his win over Fed during the group stages. Clearly an important enough win for him to sacrifice any chance he might have had of progressing further in that event in what was (then) his strongest year.

Funnily enough it was Fed’s injured back in Paris back then that resulted in, what remains to this day, the only withdrawal of his career.

Point being, fatigue is not nearly as linear and untextured a phenomena as some (most) would have you believe it is. It affects different players (all of whom have different Achilles heels) in different ways, and at different times.

Not to mention the countless inexplicable, unfathomable, but wholly inevitable random seasonal currents, riffs and rhythms of life, all of which conspire together to ensure that no one day on tour is like any other.

And what of Jo? What of Berd? Are we to believe they found the long season taxing too? I mean Jo’s only played Fed, what, all of five times in the seventy-five matches he’s played this season prior to this event.

Neither looked tired, and I’ve heard nary a peep out of either of them on the length of the season. Why would we? It easily ranks as Jo’s best year on tour and the one time we’ve seen what he’s capable of uninjured for more than 2 months at a time.

Funnily enough, I’ve heard precisely ZERO on the speed of the surface from anyone either, except, that is, the usual formulaic rambling on the opening day [*whispers* maybe it’s because neither matters as much as we are told to think it does]

Without wishing to get too cynical (again, as much a problem of commentary as anything else), just when exactly does that critical moment come, I wonder, when it becomes ok to begin talking of fatigue (or strikes and unions, even) and to stop talking about the merits of “good scheduling”? Or, if you prefer it, to begin talk of “productive fitness regimes” and to end all talk on the “lengthy season”? Whenever you feel like it?

It seems ad-hoc at best and worryingly tendentious at worse.

Strange, is it not, how convincing and decisive tennis (like, say, the final) has a tendency to draw focus to what actually matters?

The same can be said of Fed’s staggering title haul of 6 WTFs gained over two successive tennis generations – many of which had nothing in the slightest to do with “longevity”. That’s kind of a “prevailing theme” too.
.
(Pics: Getty)

ATP WTF: BEHOLD THE POWER OF THE ‘COJONES’

2011-11-24T13:57:00.001Z

Daveed has made the semis having won 4 out of 4 sets played against the number 3 and number 1 players in the world.

No one else in the entire DRAW can make that claim.

In other news, I love sport.

No idea what was going on with Nole.

I mean, yeah, he must be tired with the amount of tennis he’s played this year, but that doesn’t quite account for the criminal amount of balls that landed at the bottom of the net.

Assist (as with any Spanish victory this week): Yannick Noah.

Rafael Nadal: “The Score is True”

2011-11-23T23:59:00.001Z

I sometimes feel Rafa’s English is the perfect vehicle to understand and rationalise the types of beatdowns, “severe results” (as one journo put it), we saw last night.

Sure, there’ll be plenty of tracts trying so desperately to replicate the sense of ecstasy evoked by Foster-Wallace’s infamous essay on Fed as a religious experience; and whilst that might still feel relevant to some, I’ve always found it far more interesting (and moving) to consider the essence of that sublimity together with more deeper questions such as the nature of loss – and how that in turn might playfully shape the forces that underpin their rivalry.

There's plenty of innocent jokes on the adorable (or at least affable) nature of Rafa’s English, but it also seems custom built to cut through much of the bullshit that is so prevalent at times like these, and to set out the truth before you with not so much as a hint of drama or embellishment.

”The Score is True” is both an abstract and absolute truth. At once, so pithy, so very urgent, you can almost see it being used as the title of a polemical op-ed, a life-affirming poem about war, the satirically coloured memoirs of a sporting journo, or a historical biopic that wins the Palm d’Or. You might even get away with it in a frothy high school romance. Universal truths tend to translate well that way.

The same can be said of much of his unassuming and somewhat curt reflections in the rest of the presser which resist overanalysis and seem, almost, to embody truths greater than those contained in either the scoreline or the sport itself.

Even the "True” from within “thats’s the true” seems to evoke a bigger and more significant vision of reality than that suggested by any mere “truth” (lower case).

The truth (lower case) is, I didn't want to see either Rafa OR Fed routed in this way, but, really, when was this ever about what any one of us wanted? The peculiar charm of competition is that you simply don't know how any single match will play out on any given day however celebrated the competitors or their rivalry.

And results like these often add hidden layers of texture, meaning, structure and narrative to rivalries that more even matches are often completely devoid of, however well fought. THAT'S the TRUE.

Rafa says he "didn't play badly". He really didn't.

He might perhaps have served better and gained the resulting free points he alludes to in the presser. "I didn't as usual" - the barbed self-flagellation is wholly intentional (also one of the best moments in the presser) but is also put out there as a matter of record: Rafa's simply not serving nearly as well as he was last year.

But other than that? Fed's level was just as "special" as Rafa says it was - bordering almost on the type of sinister necromancy found in his dismissal of Roddick at the Aussie Open in 2007 - a match in which the very contours of the court appeared to warp and reshape themselves around both the essential certainty and trajectory of his winners.

In some ways, we shouldn't be surprised with the uncompromising clarity of Rafa's thoughts - pressers are mostly given within minutes of the last ball being struck; but try, in any case, to imagine the frighteningly solitary moments he endured in that arena (particularly in the second set) with his most respected and most potent adversary impressing the abstract truth of his supremacy upon him, blow-by-(non-abstract)blow - blows Rafa was mostly powerless to fend off.

If being savaged that way leads to certain crystallised convictions on where his game stands in relation to Federer's on this or any other surface, it shouldn't surprise us in the least.

There really is no substitute for watching the elite operating unfettered in their element and preferably on their favourite surfaces – nor a more convincing proof of its essential truth.

Once Rafa was broken in set one (it was surprisingly even to that point, though I doubt most will remember that) Fed ran away with it in exactly the same way that Rafa did in RG 2008.

I'm sure many thought I was a buzzkill for making that comparison on twitter in the minutes that followed Fed's victory yesterday - the very same comparison was made by both in their respective pressers. There's an abstract and maybe even a moral equivalence underpinning BOTH those beatdowns – one you choose to ignore at your peril. THAT'S THE TRUE.

More to the point, when the elite do break free that way, the unilateral lockdown they impose is usually as certain and as fatal as time itself. Federer's rhythms are, of course, all his own - he sometimes even breaks free of the limits imposed by those. And yes that does qualify as a quasi-religious experience. THAT'S THE TRUE.

Like he said in his presser, Fed's been on the receiving end of those lockdowns too. There's an equivalence there of empathy as well as supremacy. Perhaps as a result of this equivalence, both their answers can appear unduly curt – the type of thing Fed’s accused of arrogance for, but in reality no different to the shoulder-shrugging and wincing that formed the mainstay of Rafa’s presser.

Both proceed from a heightened sense of awareness that remains irradicably intolerant of bullshit. An awareness of their rivalry, their strengths AND limitations – limitations that, as Rafa put it, simply “weren’t there” for Fed yesterday.

THAT’S THE TRUE.

ATP WTF: Tomas Berdych and the reformatory power of melancholic angst

2011-11-22T16:18:00.001Z

Nope. Uh-uh. Not impressed. Not yet anyway.

I’ve no doubt we’ll eventually reproduce something of the electricity I normally associate with one of my favourite events of the year (we almost did with Big Berd yesterday), but we ain’t there yet. Not nearly.

And something’s been off since before the event began.

Not even the ATP photoshoot, normally the single most prolific moment for unintentional awesome all year, lived up to expectation.

Admittedly the Abbey Road crossing and the innards of Downing St set a high watermark.

But this year we got…..8 suits in front of Battersea Power Station. That awkward moment when everyone realises there’s not very much happening, and that not even a close-up would help alleviate the ennui.

The iconic Pink Floyd album cover is one of those things that sounds like a good idea in principle – in practice, a moody, un-peopled near-apocalyptic work of modern art doesn’t lend itself to the kind moments that have made previous shoots such a hit – and I’m not sure it garners quite the necessary universal appeal either.

Sorely disappointed. And I still think a Downton themed photoshoot with Mr Carson (that voice) umpiring a mixed dubs encounter between Lady Edith, Muzz and two other choice members of the cast/players would have been AMAZING.

Neither were things redeemed by what should have been an explosive opener between Jo and Fed. With Federer reminding us of the unearthly errors we’d almost, but never quite, forgotten after the sustained brilliance of his last two events. One can only hope he’s got it out of his system.

But at least, even at three sets, it was over quickly: Rafa/Fish, on the other hand, was a super extended directors cut of a very average daytime movie full of the deleted scenes and bonus features no one wants to see. And all of that was before Rafa’s infamous potty break brought on by an apparent tummy bug. One can only hope he’s got it out of his system.

With Fedal out of the way, I was sure that either Muzz or Djokovic would provide the bonfire that finally lit up the event.

It didn’t happen with Muzz/Ferrer – worse, Muzz was revealed to have an agitated hip that puts into question his continued participation here.

Sometimes an injury’s just an injury – neither evidence of questionable moral fibre nor an opportunity to big-up your fave with that excruciating form of player-juxtaposition so many seem to find so necessary. Try harder.

And with that, Daveed tops group A being the only player to have won his opener in straights. Every cloud, it seems, has an underrated, sporting and very Spanish lining.

Only with Nole/Berd last night did things finally come alive – though not always for the right reasons. The rallies and shotmaking were light years ahead of any match that had preceded it. Some of Berd’s misses were also akin to near death experiences.

It all had a uniquely, grungy form of fatalism about it from which Berd has seemingly emerged uniquely scarred:

"I just need to get through this feeling…I'm even more sad for the Czech people who came to see me"

I cherish Czech angst and melancholy the way I do some forms of modern poetry, but I’m also kinda hoping he puts all that behind him. Or at least re-organises it all into a focused intensity that takes no prisoners – I’ve seen it before.

Nole admitted that Tomas had been the better player for most of the match. He’s right. And, as we saw last night, he’s, in some ways, the player uniquely placed to cause all manner of upsets.

People tend to react to Fedal encounters in the way they might to James Bond films from the late 60s and 70s. For some, they were always overhyped and don’t appear to have dated terribly well. For others, they remain the benchmark of excellence with a continuing pull of nostalgia and loyalty if nothing else.

Either way, everyone feels compelled to take a position either for or against it. Try as I may, I can’t not admire that.

My own feeling is that whilst the more recent encounters haven’t exactly been memorable, and whilst Fedal may be over as an ‘era’ – we shouldn’t be surprised to find them embroiled in skirmishes that rival anything we saw in between 2006-2008. We may even be pleasantly surprised tonight.

Roger Federer: ZING done right.

2011-11-19T17:55:00.001Z

“A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally.”
Oscar Wilde

ZING (for want of a better word – there’s got to be one) is as much a noble art as it is a precise science.

As noble as a bout of fisticuffs and as fine as any of the works of Keats, Mozart or Murakami.

As ordered as the physics of Newton and as precise as that of Einstein, both of which were just yesterday used to prove that Neutrinos might in fact exceed the speed of light – which in turn might just lead to a revisal of EVERYTHING (mark: ‘handle with care’).

Done right, it can overturn kingdoms, alter the entire dynamic of battle in your favour and still leave you looking like a gentleman.

Try too hard, with too little, or at the wrong time, and you end up resembling that vengeful cretin that loses EVERYTHING including his own credibility in a dissonant fog of anguish.

A well-worked ZINGER embodies the very best of whatever mysterious force it is that makes the classics of both antiquity and modernity resonate to vein-popping extremes. Whatever else Steve Jobs might have achieved, you can safely assume he would have known how to ZING both caustically and responsibly. As did Thatcher, Abe Lincoln, Churchill and Joan of Arc.

Indeed, we do it a great disservice when we dismiss any one of the few verbal skirmishes still remaining in an impossibly sanitised ATP as a ‘ZINGER’ or a ‘SMACKDOWN’. The uppercase is supposed to be for effect but seems more suggestive of a dialectic vacuum – like I said, given time, I’m sure we could do a lot better.

But whatever you might call it, competent and successful ZING relies on an entire panoply of precepts, best practices and guidelines – most of which are derived from that age old tradition of oratory and rhetoric. Not all are appropriate for every situation and even those selected must be carefully honed and configured before being deployed as a linguistic WMD.

Three in particular, Timing, Substance and Clout, are, however, indispensable – the critical bedrock of verbal volcanism.

The reason Federer has, for the most part, gotten away with his rhetorical rockets over the years is that he’s understood and taken to heart these fundamental principles . And where he’s fallen foul of them, he’s mostly been taken to task for it either by the mainstream or by members of that very active counter-revolution to the mainstream.

There’s other reasons too, of course. For instance, I’m not much convinced that the delivery of a well-formed ZING is fundamentally at odds with the “old-school” image Federer supposedly embodies – one of the biggest fallacies of the past decade.

A gentleman of the old-school is all about fair play and chivalry, of course. But they're never averse to the occasional verbal joust. Indeed, they’d be found wanting in character, spirit and essence if they fell short in this regard.

If the FedEra has, paradoxically (mistakenly IMO), turned ZING into a dying art-form (and I’m inclined to think it has) then it’s only right that he be the one to reclaim the practice – my guess is not too many mind whenever he appears to do just that.

“TIMING”

However cheesy it might be as a cliche, timing is, indeed, ‘everything’ – in any, and all, forms of competition.

Seize the day? HELL YES. Jump the gun? Not so much.

All too often a few milliseconds here and there decide the entire fate of a civilisation. You just wish that were an exaggeration. Like Federer said, it’s crazy how small the margins sometimes are.

What immediately leaps out at you about Federer’s verbal campaign this year is how quiet it was all kept until so very late in the year. There were even times, when Murray was in a slump, where he rallied to his support – all the while keeping his opinions re Djokovic’s year, the length of the season and surface homogenisation to himself – keeping his cards, in other words, tightly pressed against his chest.

Then, only a few weeks ago, just at that critical moment when he would have sensed people were beginning to tire of talk of strikes and unions from well-paid athletes:

“It’s better to have too many than too few tournaments,” Federer said. “The season cannot be too long when Andy [Murray] requested a wildcard. I think he knows not quite what he wants”

Try and imagine what would have been lost had he opened fire even a few weeks earlier, muddying the waters whilst Nole, Rafa, Muzz and ARod were still busy agreeing upon whatever exactly it is that they’re all meant to agree upon.

The same holds true for leaving it too late: whatever you make of it, Muzz left himself open by requesting a WC for Basel in the same week he chose to bitch about the lengthy season – not even a journeyman ZINGer lets an opportunity like that pass them by.

“I’m not taking anything away from what he did but was Asia the strongest this year?” he asks. “I'm not sure. Novak wasn’t there, I wasn’t there and (in Shanghai) Rafa lost early.”

Again, a try-hard ZINGer might simply have settled for those harmless few scorch marks that result from levelling this attack immediately after Murrays (admittedly impeccable) Asian Swing, a string of results the British Press immediately went to town with.

Waiting till that same Press attempted to conflate that Asian swing with Murray’s chances here in London in the few days leading up to it, is the mark of a craftsman who knows exactly what iron to use and just how hot it is.

“SUBSTANCE”

It’s a demonstrable fact that 90% of ZING that goes on is of the disposable, frothy, playground variety, most of which is as tuneless as it is hollow and barely meets with the definition of ZING.

More astute ZINGers might be able to get away with their lack of substance with more subtle sophistry (particularly if they TIME it well – see above) but for the most part, your target and any assembled onlookers will see right through it. And you’ll have missed your one chance for a shot at something better.

With precious few exceptions, even the best-timed ZING needs something to work with to pack a real punch. Its not wholly unselfish either: you open yourself up to all sorts of ridicule if your ZING doesn’t bear scrutiny.

Again, you might question the wisdom behind some of Federer’s deliveries, maybe even the timing – but only in his most braindead moments will he issue the call to a frothy war.

He was right when he cut Murray down as a “grinder” after losing to him in Dubai back in 2008. That many cried ‘sour grapes’ is neither here nor there – had Murray not attended to those shortcomings (many of which still exist) he wouldn’t be the player he is today.

He was right when he called the early Rafa “one-dimensional”, tendencies Nadal still sometimes reverts back to under pressure, tendencies that usually end up costing him very dearly – sometimes against vastly inferior players.

And he’s right in calling into question the significance of Murray’s Asian Swing now. Again, complaining that his Basel win is open to the same criticism is to spectacularly miss the point. I doubt he cares very much. If anything, I suspect he’s a tad disappointed that the set of double standards propping up this particular ZING don’t go far enough.

Takeout: You can get away with saying most anything you want so long as you resist the urge to talk cobblers.

”CLOUT”

Like it or not, the elite will always get more for their buck, their words will carry rather more weight and leave a far more enduring impression than any number of journeymen. It shouldn’t be that way, but there it is.

The tittle-tattle surrounding Tsonga’s swipe at Nole (there were actually two, neither all that concealed) may have proved diverting but the world is a noticeably different place when the Fed/Muzz “on-again, off-again” tongue-lashing is “on-again”. And the better for it.

Now if deadpan Murray would respond in kind…

Why you should give Andy Murray’s musings on boxing a fair hearing.

2011-11-16T22:05:00.001Z

Not many will have missed the very candid Murray Daily Mail piece.

Agreed with virtually all his thoughts on British Tennis and its lack of anything resembling a single, coherent ethos (versus diverging instances of several more transient ones).

My personal view remains that no amount of money or strategising will account for an essential lack of talent; though he’s certainly right that a more enduring (non-exclusionary) tennis culture may just bring about the conditions in which we might at least aim to see the emergence of more top 100 players (the way, say, the French Federation has) rather than only one in the top five that also happens to be the greatest Open-Era player Britain’s produced.

There’s interesting anecdotes in relation to life on tour and EVEN his suggestion that how you deal with pressure is largely a function of how you’re built deserves a fair hearing (Though Wayne Rooney – of all people – as an example of world-class brilliance with similar “anger-management issues”? Something of an own goal).

By far the most unflinching, honest and introspective interview he’s ever given, but perhaps also one that does rather more to confirm rather than repudiate whatever opinion you may have of him.

We already know of his Boxing obsession – as many will tell you, there’s almost a sultry edge to it.

The notion of one-on-one combat as a metaphor for the confrontational and somewhat lonely nature of solo sport is one that either resonates with you or not. In this paradigm, boxing serves as the purest possible formalisation of solo competition “stripped down to its bare essence” – as Murray has noted on several occasions, its risky and unforgiving nature ACTUALLY leaves you with “nowhere to hide”.

As an allegory, it can sometimes induce that romanticised, keenly felt, but rather vague melancholy found in some of those sporting "art-house" types who deem its accuracy both philosophically and aesthetically complete; in the rest, it seems to provoke amusement, snorts of derision, or simply that curious stasis in which very many eyes glaze over in unison very many times – though perhaps that's just the normal reaction to the sound of Murray’s voice waxing not-so-lyrically.

Where you sit on that divide is not so important, but I can’t help feeling that it’s rather harsh not to give his musings on boxing a fair hearing, if only because he’s actually been in (and emerged bloodied no less than three times from the wrong end of) that eye of the storm that exists at the highest levels of any sport – the solo nature of tennis only infuses it with further poignancy.

If boxing’s the paradigm that’s allowed Murray to unlock and organise some of his most charmingly confused thoughts, and to espouse some of the most cherished ideals of his sport, then so be it.

It’s truly not something those British ex-Players Murray makes a point of calling out will have ever experienced.

(Pic: Daily Mail)

The Truth That Dare Not Speak Its Name: Roger Federer still won on a fast, indoor court. Kinda. [And the trophy ain’t that bad either ducks]

2011-11-14T21:21:00.001Z

There’s sometimes a tendency to underestimate just how much Fed enjoys winning the few titles that have eluded him (Shanghai, Monte Carlo and Rome for the chronically pedantic). And those that do have something to say on the subject seem hell-bent on painting it as a uniquely obnoxious clinical condition (Jeez what a hegemon) .

For me, the anomaly is how he ever managed not to win Paris: perhaps the only understandable loss is in 07 when he went out in R3 to that utterly ridonkulous version of David Nalbandian that’s been known to occasionally show up – who (having already won Madrid) then went on to win the whole damn thing. Having gone through Rafa, Novak and Fed (not easy in 2007), ain’t no one gonna argue that he owned that fall.

But perhaps the fact that it took Fed so long here is just one of the many anomalies we have been told to accept in relation to Paris. A place where even a firebrand like Marat won a shockingly steady three of his five Masters titles. The place where Henman won his ONLY Masters title. Go figure.

This year, all the talk has, quite rightly, been about the decision to slow down the one remaining surface that happened to, you know, BE FAST. Quite frankly, it was an anomaly we could have lived with , even if it was giving rise to the anomalous results so many seem to find so grotesque – I’m not so sure it was responsible (reality, as always, tends to be just a little more complex).

But there's already been more than enough virtual ink spilt on that subject. And honestly? Its obscured something just as relevant: IT'S STILL A FAST INDOOR COURT.

It's fertile territory for jokes of course (of which there have been many), but the truth is, however slow it is, it's not going to suddenly start playing like a clay court – Fed made much the same point after his quite impeccable win over Berd, perhaps his single best match this year.

Not only that, but following his regular post USO lay-off, Fed tends to excel on the fast indoor courts that form the mainstay of the end of the season – a period when most others are worn-out, beat-up, and bitching in various degrees about the length of the season.

Whatever unique advantages these courts confer upon Fed are going to continue to exist even in a slightly compromised form. And that, more than anything else, is what makes him the rational bet going into London.

Clay court Fed will likely remain my particular favourite long after he’s retired – I find the curious, elemental spectacle of Fed’s adapted play working the contours of a surface that should be out-of-his-element until it’s very much in-his-element to be utterly seductive.

But Indoor-Fed shuts you out of a match in a way only a walking scorched earth policy can. And a lot of times that’s just as good.

Explain to me why they did away with carpet again?

(Pics: Getty)

Deceit and Entrapment: Novak Djokovic and the $1.6M Matrix of Cynicism

2011-11-11T23:31:00.001Z

1. If Novak doesn’t play Paris, its because he’s saving himself for London – his shoulder has almost nothing to do with it. Neither is it relevant that countless other players both past and present have done precisely that under similar circumstances.

2. If Novak plays Paris, but loses his opener, he’s still saving himself for London but is now also a “low-rent” mercenary for claiming the $1.6M he was due for competing in 7 of the 8 Masters events – or, as Bodo would have it, for “brazenly gaming the system”.

3. If Novak plays Paris, but retires during his opener, he’s still saving himself for London, is still “brazenly gaming the system” by claiming the $1.6M he was due for playing 7 of the 8 Masters events, but is now also one that hasn’t the grace nor the class (both overused terms) to give his opponent the win they’re due.

Bonus hater points accrued depending on how the injury is presented: “his body always seems to break down” (opportunist ~2pts) vs. “his body always seems to break down” (wet behind the ears ~2pts) vs. a creatively insidious combo of both (~5pts)

4. If Novak wins his opener, he’s putting in just enough legwork to counter the accusations of “not trying hard enough” he WILL receive should he pull out or lose any one of of his subsequent matches. His primary motivation (as a low-rent mercenary) remains exiting the event both quickly and by drawing as little attention (censure) as possible. Needless to say he can’t do both and the more diligent hater won’t let him get away with it.

5. If he fights back from a set down as he did against his compatriot yesterday, he’s a showboating dickhead that’s cynically exploiting the opportunity of beating a flaky minion (one whose game he knows inside out) to present himself as someone that doesn’t shy away from a fight, no matter how much he may be hurting, and no matter how little is at stake. Again, the more astute hater won’t fail to avail the opportunity of satisfying the dual objective of both undercutting Novak and snarking on Viktor.

6. If he makes the latter stages or – God help us – wins the event, he’s an insufferable egomaniac that doesn’t know when to stop (the chip on the shoulder of most players from small Eastern European countries usually ensure that they don’t) and will in all likelihood pay the price for it in London.

This is the matrix of cynicism with which Novak’s every action has been evaluated over the past week – the handout from hell.

Its beauty lies in the arc it artfully traces between the two extremes of blaming him for one thing, namely pulling out to avoid further inflaming an injury(1) and blaming him for its reflexive opposite (6) – veteran haters are able to pull this off without the transition between (1) and (6) seeming too jarring, or even without anyone noticing it’s taken place at all.

Between the two endpoints lies a breadth of possibilities that is truly daunting and the real magic lies in predicting what Novak may or may not do and devising ever more creative means of undercutting “the good” and highlighting “the bad”.

What you end up with is a complex web of deceit which ensures Novak’s presented in nothing other than the most unfavourable terms, and from which there can be no escape as no stone has been left unturned. As a piece of legal, political and actuarial manoeuvring, it stands alone – you really have to marvel at its completeness and attention to detail.

Let’s be completely honest: Novak was gonna be gunned down whatever he did this week.

His pulling out after winning two matches is supposed to mean we can all go back to pretending he wouldn’t have got shat upon had he pulled out before the event began or, rather more crucially, had there not been $1.6M at stake.

And one thing I have learnt this week is that there is, apparently, a middle ground between the haters’ invective and the more conventional discourse around Nole’s injuries – this appears to be what most have settled upon.

There’s only one thing wrong with it: it happens to be a crock of shit. Elaborate, inventive, and maybe even a little persuasive, but a hoax all the same.

Novak's physical conditioning has always proved polarising – and yes he has sometimes brought it on himself – yet there’s something inexorably icky about the nature of the spite this time round as it seems to be motivated primarily by the question of money.

That would be the $1.6M bonus he was due for playing 7 of the 8 Masters events – something no one else was able to do this year, and a provision that, as far as I can tell, has always been in place.

I don’t think he should have played this week either, I don’t feel the need to go out of the way to defend his decision to do so and, yes, he probably didn’t "give it his all”, but we really shouldn’t be muddying the waters with talk of money.

And if we’re honest about it, it’s no different to what countless other players, both past and present, both journeyman and elite, have done (in some cases many times over) – only they seem to get the most lavish praise imaginable for “listening to their body”.

Only yesterday, Mardy Fish withdrew with a pulled left hamstring – a recurring injury that also caused him problems in Basel, an injury he would, presumably, have been nursing when he decided to play here this week, an injury that puts him in much the same position as Novak, yes?

If Novak’s a shithead for pulling out two matches in, then so is Mardy – $1.6M should have nothing to do with it. Or are those levels of winnings only for players you like?

I can’t in all honesty say I even find that much wrong with pocketing the amount he did without supposedly “giving it his all”; it’s not the epitome of principled behaviour, but it is increasingly becoming an unavoidable consequence of the more physical modern game – and, dare I say it, the length of the season. We’re going to have to find a way to live with that without casting doubt on any and every withdrawal we witness.

In any case, after the season he’s just had, I’d say he’s entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The same benefit of the doubt readily conferred upon more popular types – even those popular types that are actually guilty of “brazenly gaming the system”.

The unanswered question of Loyalty behind Dmitry Tursunov’s smackdown of Pete Bodo

2011-11-05T22:32:00.001Z

So this was written.

It only makes sense that Bogomolov wants to play Davis Cup. He's got a lot to be thankful for, right?

The only problem is that he wants to play Davis Cup for Russia.

Yep. The Russia from which his father, well-known coach Alex Bogomolov Sr. (who worked with, among others, Yevgeny Kafelnikov and Andrei Medvedev), fled over two decades ago in order to find greater opportunity and a more prosperous way of life. The Russia to which the older Bogomolov returned (leaving his family behind) in 2003, because he didn't find happiness amid the palm trees and abundant tennis courts of south Florida. Alex and son have had a strained relationship; it's better now, partly because Bogomolov's present ranking (a career-high No. 33) gained him direct entry into two ATP events in Russia in recent weeks—nice work from a guy who couldn't survive qualifying to make the main draw of the Australian Open at the beginning of this year.

Bogomolov Jr., who has dual citizenship, did well in his homeland—he was a quarterfinalist in Moscow (lost to Viktor Troicki) and a semifinalist in St. Petersburg (lost to Janko Tisparevic). He also re-connected with his dad, although Bogomolov admits that he still won't speak with his dad after a loss—only if he wins. You might think Bogomolov Jr. would see the way all the help and support he received here has been instrumental in his success, especially after his father left. And you'd think he'd be aware of the role that help played in this apparent semi-reconciliation with his dad. In fact, there may not be a more appropriate way for Bogomolov to quietly close this somewhat strange and painful narrative than by representing his adopted homeland on some tennis court.

Which is why Bogomolov's intentions just don't make sense to me. All I can think is that Junior wants to play Davis Cup for Russia because, in some bizarre way, he still wants craves the approval of his dad (what better way to earn it than by playing Davis Cup for Russia?), or perhaps he just wants to one-up his dad, rub his nose in the success he's enjoyed without support from his semi-famous father—what better way to demonstrate that Senior made a big mistake abandoning his family and giving up on Junior? But the Bogomolovs' family issues are of lesser interest to me than the fact that he's brazenly gaming the system. All other things aside, the word "ingrate" comes to mind.

-- Pete Bodo, Tennis.com

Following which this happened.

Further words were exchanged with tennis illuminati.

Twitter silliness ensued.

You get the idea.

[WARNING: This is not a blog smackdown of Pete Bodo. I even get uncomfortably close to agreeing with him at one point. Caution is advised as this has been known to to induce seizure in some]

-- The Devils advocate in me wants to point out that Bogo shouldn't be surprised his choices ruffled a few American feathers.

-- I’m not even sure I disagree with Bodo on the issue of loyalty (though players switching nationalities, indeed, countries poaching players, is hardly something that began yesterday)

-- I only wish he hadn’t brought Bogo’s dad into it – Bodo would still be treated with the customary contempt we’re all used to (“trendy”, kneejerk contempt I don’t always agree with), but it might then at least be considered (or ridiculed) on merit alone.

-- As it stands, Bodo has shot himself in the foot and given his detractors a reason to shoot him in the other one. He should know by now they don’t usually need one.

-- Family is generally off limits at the best of times. Family strife – unless that strife forces its way into the public eye the way Damir Dokic did (in which case it BECOMES the story) – most definitely is.

-- With that in mind, it’s really quite shabby dragging in someone’s difficult family circumstances – a situation Dima rightly points out Bodo knows nothing about – into the making of a point which could be argued either way.

-- Dare I say it, the article has the air of the type of Cold War antagonism you sometimes continue to hear from people “of a certain age”. The type of people that are noticeably less scornful when it’s their own country doing the poaching, as some argue the US did with Andrea Collarini.

-- I’m not sure that’s so very deserving of the respect Cronin insists upon, much as I agree with the idea that the experience and wisdom that supposedly comes with age doesn’t always get the respect that it is due.

-- But returning to playing devils advocate again, I still don’t think Bogo should be surprised his actions caused annoyance. And I don’t think anyone else should either.

-- I get that articles about “milk maids” invite ridicule, but don’t let’s use Bodo’s blunder as a smokescreen to evade tackling a thorny issue – even (and especially) when it’s more fun to ridicule.

-- Believe it or not, there’s a perfectly valid argument to be made in favour of loyalty, whatever you might think of Bodo and whatever his prejudices may or may not be. Players are, of course, free to jump ship and countries will continue to poach, but they shouldn’t expect to emerge from it smelling of roses.

WTA Championships: 10 Post-Istanbul Thoughts

2011-11-01T20:28:00.001Z

1) A Slam, A Premier-Mandatory, A Premier, A couple of International titles and, of course, the WTA Championships.

That’s a win at every level, and on every surface. Look even closer and you’ll see she also snuck in a straight sets win over Kim Clijsters back in February.

No Premier-5 though – I say she’s not trying hard enough.

You might have pronounced Petra ‘player of the year’ last week even if she hadn’t won Istanbul. You’d be a fool not to now. Caro? Stosur? Li? Kim? No one even comes close.

2) Her play wasn’t always as stellar as it was, say, at Wimbledon (where she only dropped one set – also to Azarenka).

But in terms of finding that elusive middle ground, that ability to win matches without recourse to her thermonuclear A-Game, it was arguably more impressive. More impressive and more beneficial, I’d say, than blitzing any number of top-tenners in straights.

3) Petra saved 4 BPs in the opening game of the final set. Vika was well into her stride by then.

In the ‘What If?’ scenario that sees Vika convert one of those BPs, it’s not a stretch to conceive of her going on to win the title. The 6-3 scoreline doesn’t do justice to how close that final set sometimes got.

4) Number one ranking?

Petra has to defend Brisbane (280 pts), an Aussie Open QF (500 pts) and Paris (470)….and all of that’s just by the first week of February.

For all the “Caro’s days are numbered” jibes, dislodging her might prove harder than you think.

There may only be 115 pts in it, Petra may be a better player than Caro, she may even be the “enSlammed” #1 we’ve been waiting for – and Lord knows we’ve put in the miles – even so, defending points is a whole different dynamic, and not one I’m especially confident Petra’s suited to.

Besides, you know who else knows how to put in the miles? Caro. It’s what she does. Give her that, if nothing else.

5) Vika may have more flair (and more tongue) than Caro, but she suffers from exactly the same problem vis-à-vis the big hitters, which, of course, includes Petra.

That’ll probably continue to be a problem, certainly in respect of Serena.

Even so, her second set against Serena at the USO (the one after she got breadsticked) was probably the best you’ll see all year; and no one that saw the final last week will dispute there were even times against Petra where she seemed to give as good as she got.

That might, you know, come in handy next year.

6) If you’re going to rip on Caro for not performing at the Slams then you must, by the same token, have something to say on those that are unable to perform outside of them. Quid pro quo.

I’ve done my share of defending the WTA from unnecessary flak, but Li and Stosur’s top ten ranking comes with air quotes until further notice.

The only reason Sam didn’t receive more censure for her epic meltdown against Vika (group stages) is that it was eclipsed by Li’s more cataclysmic one only a day later.

Not to be unkind but, with Pova’s injury, Stosur making the semis was more coincidental than anything else – heaven knows how she might (or might not) have fared against Bartoli.

7) Bepa’s opener against Caro was the single best set of tennis in the entire championships – her final set against Aga was the single most monumental choke.

The dramedy of blowing 3 match points over 3 masochistic sets is always to be preferred over the economy of a straight sets win. Bepanomics.

8) The Petra-dactyl squawk (and Pojd) is here to stay. Deal with it.

Asking someone their thoughts on fistpumping on UFEs is akin to asking about abortion or the death penalty.

My view? People are getting way too precious over this. It’s out of control – more out of control, dare I say it, than either the fistpumping or grunting itself.

Is it really that difficult to make an intellectual distinction between something the players do, almost reflexively, to keep mentally anchored in that “winning place” and a crude, malicious form of gamesmanship?

Needless to say Vika, and I suspect most every other player, couldn’t care less:

"Oh, yeah, it's pretty loud, but it's okay. [But] I don't care about that. You know, whatever helps players to be better. That's her own way. I have to respect that. I just think that every player, as every person who is spectator or whatever, has to respect the players for what they do on the court. I don't think she does it to piss somebody off. It's just her own way to pump herself up. You know, somebody has to jump around, somebody have [sic] to say bad words or whatever. It's their own way."

-- Azarenka

Is it loud? Poor form? Yes, and I would prefer that neither Petra nor Ana did it.

But then neither is it on quite the same order as Global Warming or the Credit Crunch. It’s not even a “hindrance” which is something we can take action against.

And you know what’s far more troubling? The quite appalling double standards that continue to exist around the issue.

How some quite merrily hand a free pass to players they obviously like (whether that’s Ana, Petra or anyone else) but feel obliged to whip themselves up into a state of hysteria over those they don’t – witness the amount of quite hideous invective Domi receives from otherwise sensible people for doing exactly the same thing. No, wait…that’s not quite right - others get a free pass for even deliberate gamesmanship.

9) Marion came and Marion went….and Marion left her own indelible mark on proceedings the way she always does.

As always, we expected nothing less.

10) Aside from that little post-Marion episode that saw Vika booed off court (only to be rehabilitated just 48 hours later), the Istanbul crowd seemed courteous, fair, appreciative and not at all given over to applauding UFEs from anyone.

No biggie, but also not something we see often enough from crowds at, say, the Grand Slam hosting nations.

WTA Championships: Pre-Finals Catchup

2011-10-29T22:34:00.001+01:00

12 RR matches and 2 SFs later we have our finalists.

And, truth be told, it’s exactly who we thought it would and should be.

Vika’s start went swimmingly. Hardly surprising, what with Pova being injured and Li and Stosur playing at being Li and Stosur [not to be unkind, but both their top ten rankings come with air-quotes until further notice]

But whatever you might say about those last two (and believe me I’m holding back), Vika came through those matches playing as well as we know she can – the remaining “dead” RR match merely a formality, yes? No.

Nothing’s ever quite that simple with Marion (1st alternate) is it? Win or lose, you just know some volatile sh*t will ensue – and there won’t be anything “merely” about it.

My feeling was, not only that she would make a point of sullying Vika’s unbeaten record, but also that she would do so in straights. Mostly because this would be a most Marion-like thing to do. But, really, with it being a dead RR match, and with no less than $115K at stake, what else was gonna happen?

We all saw what happened. And it didn’t end well for Vika.

You can generally glean all you want to know about someone by their attitude to a) fistpumping and b) tanking.

I know how much controversy this “tanking” thing generated on Twitter – heck, Vika got booed off court by a crowd that (up to that point) had been appreciative, respectful, fair, and not at all given over to applauding UFEs from anyone.

But really, what else would you have her do? She might perhaps have looked a little less irritable (and committed earlier to either winning or losing more economically), but expecting her to thrash it out late into the night in a dead match before a potentially career-defining SF is hopelessly naive.

Petra’s story, like her matches, is far less complicated.

Her A-Game beats everyone – without it, she loses to most anyone. If you’re bored of hearing that, it’s because it’s true. There’s practically Cliff Notes to that effect.

Petra mostly brought that A-game – her one and only blip in the group stages coming against Agnieszka, a match she still went on to win in straights. And today’s semi against Sam saw her drop her first set of the week.

Yet it wasn’t with recourse to the A-game without which her critics insist she is hopelessly vulnerable that she got through either of those two matches. Not for the most part. And maybe that’s not such a bad thing.

Blitzing opponents in straights is fun but its no substitute for exactly the kind of matchplay Petra needs – winning without your A-game, winning ugly, winning ugly-on-the-inside, whatever you want to call it.

ATP Slapstick: Janko Tipsarevic and Gael Monfils on the verge of qualifying for London

2011-10-24T19:31:00.001+01:00

So here’s an experiment. Try standing in front of a mirror with your hands behind your back, staring eye-to-eye at your reflection, and saying ‘Gael Monfils, number one seed’ out loud 10 times without pause (keep looking at the mirror).

If you make it past ‘four’ without the trace of a snicker (and without the aid of some sort of biochemical suppressant), I put it to you that your synapses are wired the wrong way and that you should probably be kept away from young children.

That’s where I was (or rather wasn’t) with Stockholm all week. Any tournament with Gael, or for that matter Janko, as its top seed needs to go away and do some thinking. Unless you’re in the business of slapstick.

But credit where it’s due.

Both Janko and Gael and, incidentally, Dolgopolov were *and are* in contention for London. They knew it – tennis mathletes certainly knew it.

Normally, that kind of demand is Gael’s cue to slide into a bunch of line judges or to go jump through a window – anything but win the requisite number of matches.

But he didn’t implode, not by that or any other means – and neither did Janko. Both men, instead, somewhat untrue to form, went on to win events in which they were (however laughably) deemed by the numbers to be the top seeds. In other words, they lived up to their billing. And that deserves recognition.

That, incidentally, is Janko’s second title in three weeks – also his second overall. With an appetite like that he might actually wind up qualifying for London (straight face and keep staring at the mirror). This must be why those hoity-toitys at the top of the rankings want to shorten the season.

Dolgo, on the other hand, has just gone out to Dudi Sela in St Petersburg this morning for the loss of only four games. Just last week he lost his opener to Jeremy Chardy, also in straight sets. That deserves recognition too – if only because it’s recognisably stupid.

With all due respect to those other two, only a nincompoop loses that meekly when there’s so much at stake.

Either he doesn’t get it, or he just can’t help himself. Or both. He’s “not wired properly up there” either.

(pics: Getty)

Pipsqueaks win titles too

2011-10-24T19:30:00.000+01:00

It’s kind of an open secret how underrated, and hated, Domi is on so very many incomprehensible levels. Heaping abuse on her as your particular fave “comes of age” or “returns to form”, is practically a rite of passage – had Kanepi had more of a following, and had she come through in Moscow, it would have been no different.

I’ve never quite understood the potency of some of the rage she seems to give rise to – it seems to me to be disproportionate and it always seems to come from people willing to give a free pass to behaviour that is far worse.

Haters to the left – it can’t be easy being “ugly on the inside”.

My guess is, she’ll continue to be little more than an annoying pipsqueak for some, and nothing less than the spawn of Satan for an astonishingly large number of other, otherwise sensible, people. Much as I might question the incredibly fuzzy logic and the quite laughable double standards, each to their own.

What is undeniable, is that this one was long overdue – you don’t, I hope, need to be “a fan” in order to see that.

Having reached the fourth round or better at every Slam (RG SF in 2009), and with previous wins over the likes of Venus Williams and Kirilenko, Wozniacki, Zvonareva, Kuznetsova, Sharapova, Goerges and Schiavone just this season, I don’t think I’m reaching when I say that not having a single WTA title to your name signals the worst kind of underachievement.

Charting Petra Kvitova’s success and other ‘Voodoo Economics’

2011-10-17T22:32:00.001+01:00

I suppose we can say Petra’s back. Her demolition of Dani was the best match I’ve seen her play since Wimbledon, and the rest of her week wasn’t half bad either.

Trouble is, ideas about form and consistency never really resonate very much with players like her. I daresay they’re not meant to.

I’ve heard her being compared to a number of players – Mary Pearce, elements of both of the Williamses, and even Juan Martin del Potro.

All those analogies have some truth to them but she seems to me to have more in common with someone she neither looks like nor plays like. Svetlana Kuznetsova.

Neither has the the sense or it seems the desire to control their seemingly unending (surface-neutral) talent – they simply don’t come equipped with the requisite hardware. Neither seems very fussed when things go awry, as they often do. Both are hard-wired to keep on doing what they do, however gloriously stupid – corrective action, it seems, is for pussies….and for those silly people concerned about winning matches.

It’s this unrestrained yet frustratingly laid-back approach that can either lead to the most frightening (and in Sveta’s case the most symphonic) beatdowns you’ll likely ever see, or simply days where neither would last even a few games on the Challenger tour.

And it’s for this reason Sveta has two rather than five or six Slams. The truth is, at this point, I can’t see Petra’s career trajectory being all that different – she’s definitely no week-in-week-out type, but you just know she’ll pull off something utterly astonishing when all the working parts of her mental apparatus (of which there are many) synchronise.

Since I recounted her win at Wimbledon, precious little appears to have changed, except maybe, for one thing.

That look of mild annoyance she sometimes exhibits after an UFE is still there. It’s her modus operandi – her way of dealing with errors. It doesn’t last very long and she’s generally ready to move on almost immediately. No need to linger in negativity the way some do. Exactly the way it should be. Except when things go wrong. Which is when ‘moving on immediately’ becomes precisely the wrong play. You rob yourself of time to reconsider. Valuable time in which she needs to reconsider.

But in Linz I saw more than mild annoyance. There was a lot of stopping and starting and staring, perhaps even some flouncing. She appeared almost to be have been coached to take stock, to take a moment to really see and to really feel the error of her ways. Or, to put it another way “to go to the naughty zone and think about what you’ve done”.

It worked. This time. Particularly in the way she was able to stop herself from going completely haywire against JJ – you got a sense, at times, she was headed for precisely that. You also got a sense that ploughing through recklessly the way she normally does would have hastened her demise.

But there’ll still be days when she’ll have more success ploughing through in exactly that way – for that too is her modus operandi, it’s written right into her DNA. And that will have been ok too.

There’s no universal recipe for success. It simply doesn’t exist. Don’t buy the dope being peddled by those pretending it does.

Individual success is dependent on an unruly and an unholy blend of factors including your own temperament, your opponent, the type of day they’re having, the type of day you’re having, surface, conditions, the matchup, sheer luck and the colour of your socks. It’s not a stretch to think of it all as a type of Voodoo. You hire coaches (perhaps we should think of them as tennis shamans) to get a handle on all that volatile shit.

And some days there’ll simply be no rational explanation for why exactly you won a match. It just happens. Most players are simply happy to put it behind them. Yet scores of commentators will be professing confident sounding theories on exactly what you did right and why you should keep at it. Just like they do in the stock market. Voodoo Economics.

Trouble is, if you lose using those same tactics, they’ll suddenly all be construed as mistakes, miscalculations and mayhem. Also just like the stock market. And just like ARod said they always do.

The truth is, Petra, like many alongside her, is simply learning to navigate that treacherous balance of guile, pace, steel and hard work. Learning to apply just the right amount of each at just the right time. Knowing when to hold back is just as important, and a lot of times you’re simply winning ugly.

If there is a deep, mystical truth in any of this, perhaps it’s this: no two players’ experience can every be the same because no two players are the same. Ergo, no two players’ journey should be the same. Everyone has their own bag of tricks they’ve been endowed with and you’ve just got to figure it for yourself.

You won’t always win. But someone will always be ready to explain why you didn’t.

What Andy Murray’s Win in Shanghai does (or doesn’t) mean.

2011-10-17T13:17:00.001+01:00

There’s three camps with regards to Murray’s clean sweep of the Asian swing:

1) The overtly hostile: “Whatever. Fed and Djoko were absent, and besides, Grand Slams (preferably more than one of them), in case you missed it, trump the #3 ranking…”

2) The easy to please: “OMG…3 BACK-TO-BACK WINS!! AND DISPOSSESSING FED OF THE #3 RANKING!! I THINK I JUST WET MYSELF, BUT IT WAS TOTALLY WORTH IT…” (I really doubt Federer cares very much)

3) Neither (or some of both) of the above.

The third category is interesting. Not only because I’m a member (duh), but because of its diverse composition: we’re talking, not simply of blinkered Andy fans (though there are those too), not just of those preoccupied with undercutting everything he does because he hasn’t won a Slam (plenty of those too), but also the so-called ‘silent majority’ that simply don’t give a crap one way or the other, but know good tennis when they see it.

For my part – spoken as a fan – I just can’t see the point of him winning these titles anymore. They may even be hindering him.

Quite apart from the “Slamless” derision it’ll inevitably provoke, and quite apart from what the #3 ranking may or may not represent, we already know he’s capable of winning at this level with Fed, Rafa and Nole in the draw – should he not be expected to win when neither is around?

An eighth Masters title is less an indication of “where he’s at” than it is a confirmation of the status quo that's existed for a few years: a frustrating hinterland situated in between beating those big three in the second week of a Slam on the one hand (not nearly enough of this), and dominating the rest of the tour on the other (more than enough of this).

Murray owns that zone like no other – he’s practically Mayor of it. It’s where he’s been since he went on that tear at the end of 2008 and it’s where he is now.

It’s not quite a “no-man’s land” (Daveed still has no Masters titles to his name and up until a few weeks ago Janko had no titles at all), though it may as well be if (perish the thought) he isn’t destined to move on to bigger and better things.

The Slamless derision will exist no matter what – when, and if, he actually wins one, he’ll be duly promoted to a “one Slam wonder”.

And whilst it’s ridiculous to pretend the #3 ranking means nothing at all (at the very least it indicates reaching 4 Slam SFs might, you know, be a good thing) – it’s equally ridiculous to carry on as if we’ve not been here before. Consider yourself a Murray fan? Well stop selling him (and yourself ) so short.

There’s those that will argue (as they always do) that its necessary to acquire “momentum” and that “winning begets winning”. No it isn’t, and no it doesn’t. Not always.

Juan Martin Del Potro went through both Rafa AND Fed to win the USO, yet still hasn’t a single Masters title to his name. I’d say 8 Masters titles and 3 very long Slamless years in the top 4 render ‘momentum theory’ defunct – the terms of reference have simply moved on.

Words like “momentum” should, in any case, only ever feature in the discourse surrounding “upcoming” players and “nearly-men” like Marin Cilic and Daveed Ferrer. Murray is neither – he hasn’t been for many years.

By the same token (and whether we like it or not), beating Rafa in the final of a Slam trumps bagelling him (for the loss of only 4 points) in the final of Tokyo or anywhere else.

That’s not to say 3 back-to-back wins are to be taken lightly – at the very least it proves he hasn’t regressed. But it says little or nothing about the role “momentum” may play in his future – there’s almost a case, now, to say he could do with a little less.

Nor, as many are apt to, should those wins be thought of as “stepping stones” to the Slams – some stepping stones merely lead to the bottom of a ditch.

Empty Euphoria

2011-10-11T18:20:00.001+01:00

I’ve been finding it difficult to get into anything like the hoopla some have been in over Muzz’s back-to-back titles in Bangkok and Tokyo, the latter of which saw him bagel Rafa in the final.

This is of course, completely at odds with the Long-Suffering Fan’s Code of Conduct, the lengthiest chapter of which is entitled “Taking the Win”. It’s about loyalty, about finding positives in any victory, finding reasons to cheer any title, however Mickey Mouse. That sort of thing.

In other words, IT’S WHAT YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO DO. Particularly when your guy/gal struggles with what we like to call “the big moments”. When they eventually do get through those moments, they’re that much sweeter. That’s the theory.

It’s not that I haven’t being trying. You couldn’t fail to be impressed by the bagel, for example – a set Rafa only managed to win an absurd 4 points in.

Trouble is, it all has an uncomfortably distinctive whiff of late 2008, when Muzz could do no wrong (except, ya know, win the final of the USO). Since then, he’s notched up a total of 8 Masters title, reached a further two Slam finals and continued his wins over three of the best players the sports produced.

This year he reached the semis of all four Slams.

It’s a little difficult to get euphoric over him winning an ATP 500 after that – is this really what it has come to?

I won’t lie: there were times when it felt downright awkward that it should be Aga and Petko – rather than, say, Caro, Vika or even Marion – fighting for 1000 ranking points and $775K in prize money in the finals of one of the ‘big four’ events outside of the Slams. There were also times when (in the absence of Serena, Pova and Kim) I couldn’t think of anyone better.

Aga and Petko are two of the tours steadier players – trust me, there’s times when that word’s not a knock. They’re not giant-killers by any stretch; what they are is exactly the kind of player ready and willing (perhaps more than anyone) to fill the void wherever and whenever it occurs.

Aga’s been hovering at the periphery of the top 10 for a few years now. Petko’s rise in the last year has (not unlike Aga’s) been as steady (again, not a knock) as it has been enduring. Petko’s tears, therefore, at not converting on the easiest shot she might ever have at winning a Premier Mandatory, are understandable.

Yet, it was Aga (rather than Petko) with two Premiers and a Premier-5 already under her belt. And it was Aga (rather than Petko) on something of a ‘streak’ with back-to-back non-Slam titles coming into this.

In other words, it was Aga (rather than Petko) that could be said to have anything like ‘pedigree’. The right woman won.

Andy Roddick and The ‘R’ Word: “A Cultural Thing”?

2011-10-04T21:36:00.001+01:00

Ever since this story broke there’s been a gaggle of commenters siding with Roddick over the dumb journo that dared speaketh The ‘R’ Word.

(video via TheDailyForehand)

It’s not difficult to see why – I mostly agree with them. Still, things are rarely that clear cut. They’re even less clear when different cultures are involved.

Despite that, as uneasy as I was with both the questioning *and* Roddick’s reaction to it, what really irked was the lazy idea quickly doing the rounds that this was “a cultural thing”.

Even if you believe that (I don’t), there’s a basic contradiction inherent in only cursorily invoking something as complex and contentious as “culture”. The rule, normally, is to steer well clear of it; or else, be prepared to go the whole hog: anything less is likely to lead to misunderstandings.

Lazy invocations of “culture”, in the present case, could be taken to imply:

-- the hosts don’t know enough about the sport to appreciate the inappropriate nature of the question. Pretty sure that’s not true.

-- that “dumb journo” questions don’t exist anywhere else. I KNOW that’s not true: even if the “dumb journo” thing were “cultural” it wouldn’t be exclusive to any one culture – idiocy was globalised well before globalisation.

There is a third possibility. But it demands a far more rigorous and nuanced treatment of the word “culture”. The kind of treatment a 140 character limit doesn’t lend itself to.

Culture mostly operates as a self contained ecosystem. It’s not always insular, but even in this globalised age stuff from the outside not deemed relevant is allowed to fly past. Other stuff (maybe not deemed relevant elsewhere) may hold a peculiar local interest and would, as such, be allowed to permeate that ecosystem; in particular, this may provoke a reaction from its inhabitants deemed peculiar by the outside world. Its a curious and complex interplay that isn’t very predictable and doesn’t always end well.

I’m not much convinced this is one of those instances: some countries (as many were at pains to point out yesterday) might be more up front in the way they tackle certain issues, but I’m not sure speculating about someone’s demise is particularly welcome anywhere.

And even if that were the case, should a journo not be expected to know that might be particularly unwelcome to Roddick (he seemed to have done his homework in respect of other Roddick quotage).

”Culture” may have taken a little edge off it (or not), but this was, otherwise, a straight up case of the (spectacularly) “dumb journo”. We’ve met him/her before. Don’t lets complicate matters by invoking culture – especially if you’re not prepared to get dirty defining what that actually is.

Flipside: should Roddick have been so insulting in a country he’ll likely only visit once a year (if that)? A country which (despite Li’s monumental efforts) still only has a developing tennis tradition – one where you might argue someone of his standing should be doing rather more promoting and rather less alienating. And yes, one where cultural differences might still yield the occasional awkward moment (if that’s really what this was) – moments that surely warrant a little more tolerance.

Pope’s Catholic, Dawkins Atheist, Caro passive…

2011-09-30T22:05:00.001+01:00

Caroline Wozniacki went out in three hairy sets to Kaia Kanepi in Tokyo yesterday.

Cue the expected, derisory chorus calling into question not just her #1 ranking and style of play, but also her taste in men, not to mention the very essence of her being.

Things don’t improve very much once you get past all that blather either, as the narrative surrounding Caro’s now been hijacked by two equally blinkered points of view.

Depending on whom you speak with, losses like this are either simply symptomatic of the passive nature of her game we’ve come to know so much of over the past two years, or inexplicable, inexcusable shockers.

The truth, as always, is sandwiched somewhere inconspicuously in between the two extremes.

Passive doesn’t win Slams. We know this. Passive may bag you shedloads of ranking points but it isn’t nearly enough to beat the tour’s elite. We hold these truths to be self-evident because they are (and, consequently, need not be drilled into us anymore).

But passive sometimes also gets beaten at the lower tier events by lower ranked talents in their element. And when that happens you always seem to get a raft of analysts feigning shock, horror – disgust even.

Yet then, as now, the loss is down to passive being trumped by daring, unflinching, aggressive play. Nothing more, nothing less. Don’t let’s go pretending Kaia’s incapable of that.

The other unhelpful extreme is to pretend that absolutely nothing has been remiss with Miss Wozniacki this year. There was that loss to Petko in Miami in which she posted a staggering 52 UFEs. Followed by two consecutive losses to Goerges in April. Perhaps understandably thereafter, even in matches she’s won, her confidence has seemed dented in a way which simply wasn’t a problem even 8 months back.

Bleat all you want about the merits (and demerits) of passive play, but it’s kind of a big deal when a player that struggles to hit double digit winners begins hitting double digit UFEs – sometimes on a scale that would be considered triple digits for anyone else.

The Asterisk and its discontents.

2011-09-30T22:00:00.000+01:00

Having said that, I also sense that fans are really contorting themselves to come up with reasons to undercut Djokovic's season. He could fail to win another match the rest of the year, rendering it a moot point. But as of today, his record is a joke, especially given the quality of his contemporaries. We're talking about losing three matches at a time when two of the best, what, five (?) players ever are ranked No. 2 and No. 3. Give the man his due.

-- Wertheim’s mailbag, SI.com

What say you? Are people really jumping through hoops in order to “undercut”, qualify or otherwise asterisk Novak’s year?

I’d say they almost certainly are – without a doubt. Should we be surprised? It almost always happens in the face of domination of any sort.

If, for example, you were to believe just half of what passed for “reasoned opinion” over the past decade, Fed simply made the most of a “weak-era” and Rafa was never anything more than a “glorified clay-courter” who made the most of his physical gifts. Talent, it seems, had little to do with it.

Whilst at least some of that may be based on a distorted truth of sorts, it’s mostly the work of asterisk-toting Neanderthals that don’t care to give credit where its due. Novak’s treatment’s certainly no different in that respect.

That said, perhaps I can forgive a little eye-rolling (though no more than eye-rolling) on the part of Fed fans, who are continually told to accept Novak’s run as the “best on record” – a feat their guy accomplished three times over (inc. the WTFs).

I’ve no time and and ZERO tolerance for those that undercut any player’s once-in-a-lifetime achievements with lazy, ideological asterisks.

But if you’re going to qualify all of Fed’s years by citing a weak era (a lazy theory at the best of times), is it not just a tad hypocritical not to factor in his age and ailing form/physique now?

USO: BOSS.

2011-09-14T20:07:00.001+01:00

I know how some are serenading this as one of the matches of the year. I didn’t quite see it that way.

Sure, there was some eye-wateringly, magnificent tennis, but if we’re honest, most of that came in set three. Yes, there were some 12-15 minute games (most of which were down to Rafa struggling to hold serve), but outside of that I only saw Novak bossing Rafa around from the back of the court – the only shock was in how easy he made it look.

That doesn’t maketh for a greateth match – however impossibly high Novak’s level was.

For large parts of the match Rafa simply looked utterly defenceless (and “offenceless”) out there; Novak was raining down blows on him from every angle. At will.

I’ve not seen him brutalised that way since Sod worked him over at RG back in 2009.

To be honest, I’m not putting much stock in the “Nadal has a Djokovic problem” theory right now because, quite frankly, everyone has that same problem – only the most obtuse Rafanatic will pretend he’s not struggling but it’s worth remembering Rafa’s only losing finals to Novak because he’s making those finals in the first place. Let’s wait a little and see how this story unfurls.

"In the previous years, I hadn't changed my game in any big way and my strokes were still the same and was hitting the shots I wanted to hit.

"But I had difficulties approaching semi-finals and finals. I would wait for players to make mistakes. I didn't have the positive attitude. That has changed now - the 2010 US Open [four-set defeat by Nadal] was the turning point.

"I guess it just clicked in my head. It's just that I'm hitting the shots that I maybe wasn't hitting in the last two, three years now. I'm going for it."
-- Novak Djokovic, BBC Tennis.

Quite apart from all the racquet changes, coaching changes, oxygen pod mystique and gluten free paraphernalia, Novak’s simply back to playing aggressive tennis again and with his ability, that tends to win you shedloads of tennis matches – in this case at the highest of levels. It’s the same unabashed, relentless (if matured) tennis that won him his first Slam.

And when you do that against Nadal on a hard court, he can be made to look very ordinary – and not just by the very best either.

(Pics: Getty)

USO: Talk about under the radar.

2011-09-12T15:30:00.001+01:00

Just over two years ago a two-time doubles Slam winner declared her intent to focus more on singles. Beyond giving a nod to her very evident talent, I can’t, in all honesty, say how seriously I took that.

I’m taking my time over this one. Because, frankly, it’s as good as Fran’s RG win last year (a match in which Sam played bridesmaid) – perhaps even better considering the class of her legendary opponent.

Though the final was overshadowed by the incident with the umpire and Serena’s subsequent outburst, I choose to remember it for Sam’s composure – quite simply a flawless performance from beginning to end.

Even after the 2nd set debacle when fan, foe and frenemy alike all expected her (rather than Serena) to horribly derail, she mystifyingly kept her cool and served it out using the diverse all court game that has already bagged her a couple of doubles Slam titles.

Whilst it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge that Serena delivered a shocker (only 3/14 first serves in after first few games), it would be even greater folly to let that detract from the sheer quality of Sam’s execution which, quite simply, caught EVERYONE by surprise.

With a blend of serves out wide, crunching winners from the back of the court, Sam moved Serena around more in the opening couple of games than Caro was able to in the entire first set– that’s not a knock on Caro, its a manifest reality.

Besides, not even legends are immune from throwing in the odd stinker of a match now and again (just ask Federer) – its part and parcel of the sport. Serena acknowledged as much afterwards – asterisks are for pussies.

As for the incident, a hindrance rule clearly exists and it’s difficult to argue against its application – even where “application” equals little more than the application of discretion. Henin’s been docked a point for ALLEZ’ing mid point in the past, Bartoli got precisely the same treatment at this very event.

Same umpire, different ruling.

All the above video shows, is that even withstanding the differing rules that may exist across the ITF and WTA – and as with foot faulting – discretion remains part and parcel of the process with which that hindrance rule is applied.

But there the similarity with foot-faulting ends: the 2009 foot-fault didn’t confer a competitive advantage on Serena – specific stipulations even guide officials not to get involved, particularly in the latter stages of a match. No one wants a Slam final decided by an academic dispute.

Making noise mid rally, however, is an actionable violation of the rules – however innocuous the yelp may have been. Even if it didn’t hinder Stosur (and it’s not clear it didn’t), Asderaki was within her rights to either require the point to be replayed or to award the point to the opponent – both are an instance of discretion and that’s precisely what Asderaki showed. She certainly didn’t deserve being called a “hater” or “unattractive on the inside”. All things considered, I’d say she acted with remarkable restraint.

And I don’t buy the theory that Serena’s hostile reaction is a a residual effect of any of the various outlandish controversies she’s had to endure over the years either (and there’ve been a few) – she simply is what she is, flawed, serene and utterly magnificent.

To be perfectly honest, she’s reacted quite admirably to some of those controversies, but this time she was bang out of order. And calling that out ain’t hate – quite the reverse, in fact.

In 2006 a certain French former #1 declared that talk about her nerves (“iconic” for all the wrong reasons) was off limits now that she’d served it out at Wimbledon over one of the best players of the past decade. She reverted back to her delightfully panic-stricken self not soon after.

As with Amelie then, quite frankly, I’d be astonished if this serves as some kind of watershed moment that sees Stosur no longer held hostage by her nerves – those wide-eyed nervous looks and blowing on her hand in between every point are an utterly glorious defence mechanism that form part of her appeal.

But as with Amelie then, for one day (and maybe only for one day) she didn’t flinch, not even when controversy, her own predisposition to mid match anxiety attacks, and a now fired up living-legend on the other side of the net demanded she should.

Not gonna let loose ambiguous talk of “class” and “umpire discretion” get in the way of that.

USO: Sooper Dooper Saturday.

2011-09-10T14:16:00.001+01:00

For all the analysis that you’ll see in the build up to this one, I’m not much convinced anything matters more than their respective form coming into this…which has been sublime.

Both men know how to play on all surfaces. Both rely on a multitude of weapons rather than any single WMD to bring their opponents down. Both have an appetite for victory which is, perhaps, second to none – preferably over each other.

Sure, Novak might have the slight edge in terms of age and what he’s achieved this year – but how much does that really matter with the day’s rest and both having only dropped a set to get here?

I want five sets. We’ll almost certainly get four. Broken glass and blood all over the place.

Oh I know he got “medieval” on Roddick’s a*s last night, and I also know how one match like that is sometimes all Rafa needs to light the touch paper. I’m still not much convinced his level of play is quite up there with the rest of the top four – and certainly not comparable with what we’ve seen from Novak and Roger over the past week.

Murray’s made all four Slam semis this year: almost an academic point now that he’s a regular feature of the business end of most majors. Even so, that has to count for something, as does the fact that all his wins over Rafa have been on hard courts.

In some ways, an even more loaded match than any of the mens semis.

If Serena plays the way she did in the first set against Vika, Caro will be lucky to get more than a handful of games.

Except that hasn’t quite been the story of the fortnight.

If she plays as loosely as she opened against Ana or Pavlyuchenkova, Caro is well-equipped (perhaps more than anyone) to make her work for it.

What happens from that point on depends largely on Serena’s ability to shorten rallies and keep the UFEs in check. Caro’s only chance lies in doing the precise opposite – if she can move Serena around and lengthen the rallies, she certainly won’t be the first to tire, Serena will.

What will probably take place is something in between those two extremes.

It’s certainly not impossible for Caro to pull through in a tight third set. I think I might even prefer that if only to see her haters squirm. We also need to see an end to the “real number one” debate. I’ve never been one of those that thought the rankings system was at fault – but if she pulls this off, bitchers will continue to bitch and the hatred will be exposed for the vindictive, ideological hoax that it is.

What or who is Angelique Kerber? And since when does Sam Stosur make Slam semis again? On surfaces other than clay?

If you’ve been following the scheduling kerfuffle over the past few days you’ll know that we’re not supposed to be treating either of these two women as serious Slam semi-finalists.

Even now (“Super Saturday”), there’s not a single photo of Stosur in Yahoo’s tennis photostream. Not one. (Hint: The shabby treatment extends further than mere tournament administrators).

I get that the schedulers have had to deal with an insane number of nightmarish factors this time round, including rain delays, a visit by FLOTUS, 911 commemorations and water bubbles appearing on Louis Armstrong. I get that this has sometimes meant those schedulers coming in for an unwarranted shellacking by hot-heads that don’t know or care to understand the competing concerns they face.

I also know straight up disrespect when I see it.

Leaving aside that Sam is a two-time Slam finalist, this might be the one and only time Kerber ever gets to breath the air on Ashe. These, in short, are the moments players (however lowly) play for and live for – a far cry from a R1 loss to Laura Robson at Wimbledon this year. Heavens knows, she’s earnt the right.

Sam should pull through (you’d think) but heaven hath no fury like a journeywoman scorned.

And boy has she (and Sam) been scorned. Let there be no illusions about that.

USO: On moral superiority, double-standards and ideological dislike

2011-09-08T17:15:00.001+01:00

So when Caro gives a presser with a giant inflatable kangaroo or gate-crashes Novak’s presser, she’s a snivelling attention seeker. But when Petko boogie-woogies after her wins (in some cases over an injured opponent) or hosts those utterly try-hard spoof reporter skits, that’s her “being herself”, “entertaining”, a refreshing instance of “personality”. Got it.

Leaving aside the question of Caro’s latest little ill-judged PR disaster (and it was a disaster) or which of the two works the media better (I think we’re all agreed Petko’s more comfortable in her skin), there’s a wider question of double standards here that’s, frankly, beginning to grate.

Let’s stop pretending for a moment: both are engaged in attention seeking. I know Petko's supporters expend a lot of effort in dressing it up as something else but that’s precisely what it is, irrespective of which of the two does it better. Nothing wrong with that, though not everyone in the media spotlight chooses to go down that road.

More importantly, however, I think it’s a mistake to assume everyone finds Petko’s routines as adorable or entertaining as her supporters would have us believe. With precious few exceptions, I mostly find them just as try-hard as Caro’s ill-conceived efforts over the past year. Clearly that’s no reason to hate on her, but the moral superiority with which her supporters use them to laud her whilst simultaneously taking a sh*t on Caro is really too much.

Feel free to dislike Caro or anyone else, but drop the pretence that it’s down to this or that incident.

And this isn’t about Petko either whom I really quite like, or at least have come round to a little since managing to disentangle myself from the cloying narrative on her being “good for tennis” – which, if anything, has gotten in the way of getting to know her properly. Even so, I can’t say I’m especially sold on either. And even where I may have found things to appreciate in both women, none of that will have been because of their respective PR stunts.

My point is, whether you choose to loathe Caro as a simpering media whore, or serenade Petko as the second coming of Mary Poppins, both are based on little more than a subjective assessment – that slippery thing more commonly referred to as “taste”. And there’s an intrinsic hypocrisy at the heart of the idea that your preference for Petko’s stunts is based on anything more substantive than personal taste.

My own view is she’s a savvy enough individual to work her charms without resorting to gimmickry. I know how adorable so many seem to find such gimmickry – it’s not my cup of tea. But that too is a question of taste, and only taste – nothing more, nothing less. Its certainly not a reason to heap abuse on her the way some do on Caro, or to pretend we know anything about either woman.

Those who celebrate Petko will find reasons to do so even if it were her, and not Caro, impersonating Rafa in agony.

Those that hate on Caro, will find reasons to do so even where her attempts at humour are a little less ill-judged….they’re ideologically bound to.

Yet no quarter is spared by many of Petko’s fans or Caro’s haters in dressing up their feelings as something more elevated. It really isn’t – and pretending it is, is far more irritating than any number of inflatable kangaroos.

USO: Ready,Set, Draw…

2011-09-08T17:10:00.000+01:00

The last few weeks have been puzzling to put it mildly.

I haven’t been especially involved, but it seems we’ve stumbled into a strangely post-Fedal world, one in which Caro gets McHaled (twice), Mardy Fish wins the USO Series with relative ease and JJ….wins tennis matches. Yes that last one seems to get everyone to sit up and gape.

Even Novak Djokovic finally came unstuck in Cincy last week.

All of which is to say, I don’t claim to understand any of it. And I don’t believe anyone that claims to either.

Even so, there’s that small matter of the last Grand Slam of the year.

I’m in the midst of what I’d call one of life’s little crises right now – as such it’s very unlikely that I’ll be posting until the end of the first week, if that.

Until then. Enjoy.

Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Nole	Fed	Isner	ARod
~~Janko~~	Tsonga	Murray	Rafa

Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Caro	Serena	Kerber	Sam
~~Petko~~	~~Pavs~~	~~Flav~~	~~Bepa~~

Legend

Hoity-Toity

Upwardly-Mobile

Sympathy Vote

Ideas above their station

Stacked

-- Death and Taxes: Serena appears in Vika’s quarter. Not only that, but as an extra little treat from the draw faeries this year, the two will probably meet in R3. Huh.

-- Death and Taxes: Fed gets Nole in the SFs.

-- Feel free to disagree, but I also say Fed drew the shortest straw: Bella in R2, one of Bernie,Ryan or Marin in R3 and an almost certain QF date with one of Tsonga/Fish – that would be two of the hottest players on tour right now.

-- Obvious really, but having been “McHaled” twice recently and having only just signed on Coach ‘X’ (the identity of whom remains classified), Caro being upset before the semis would be of surprise to precisely no one.

-- Admit it: Rafa’s draw says less about his prospects as does his own lack of form right now. The way things are looking, its not a stretch to think Ferru could come through in this section.

-- A lot of people seem to think Pova’s gonna struggle. That’s almost certainly true. But it’s not because of who/what is in her draw. To be honest, her biggest pre-QF threat is probably Peng, and I can see her toughing that one out, seeing as toughing-out is pretty much what constitutes her A-game these days. Also, its pre-eminently possible Petra won’t survive into the QFs, so….

-- Wasn’t filled with confidence by Nole’s retirement in Cincy. I’m almost conceiving of an upset or, you know, that old-fashioned thing they call “getting beaten by a better player on the day”. Even so, with Tomas as his biggest threat, it’d be shocking to see him not make the SFs.

-- Remember him? Good. He’s the guy that put an end to Rogers 23 GS SF streak and Rafa’s unbeaten run at RG – two of the biggest streaks the sport’s seen. Bo Carl makes his first appearance on a tennis court since winning Bastad in early July. *RAWR*. He beat a certain Daveed Ferrer in the final there that day – the same guy that’s just usurped his #5 spot. He comes in with practically zero match play. As always with Bo, expect anything, everything and nothing at all.

-- Expect very little from Li and Petra.

-- Bepa’s section confuses the hell out of me. On the one hand, Domi, Venus and Sabine could all flake-out making Bepas route through to the QFs that much cleaner. Or they might do that thing where they all come to play tennis at the same time in which case your guess is as good as mine. In any case, consider this the most “happening” section of the draw.

USO: Week one Round Up

2011-09-05T15:21:00.001+01:00

1) “The match that must not be named”

This one was so bad I still have hangover as I write this.

Quite baffling to realise that up until this match I hadn’t seen very much of Robin Haase. I knew he was an edgy, flamboyant talent who’d been sidelined rather a lot by injury. Beyond that I had heard murmurings of his being a head case.

I now want to “unsee” him.

Not that Murray has anything to be proud of. Nothing these two can do will ever live this down.

We don’t need to analyse sh*t like this unless we’re interested in what happens when the laws of nature and the moral fabric of the universe break down.

What happened in Ashe stays in Ashe.

2) “Donald not-so-Young”

I suspect my perspective on Donald Young’s journey (there’s a euphemism) is somewhat different to most Americans. I’ve heard of the brattiness, the run-ins with the USTA, the complexities arising from his parental coaching relationship, of course, but it seems the impression left by this simply hasn’t been as affecting as it has for many on the other side of the pond. Only natural.

Most of the time I simply couldn’t care less, figuring he’s either not worth bothering with or will come of age in his own time.

Amongst other things, this meant I was prepared to vouch for his game without having to disentangle myself from the politics and the snark that I guess is part and parcel of following (and being let down by) a home grown talent – especially one that makes life so difficult for himself. What I don’t understand is snark for the sake of snark, particularly when it comes from those without any such domestic ties.

When he beat Murray earlier this year, he was mostly derided as ‘Donald Duck’. And Murray was ripped on for losing to ‘Donald Duck’. Few seemed to think it might have had anything to do with his game.

He didn’t follow up. Very few expected him to. Heavens knows if he’ll do it this time – I’m not completely sold on the “kid grew up” narrative, he may simply have had another good week. Besides, a 32-year old grinder isn’t the strongest competition.

But that defeat of Murray wasn’t a fluke. And neither is what we’ve seen this past week. And if (heaven forbid) he goes on to beat Murray again in R4, that won’t have been a fluke either.

3) “Dearth, not Death”

If you’ve been paying attention recently, you’ll have heard rather a lot on how tennis is supposed to be “dead” in all of the Grand Slam hosting nations, with the exception, I guess, of France.

I’m not gonna argue with that. That GB, Aus and the US are going through something of a dry spell talent-wise is common knowledge. Most of what you hear about it, however, is little more than blather. The kind of lazy, cliched blather that more usually goes along with talk of grunting, fist-pumping, and the rankings system.

A dearth is not the quite the same as death: of the 4 American WTA teenyboppers making noise this week, only one, Madison Keys, is ranked outside of the top 400 – two others are ranked in the top 100 (McHale at #55) with Sloane Stephens hovering just outside at #106.

Were they not to have made a splash this week, were you not nerdy enough to know their rankings and were you to have gone on headlines alone, you simply wouldn’t have known that.

4) Venus Williams

By now we will all have heard that Sjogrens Syndrome is a chronic auto-immune disorder in which the white cells attack the body’s own moisture producing glands. Symptoms include debilitating fatigue and joint pain.

We also know that there is no cure.

With a diagnosis as sobering as that, “Get Well Soon” well-wishes can seem woefully inadequate. A quick Wikipedia search will tell you that you don’t always “get well” from something like this – “symptom management” sometimes being the only option.

Venus has been an iconic feature of the tennis landscape for over a decade.

There’ll be hordes of melancholic fans whenever her career comes to end, whether that’s through ill health or it simply running its course.

Worth remembering, however, that we know next to nothing on how acutely she’s affected. Auto immune illnesses usually have a wide range of severity. Let us hope her case is moderate.

The other thing is that “symptom management” is not always as dreadful as it sounds. True that this can entail coping with, rather than freeing oneself of, a chronic illness – but it’s also true that the effects of that illness may be mitigated by lifestyle adjustment in less severe cases.

The real question is whether that’s sufficient to compete as an elite athlete in the sport she loves. Doubtless many will desire precisely that. But like a certain 22-time Slam Champion says, her first priority must be to regain her health – with or without tennis. No true fan should wish for anything less.

5) Li No and Petra KvitOver

Never have I felt so wrong about being right :(

Anyone that had been following both players this past year knew there would be a certain amount of “decompression” following their respective Slam epiphanies. My own view was that they were unlikely to reach the quarters and would probably end up going out in an unspectacular tussle in some forgotten corner of week one.

Yes they're both hit and miss. Yes they're both still reeling from the after effects of winning a Slam. Still, a first round exit for two top 10 Grand Slam Champs is unacceptable.

6) Serena v Vika – Match of the tournament.

The first set of this was Serena at her uber-intimidating best. As always, she was out to make a statement – Vika was mere collateral damage and barely managed one game.

The second set was likely the best you’ll see over the entire fortnight.

Some of Vika’s returns of serve may well go on to be remembered as the best tennis of her career. As always her fans are left to rue the fact that where others get serendipity, Vika gets…Serena Williams.

Try and think of the first player that came to mind as drawing the short straw when Serena’s #28 seeding was announced…..YEAH.

No, it doesn’t even surprise me anymore.

Caro parts ways with Piotr.

2011-08-19T15:35:00.001+01:00

World No. 1 Caroline Wozniacki and her father, Piotr, have ended their coaching relationship, Ekstra Bladet reports. The father and daughter apparently discussed her moving in another direction after Dominika Cibulkova upset Wozniacki at Wimbledon. The Wozniackis are said to have hired a new private coach to travel with Caroline, but he/she has yet to come on board, so Piotr went with Caroline to Toronto and Cincinnati.

Wozniacki fell in the opening round of both tournament, to Roberta Vinci in Toronto and to Christina McHale in Cincinnati. Piotr was heard yelling at the slumping Caroline when he came on court during her loss to McHale.
The identity of the new coach is so far unknown but is said to be a former touring pro.

Wozniacki's agent, Lagardere's John Tobias, confirmed to TENNIS.com that Piotr is stepping back, but said that no definitive hire of a new coach has been made yet.

Wozniacki has also worked with adidas Player Development coach Sven Groenefeld. Piotr Wozniacki, a former soccer player in Denmark, is said to have encouraged his daughter to try someone else out. Wozniacki, who has yet to win a Grand Slam, has been criticized for playing too defensively.

"We've heard from morning to night how Caroline should play," Piotr told the newspaper. "So now she tries something else. It is intended that she should be a very aggressive player. But as you can see, she cannot win matches right now, because she does not know how she should play. But whatever, I'm Caroline's father, and I will always support her."

She is scheduled to play in New Haven next week.

-- tennis.com

A few comments:

1) The Cibulkova “upset” at Wimbledon?

These are some of the players Domi’s beaten this year: Goerges at Wimbledon (R32), Sveta at Madrid (R64), Masha at Madrid (R32), Bepa at IW (R32).

Three of those have come in the last four months. You’ll note that the Wimbledon match in which Domi’s purported to have “upset” Caro was preceded by a win over Goerges– was that also an upset?

And here some of the players she’s lost to: Petra in Madrid (QF), Masha at Wimbledon (SF), and Marion in Stanford (SF).

We all know what a nutjob Domi can be and still is. There’s no point in defending her on that front – I think I might even prefer it that way.

But she’s also a top 20 player who’s reached the R16 or better at every Slam playing some of the best tennis of her life. Reading of her “upset” above you’d think Caro had been routined by Christina McHale.

There’s getting defensive, and there’s putting your head in the sand.

Caro’s problems, whatever they might be, began well before Wimbledon with those consecutive losses she suffered to Goerges. Unless, of course, that too was an upset.

2) Not completely sure this is entirely a good or a bad move.

It’s certainly clear this is the first major crisis of her career. Not responding proportionally wouldn’t be wise. She’ll likely benefit from hearing a new voice. And that’s not even a knock on Piotr.

What’s not clear is what direction that new voice will take her in. Her stated ambition is more aggression. Much as the world has been calling for this, is that even possible? Probably, but to what degree?

Tennis is a game of organic growth – with very few exceptions, you don’t suddenly wake up one morning and remould your groundstrokes. Doing so usually (and sometimes irrevocably) turns you into a different player and mostly proves counterproductive.

But there’s a bigger issue at stake. Much as aggression is being touted as her Holy Grail (and it is precisely that), the fact remains she was winning these types of matches just six months back. Whatever the issue is it may run deeper than any single technicality can account for. Whilst it’s simply indisputable that Caro will benefit from more aggression, she might still wind up losing matches, whether that’s under Piotr, Navratilova or the Cookie Monster.

3) Piotr’s Piotr..

Whatever your thoughts him (of which there are many) or on her game (of which there are also many), the fact remains she made world #1 under his tutelage.

Personally, I don’t think the very intense image of him hollering at her, comparing her to a “junior”, with her staring vacantly off into the distance during her loss to McHale, did anyone much good.

But they do seem to have a good relationship – and if they don’t, the fact is we simply don’t know any better. She may simply have come as far as she can with him. They may even be parting to preserve/strengthen that familial bond. Easy to forget that during the inevitable snarkfest that this episode will inevitably provoke.

Rogers Cup: ‘Excellence’, it’s a platitude

2011-08-16T18:21:00.001+01:00

Novak Djokovic has now won 5 Masters titles this season – that's one less than Murray’s won in his entire lifetime. I’m not going to bother relaying the other stats – we already know them too well.

The reaction to this has been the predictable mix of astonishment at witnessing history unfolding before you, to giving him his due…to a particularly benign form of acceptance which I confess I’m beginning to find completely uninspiring – the journalism, not the streak.

Winning DC, Aus, and the IW/Miami double was “unbelievable”. Following up with a further two MS titles on clay and, of course, Wimbledon was “unprecedented”.

That we’re still talking about it in exactly the same terms over a month later, just two weeks before the last Slam of the year suggests a certain complaisance.

It’s not that I object to giving Novak, or anyone else, his due. Quite apart from how ridiculous or unfair that would be, it’s simply counterproductive – marking you out as little more than a fruitcake with an enormous ideological chip on your shoulder.

And no, I don’t subscribe to the “dominance is boring” school of thought either – nor am I suggesting complaisance on the part of the players.

But there’s only so many times you can sit through breathless essays on the precise nature of excellence. To be honest, it fosters the kind of environment in which its deemed ok to loose to Novak Djokovic – I don’t think he needs any help on that front.

Forgive, therefore, my taking a slightly different tact.

To be honest, the best assessment I’ve seen came from Jo:

"He plays incredible tennis, but he's not an alien. In fact, what he does is doing everything better than the others. He doesn't hit harder, he doesn't hit the ball earlier. But he's always there. This is tiring when you play against him. He does not have the best return on the tour. But on every return, he returns well, and he's always there. So what does it is his consistency, and he has no weaknesses."

-- tennis.com

No he’s not alien. And that’s probably one of the few times you’ll hear consistency being described, in the current climate, in such glowing terms.

But what I really like about it is how technically astute it is – and how he uses those technical observations in order to find a happy medium between giving Novak his due, and giving TENNIS its due – you really can do both. You really ought to do both.

I’ve yet to see a single tennis writer come up with something as cogent or concise; instead, a player known more for his on court talent and/or fragility took us by surprise in an unrehearsed moment of brilliance.

Not just a pretty face then.

Yeah.

I was one of those who were sceptical of her decision to participate in all three events before the USO, not because I thought she couldn’t win, but because I flinch at the idea of her risking injury.

Once again, it appears she knew what she was doing. Still, I won’t be sorry if she goes out early in Cincy.

The win moves her up to #31 in the rankings which, mishaps, upsets, anomalies and the discovery of actual aliens in the draw notwithstanding, really ought to be enough to secure her a seeding in NY.

Cincy: Noticeboard

2011-08-14T23:42:00.001+01:00

Cincy last year…

May we NEVER forget

Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Nole	~~Fed~~	~~Simon~~	Fish
~~Gael~~	Berd	Murray	~~Rafa~~

Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
~~Petrova~~	~~Peng~~	~~Sam~~	~~Dani~~
Petko	JJ	Pova	Bepa

Legend

Hoity-Toity

Upwardly-Mobile

Sympathy Vote

Ideas above their station

Stacked

Rogers Cup: Well it wasn’t for want of trying

2011-08-14T18:25:00.001+01:00

On the one hand, I can’t truly say I was especially invested in Vika winning this event. Notwithstanding that I root for her almost without fail in every match she plays, like Andy and Caro, I just can’t see the point of winning at this level anymore.

Williams d. Azarenka 63 63

When you’ve won Miami twice or, as in Andy’s case, six Masters titles, winning the same old Premier events simply allows talking heads to continue to bitch about your Slamless credibility.

That said, yesterdays match was, as it seems most everyone in my timeline agreed, just a little special.

My feeling was that Vika had a chance – Serena had played two three setters to reach here, Azarenka had only lost six games. If Zheng could get a set off Serena, why shouldn’t Vika get two?

BOTH WOMEN came out striking better than anyone had all week: Vika was playing as well as she’s capable of and yet Serena seemed to be (and I’m sure I’m not the only one to notice this) taking the ball that little bit earlier.

I’m not sure we can read much more into how the match played out except to say that there’s very few that can maintain the intensity that goes with playing your A-game for that period of time. And even fewer (if any) that can do it against Serena. Vika eventually cracked in the middle of set two – I’m only surprised (and rather proud) she lasted as long as she did.

Let the record, therefore, reflect no blemish, no want of effort from Victoria – she was simply outmatched by a legend. Sure, there were a few service glitches (47% 1st serves in set one), but that was the best I’ve seen Serena time the ball since her return.

No one, as we’ve heard many times since yesterday (and many times over the past decade), can stay with her at that level.

And yet this trivial, uncontroversial statement of fact continues to provoke the kind of hostility I thought we did away with in the pre-Twitter era.

”Unless the women's game loses its inferiority complex where @serenawilliams is concerned, she will win US Open #assimpleasthat

Harman’s a respected commentator – I mostly agree with him. But anyone that saw the match knows how grossly unfair that is. Vika continues to have holes in her game , she may be suffering from many things, but an inferiority complex ain’t one of them. And it certainly wasn’t the problem last night.

Nothing new of course – its the same argument that saw those unwilling (or unable) to give Fed his due when he was winning 3 Slams a year, citing “locker room impotence” in the face of “the aura”. Only, I’m pretty sure Harman wasn’t amongst them back then.

And that’s why this really rankles. Its not that *certain* players haven’t given Fed and/or Serena an easy ride over the years (they have). I don’t even dispute anyone’s right to make that claim even though I think it’s clear that it’s often little more than an ideological hoax – one I didn’t take very seriously then or now.

But it’s only fair to require those professing such a theory to play an even hand, not just against styles of play and/or personalities that don’t “please” you: it may not be his intent, but this simply smacks too much of those antiquated attacks on Serena (and Venus) stemming from an ideological dislike of their, and only their, dominance.

That’s, like, so 2003.

(Pics: getty)

Rogers Cup: Noticeboard

2011-08-13T13:08:00.000+01:00

Whatever side of the ‘No-Slam’ debate you’re on, its becoming difficult to dismiss the idea that these two have practically NOTHING to gain by winning events like this anymore – worse yet, it will almost certainly see a renewal of those retard assaults on their Slamless credibility so many seem to continue to find so funny. Vika’s on that list too.

All of which is to say I won’t be that put out if either loses early. A good run – one that ensures neither make an utter dick of themselves at the USO – no more, no less.

Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Nole	~~Tsonga~~	~~Fish~~	~~Berd~~
~~Gael~~	~~Nico~~	~~Wawa~~	~~Tipsy~~

Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
~~Vinci~~	~~Aga~~	~~Voskoboeva~~	~~Safarova~~
~~Sam~~	~~Petko~~	~~Vika~~	Serena

Legend

Hoity-Toity

Upwardly-Mobile

Sympathy Vote

Ideas above their station

Stacked

Potential R3 bust-ups: Serena/Kim, Nole/Delpo, Fed/Tsonga.

I’m struggling to conceive of a scenario in which Fed doesn’t get his revenge over Tsonga. They say lightening doesn’t strike twice – nor, experience suggests, does Jo.

Difficult to know what to make of Ernie’s section: on the one hand it’s the draw from HELL – on the other hand, it’s also a collection of giant-killers rather than giants. And most of them will cancel each other out.

~~Ana/Venus (R1)….there’s only so much you can go on about “Ana’s troubles” without it sounding like cloying, overwrought piffle; even so, this kind of sh*t seems to happen to her A LOT.~~ Venus out with viral illness.

With R1 exits in Julia’s last two events, now’s as good a time as any for JJ to be drawn against Goerges….she might even spring an upset. Actually, no.

A Statement on the recent events in Canada

2011-08-12T13:57:00.001+01:00

Can you guess? Can you guess which country, which tournament cannot, will not, be swayed from “doing its own thing”?

I give up. Everything I said yesterday about explaining or not explaining is gunk. We may as well ask the Cookie Monster for his opinion – you could do a lot worse.

The #newrogerscupslogan hashtag (which you really need to look at if you haven’t already) is total win, so completely expressing the feelings I might have vented had I been conscious.

The casualty list of Caro, Murray, Delpo, Rafa and Kim, now extends to Li, Pova, Petra, Fran and Fed, who saw fit to win only a single game in the final set of his loss to Tsonga. The funny thing is I don’t know if we can blame any of them.

I said lightening and/or Jo-Wilfried doesn’t and wouldn’t strike twice. I was wrong. Or, at least, it does in Canada. And I bet if you waited long enough, it would strike again…and again…and again…in the same place, several times over. All against the wonderfully resonant backdrop of the blue screen of death and under a hail of broken light bulbs. For that, apparently, is how Canada rolls.

So now we know.

Either we’re in urgent need of updating our Canadian stereotypes, or this is Canada’s most audacious bid for attention since…..yeah.

Even Serena was to lose a set before bringing down Zheng and, one can only hope, the Antichrist along with her.

You’d think Serena and Novak should now, by rights, sleep walk their way to the title. Except Canada don’t deal in rights. Or wrongs. Or pretty much any type of consciously (or subconsciously) imposed order.

For all I know Roberta Vinci will probably win.

All that’s left is to book passage on the fastest plane, train or camper van out of here and on to Cincy.

And to deliver a standing ovation to the only people who seem to have had the foresight to plan against the chaos before the event even began, and wanted no part of it. I think we can all agree that they were on to something.

Well played Venus Williams….Well played Robin Soderling….Well played Andy Roddick.

Your judgement and various ailments do you credit.

Rogers Cup: Bad things happen to good people and to multimillionaire tennis players with high rankings

2011-08-11T18:31:00.001+01:00

Losing a few big names in the early rounds is no big deal – it’s almost part of the deal and may even prove beneficial.

Lose Caro, Rafa, Murray, Delpo and Kim in the space of 48 hours and its clear you’re dealing with chaos.

And any post purporting to “explain” chaos is, well, part of the problem.

That doesn’t mean I don’t think there’s any reasons for what’s happening: I don’t think you can dismiss the role of the July layoff, for example – Murray, from what I remember (which is frankly nothing), doesn’t always cope with that type of interval too well.

Rafa losing to a big hitting Croatian on a hard court? Seen that before. Being so horribly predictable under pressure it makes your eyes water? Seen that too. [full credit to Dodig for his muscly double-hander but he shouldn’t have been given so many of them to begin with]

Injuries, withdrawals? That’s just the fabric of tennis reality.

Perhaps the only real surprise is that it should all happen at once – a statistical anomaly, nothing more, nothing less.

All of which is to say is, the sh*t sometimes hits the fan.

And I don’t even think its that much of a big deal . Nor do I think we should be bending over backwards trying to “explain” it.

Some weeks you get the Milk, Other weeks you get the Vodka

2011-08-02T00:14:00.001+01:00

The end of the slump. The 2nd career title. A reminder of his relevance. A reminder of his foolishness. Vodka and Milk. Its all good. And it couldn’t have come too soon.

But it would be a mistake, I think, to expect him to repeat this type of form every week, or every other week, or even every other month. He just ain’t that guy.

Having a breakout week is one thing: he’s more than capable of taking down the biggest names in the game, he may even be capable of stringing together the requisite 7 matches it takes to win a Slam. Hold out for that if you must.

But he ain’t, and won’t likely ever be, about crafting a ranking – top ten or otherwise. That would involve invoking of the ‘C’ word. And, well, whatever else Ernests’ strengths are, CONSISTENCY certainly isn’t one of them. Some weeks you get the milk, but more often than not you get the vodka. You’d think those that liken him to Marat would already know that.

Another thing – as much as I liked this, I’m having difficulty with the necessity some seem to feel of having to “rehab” personalities like Ernests. To do so seems to me to spectacularly miss the point. You think he gives a hoot about what you or I think?

And what makes us think fans or haters will change their view of him even after such elaborate PR surgery?

Those that like talented, chaotic nutjobs given over to recklessness as a form of public service, will continue to appreciate his brand of anarchy, both his vodka and his milk, no matter what.

Those that don’t, will continue to reel in repugnance at the rich kid that can’t be a*sed to make good on his talent, his so-called “sense of entitlement”, no matter what.

If it were any other player beating Masha, Sabine and Marion consecutively, and in straight sets, winning her first title after a year-long outage, more than halving her ranking to #79 in the process, I’d probably take time to gape a little. As it’s Serena I’ll move along and make like there’s nothing to see here.

Still not convinced playing three out of the three events ahead of the USO is the best thing, however. There’s “getting serious” about events outside of Slams and there’s over-compensating. Am I the only one that thinks that’s, like, a LOT of tennis? Not to mention it opens one up to the risk of injury.

Behold Ernie, ‘Creature of the Night’.

2011-07-30T13:40:00.001+01:00

It’s the eyes – they’re all “in league with Lucifer”. Well that’s one way to get sh*t done.

Not gonna lie – a little scared right now.

Gulbis d. del Potro 6-2 6-4

When he broke his 5 match losing streak with a win over Malisse, it was a mere curiosity.

When he followed it up it with a straight sets win, it was a reminder that, whatever else you might think of him, he’s still relevant.

When he dusted off Delpo 2 and 4 last night, it became a “thing”. Oh yeah, I think we can call it that now.

By all accounts (after hours for me), it was a one-sided demolition with Ernie reminding us of why he is indeed a thing, why he’s always been a thing.

I doubt very much that Delpo would have underestimated the threat, but he cannot have expected this.

Here’s hoping this form carries over. Not to rain on anyone’s parade, but this ain’t a Slam (not even a Masters 1000) – Ernie hasn’t been beyond one of those in his last 7 attempts.

*That* particular streak needs to end too. And FAST. Else this ain’t a “thing”. Not even close.

Williams d. Sharapova 6-1 6-3

I know I was meant to have been all “IT’S ON” ever since it was clear these two would meet – I just couldn’t dismiss the possibility of precisely this kind of a letdown.

But I would have preferred it if Pova had simply been tuned – far better to have simply been able to say “too good” rather than imploding the way she has all too often recently.

As it happened, Pova was neither here nor there – she simply looked utterly terrified of Serena (so I’m told).

"I think I’ll need to win a couple of more matches before it becomes a true rivalry," said the fifth-ranked Sharapova, who is now 2-7 against Serena and who hasn’t beaten her since 2004. "It’s not really a rivalry until I win few more matches. She’s experienced enough to know that even if it’s a small or big event you have to go out there and do our job and still go out there and win it."

Not that Serena instilling fear in her opponents should surprise any of us. But it’s a little disappointing when that opponent happens to be one of the best competitors the sport has ever seen – perhaps the only player left in the WTA with the requisite mental hardware to pose Serena a challenge.

Still, as with Ernie, this ain’t a Slam is it, so what does it matter? Right? Right?

“I decided it’s time to get serious not only at the Slams but every other tournament as well.”

-- Serena Williams

OH.

Sabine next. On paper, this spells all sorts of Boombastic. But then that’s what we said about the Wimbledon semis.

Obligatory Happy Domi pic.

No one else serenading the run she’s been on, so I will.

4th round or better at every Slam. QFs or better at three out of the four.

She plays Marion in the semis in a match custom built to test my loyalties to the nth degree.

Stanford: This Descent into Despair just got Asymptotic

2011-07-27T19:11:00.001+01:00

Morita d. Ivanovic 6-3, 7-5

This is not even funny or tragic anymore. I’m not even sure it qualifies as an upset. In fact, I don’t know what it is. It’s certainly not analysis-worthy any more. For one thing, there ain’t nothing there to analyse.

How many times do we need to be told that she has an ergonomically-challenged service toss?

Or that its all a problem of confidence?

YOU DON’T SAY.

Never fun to see any player struggling – let alone a Slam winning former #1.

And I REALLY don’t buy into those continual attempts by some to lampoon her success and caricature her as a one-trip pony….a kid that got a lucky break.

Lest we forget, her rise (and arguably some of her best matches) came during 2006-2007 – a time when Serena, Venus, Pova and Henin were all very much in their prime and at the top of their game…..all at the same time. Call it what you want, but that ain’t no fluke.

Even so, 3 years is a long time, and unless you’re a fan (a big fan) and feel a need to fashion colourful laments on how, sink or swim, you’ll be there till the end, it’s likely better to just give her some room to regroup – and she will regroup even if that doesn’t mean winning another Slam or even a position in the top 5 ever again – and say nothing at all. So that’s what I’ll be doing.

Kirilenko d. Georges 6-2, 6-3

I know, I know, I don’t get it either.

To be honest I never really believed Julia would follow up on her success early on this year the way, say, Petra has. That doesn’t mean I consider this even a remotely acceptable result.

Having won Stuttgart, and made the semis of Madrid (beating Caro twice in the process *snigger*) she then failed to make the second week at either RG or Wimbledon. That’s more than simply a letdown.

And now this: a first round exit to Kirilenko – a competent and likeable enough player, but not, quite frankly, in nearly the same league.

Or maybe she is. Maybe I’ve got Julia all wrong – predictions tend, after all, to be anything but predictable. Maybe Julia will follow the more common debutante route of continuing to languish emerging only sporadically to bag a scalp that is as big as the blaze of publicity it commands.

Frankly, I’ve had my fill of that and am holding out for something better. And not just from Julia.

Stanford: Pretty Sure This Qualifies as #Winning

2011-07-27T17:15:00.001+01:00

6-0 6-0 in 47 mins.

And she didn’t face a single break point. Nor did she lose a single point on her first serve. Not one.

“It was me being focused,” Williams said. “I’ve always said if I play my best no one can beat me. Hopefully I can get back to that level.”

Hell, that’s not even a brag (let alone a humblebrag) – more like a demonstrable law of nature.

Guess that means she’s “back”.

Except we’ve always known that words like that simply don’t feature in Serena’s tennis altereality (neither do “form” and “momentum”). And it bears repeating that Rodionova ain’t even a top 50 player – never has been. But then she ain’t canon fodder either…or, at least, not the type of canon fodder that fails to win even a single game.

So yeah, unsurprisingly surprising. Parrot green ecstasy for her fans. Crisis talks for her “not a fans” and players in her section of the draw. Speaking of which:

“She’s coming back and she’s winning again,” Kirilenko said of Williams. “I need to be focused every minute.”

I’m no Kiri fan, but you have to love how she takes the edge off her imminent destruction with the word “focus”. You can do it with almost anything:

“It’s no longer a question of when but if Murray will win a Slam….he needs to be focused every minute.”

“I’ve spent nearly three unsuccessful years trying to unify Quantum Mechanics with the General Theory of Relativity…..I need to be focused every minute.”

”The worlds biggest economy may default - may not even be able to send out welfare cheques come Tuesday next week…..we have to be focused every minute.”

Assuming Serena doesn’t catastrophically implode between now and Friday, or that “focus” isn’t all its cracked up to be (and it really isn’t, not in itself) Serena will meet Masha in R3.

YES I’ve heard about the “womance” (that is what they’re calling it right?):

“I really like playing Maria and I really admire her and never giving up and developing the confidence that she has… Always just walking around and having so much aplomb, it’s good. I always admired that, it’s really cool.”

…..NO it doesn’t surprise me that two of the greatest competitors this sport has ever seen should have something like mutual admiration.

But then neither do I think there’ll be anything other than cat claws, fire and brimstone on court come Friday. You really do need to focus if you do, and more than just “every minute”.

“Happy dancing Spaniards”

2011-07-23T18:05:00.001+01:00

Nothing I can say will do justice to the distilled quanta of awesome that is this video.

Can we all, instead, simply agree that it “does what it says on the tin”?

(word, big-up, hat-tip and many, many thanks to @andy_murray)

Whatever July might have lacked for on court – it gave, and gave, AND GAVE off court.

2011-07-23T17:57:00.001+01:00

Howdy all.

As you’ve no doubt already gathered from my little sabbatical, I’m not especially fond of the tennis in July. In fact, I abhor it….especially when it’s on clay.

FACT: July is to the Tennis Calendar what “no-man’s land” is to the serve-volleyer – the type of place you exile a recently demoted German Masters event when you want to add insult to injury.

And you know what? I think the players agree with me. Well most of them.

Since Newport they seem to be doing anything and everything other than actually plying their trade (that would be tennis). Shaving their head, getting married, staging (slightly tasteless) mock-assassinations, dating (non-tennis) sports stars, amongst other middle-earthy type things.

Whatever works for you tennis. Get whatever’s plaguing you right outta your system, right outta yer hair. Just so long as you’re good to go for August.

I had hoped to ease myself back in. Only I don’t think that’s going to be possible with the Stanford draw being what it is:

1) Five of the eight seeded players are from my tennis pool.

2) Serena’s in the mix

3) Potential/actual matches: Kimiko/Domi R1, Sabine/Sam R2, Serena/Georges R2, Dani/Pova R2, POVA/SERENA R3,

The mind doth boggleth….not at all conducive to “easing in” of any sort.

Welcome back tennis.

2Hander's Take: Born-Again Single-Hander...

2011-07-07T22:22:00.013+01:00

I'M BACK BABY!!! [Z: *falls off stool* Well look what the cat dragged in...]

Well, it's been a long time to say the least. I have not been keeping track of the Blog as much as I should have (explanation, well, sort of, offered below). However, like old friends, it should take us no time to carry on where we left off. [Z: Uh-uh...you don't get to shake off going AWOL for 2 years that easy...]

For those of wondering "WHO the HELL is this guy?!?", and there have been enough changes to the Blog and its readers to make me think that's a sizeable proportion of you wonderful people, I am an old (and hopefully good) friend of Zafar's - he used to be called Topspin - what happened to that?! [Z: Think its probably ok to use my name after 3 years ;)]

The last time I posted must have been around the 2009 mark, around the US Open time. A lot has gone on and a lot has changed. Firstly, I have changed job and location to one where internet is more expensive (But I still pay for it! Hey, I don't have a TV!) and the work is more stressful. That's a super combination to keep me off posting, but hey, I got there in the end - question is, will Andy Murray?! [drums and cymbal] [Z: To quote Mr President: YES HE CAN. AND WILL :( ]

(On a side note, whilst I am quite a fan of Muzza, it is not because of his image as David Lloyd suggested. I did like Murray's retort of 'stick to building fitness clubs') [Z: I like the shaggy look - its not like he went 'George Bastl' on us :p ]

Another change has been to my tennis game (hence my nick?). I have abandoned the two-handed backhand for a Federeresque (in my dreams, anyway!) single-handed. I have found that it is more consistent, I feel as though I have far more control of the ball and I find it easier to get into position for it. Also, funnily enough, I can deal with higher balls far better - Roger, give me a call and we'll talk! [Z: HERESY. After all the grief you gave me over the ONE time I tried hitting with two hands...]

So, that would make something of a Born-Again Single-Hander. In light of this, must I now change my nick to BASHer?! However, if we've done away with nicks, then my name is Asad.

OK, well the story so far is...Novak Djokovic is whupping EVERYONE - good night! [Z: No sh*t] Seriously, the guy has come leaps and bounds both on and off the court. For I...uh-oh, humble pie time...used to be quite a critic of Nolé. [Z: Again...no sh*t] I found the impersonations were becoming rather tiring as was dedicating every victory as a tribute to how hard life was a Serb in the 1990s. [Z: ...]Also, on court, he would seem to "lose the will to live" on occasion giving up after a good start or not being able to get started in the first place - particularly against Federer and Nadal.

Now? WHOA! For a start, he is now starting to beat Federer more regularly and convincingly. His groundstrokes have always been strong on both wings but his backhand really is nearly on par with his forehand. [Z: I quite liked his BH, but you're right both strokes equally dependable....] His volleying has improved, though he's always looked more natural at the net than Nadal. [Z: Nadal/Nole have both learnt to volley admirably well - but I still think they both look like a couple of street-hustlers at the net] More natural than Tsonga? Erm, no! Also, he has finally found his rhythm with that new service action and not to mention the new racquet.

I think I used to call him Chokovic! That, too, has now been formally retracted.

And now, I must challenge a few things, if I may. [Z: Uh-oh] I would say that he did play his best tennis in many respects against Nadal, both mentally and mechanically (if that makes sense). His shots during the 1st, 2nd and 4th sets (more about the 3rd set in a bit) were fan-diddly-tastic! He was playing like a man possessed. He destroyed Nadal in the 2nd set (in fact I thought Rafa must have had a bust-up with his girlfriend or something because a significant part of him was not in the game). The way he was mixing up the pace of serves was genius. The way he went after Nadal's backhand was also a brilliant tactic which worked a treat. [Z: Agree..I actually think Nole elicited a lot of Nadals "unforced" errors - my point was he didn't need to be as good as he was say in IW/Miami...but I almost prefer us to disagree :P ]

The 3rd set, Rafa kind of decided to show up and play. However, maybe nerves got to Nolé as he was hitting a lot of balls out and his serve somewhat desserted him. I thought that the old Chokovic Syndrome might start kicking in then. He broke early in the 4th set, but quickly got broken back. This is where he really showed his new-found mental strength: he got it out of his system, dug deep, went for his shots and it paid off. [Z: Rafa thinks this level might not last...I don't get it - relying on his opponents level to fall has never been his style either on court or in a presser :-O ]

Whereas Tsonga showed us the masterclass on how to beat Nadal at the 2008 Aussie Open, which was by and large from the net [Z: I have a bone to pick with Jo...], Nolé has managed a few times now (not to mention on clay!) to beat Nadal at his own game - with high, loopy topspin from the back of the court. This is why I feel rather cheated that they didn't get to meet at RG and in a strange twist of fate, were deprived of a Rafole final at Wimby. I think Nolé believes he can 'bother' Rafa at RG now... [Z: You're right - that would've been something - but I liked Feds win as well.....]

So, Novak has finally come of age and he fully deserves the No. 1 ranking for he is, so far this year, the best player on the planet. He has matured incredibly, OK it came after a few bad seasons and injuries but I take my hat off to him... [Z: Ditto....]

Wimbledon: Parting Shots - The rest

2011-07-06T17:00:00.001+01:00

» I hate talk of “guards” (and their replacement) almost as much as I do “goats” – and mostly for the reasons Tignor mentions here, which are that people are apt to use the phrase prematurely.

It’s certainly true that, were Rafa to win the FO and Wimbledon next year, and Novak to win, say, Aus again, and Federer (or someone else?) to win the USO, those who called for the changing of the guards would be forced to change them right back again (or at least to admit they were premature).

Even so, I think Tignor overstates his case a little in characterising Novak’s victory this weekend and ascent to world #1 as, “just a big win”.

2 Slams, 4 Masters titles and only one loss out of a total of fifty matches played since November last year is (as I suspect Mr Tignor knows full well) a little more than “just a big win”.

And you know what? I wouldn’t be surprised if this does turn out to be the changing of the guards. It has to come at some point (duh!).

» The Wimbledon Mic disaster

For a tournament steeped in such history, prestige and, well, privilege, this was confoundingly bad and utterly unforgivable.

The point about a runner-up (whoever they might be) is that they’re usually hankering to get off court as soon as possible.

The very least you might do is to make the various formalities they must undergo as easy to endure and as smooth as possible.

Instead, most of the comments Rafa made to Sue Barker weren’t heard by anyone. When transmission did return, he (understandably irritable) cursorily thanked his team on a mic that was still so glitchy as to make most of what he said unintelligible.

» This may very well be the biggest crisis of Rafa’s very decorated career since his injury/parental-divorce-ridden 2009.

It may just be his post-loss state of mind but, nevertheless, I found this quote worrying:

"My experience says this level is not forever. Even for me when I was last year winning three Grand Slams, my level of last year is not forever. Probably the level of Novak of today is not forever."

Not “I must improve” but that “Novak won’t stay that way forever”.

» Rafa a “cheater”, really? Get a grip.

I’ve obviously missed something.

Why is taking a MTO before a tie-break – not mid game, not on his opponent’s serve, not even on a changeover – but before a tie break (a natural cut off point) evidence of questionable moral fibre?

That’s what Rafa did against Delpo and it caused unchecked, unmitigated outrage on my timeline.

As it turned out, nothing much was wrong – but judging from the reaction you’d think some would prefer that there was – perhaps they’d also prefer him to play through injury, in case there really was a problem?

Drawing attention to his quite irritating idiosyncrasies is one thing. The perception hit he now regularly takes makes addressing it of vital importance.

Using them to malign his character in a desperate (and rather insecure) attempt at “bigging up” one’s own fave (especially when that fave is in no need of “bigging up”) is selling yourself very short indeed.

» As if to compound his perception problems even further there was a release-of-information gaffe on Monday when both Neil Harman and tennis.com reported Rafa as having a “hairline fracture” that could have kept him out for “6 weeks”.

The report was killed by Uncle Toni less than 24 hours later who also confirmed that he was still on to play Montreal. Which is it?

» My own feeling is Rafa has very evident PR issues rather than “moral fibre” issues – and, needless to say, he needs to sort them out – specifically as it relates to the management, treatment and announcement of his injuries.

I’ve no time for those accusing him of cheating (its bigoted and unnecessary), but shit like this doesn’t help his cause. I also don’t think playing a Slam shot up full of anaesthetic is the best way to be going about things but that rant’s for another day.

» Whatever progress Pova may have made (and it’s difficult to deny progress has been made if you properly examine her results since IW), and however disciplined, resolute and hungry she undoubtedly remains, its hard not to feel that she’s often treading water just to keep her serve intact.

It may well define the rest of her career – when it breaks down the rest of her game is sure to follow. She knows it. We know it.

Despite all this, we should be very wary of dismissing her chances of winning a Slam altogether. She’s gotten this close twice in the past two months (one of which was on her worst surface): she only played one poor match at RG (SF), and it’s not difficult, I hope, to see Petra handing away her debut Wimbledon final amidst a flurry of UFEs?

The chips will, of course, need to land the right way up, and if and when the win comes, it will have been in spite of, rather than because of her serve.

Still not quite the same thing as “never”.

» Kimiko/Venus week one. Match of the tournament. Match of the year?

Like I said, required viewing for WTA girly-girls under the age of 25.

» After 11 months out, Serena (unsurprisingly) hit the ground running and only came undone by a monumental effort on the part of one of the flattest ball strikers in the sport.

Her fourth round exit will see her drop to #175 in the rankings. At least one top seed is due a very bad day at the office in round one of the USO.

» I’ve learnt to expect fluctuations from Venus Williams and it seems six months out hasn’t changed that

The good news is that she still had it in her to go toe-to-toe with Kimiko. The bad news is that she still hasn’t figured out Tsvetana.

» Seriously, I haven’t figured out Tsvetana either. Nobody has.

9 matches won out of the 22 events she played since Wimbledon last year. Just nine. Yet somehow that's enough to make the the semis of Wimbledon going through the world number three and Venus Williams (again and with the exact scoreline) back to back? Someone explain.

» <Insert threadbare pun about Slam-less world number ones here>

For what it’s worth, I still think Caro can win a Major, but like Pova (actually nothing like Pova) a lot of the chips would have to land the right way up. And the Law of Averages says it’s not nearly as inconceivable as is being suggested that they do land the right way up. At least once.

» Was rather hoping for an end to Fed’s 18-month Slam drought, and when Jo-Wilfried went and did what he did and in the way he did, it made me a little sad – we go back a long way, Fed and I.

And I still say he’s been quite unlucky – every Slam loss dating back to the USO (and Delpo) in 2009 involves a big hitter playing lights-out tennis – with the type of depth and accuracy no one has an answer for. That, or its been Novak (2.0) or Rafa (on clay).

That’s not me being an apologist, it’s just plain fact.

» I’m still not done blaming everyone and everything

In Murray’s own words, he’s “15-20% behind Rafa” and those other two. Which will make the win that much sweeter when it does come. Perhaps rather foolishly, I still choose to believe it will come.

» Marion

I only wish she hadn’t played that much tennis in week one :(

» Vika

Bad draws, injury, heat stroke, the return of the Williamses and, now, the emergence of Petra. There appear to be an awful lot of reasons why Vika shouldn’t win a Slam and the list is only going to get bigger.

» Don’t normally talk doubles but Jurgen and Iveta winning mixed is one of the highlights of the fortnight for me. Mainly because we got to see Iveta smile.

And pictures of Iveta smiling are, as we all know, collectors items.

» Sabine

Welcome back. And don’t disappear on me again.

» Jo-Wilfried

I can’t hate on you – especially seeing as you were able to win a set off Novak and took him to two breaks in the semis. But I still think you screwed Fed.

» BREAKING: Sam Stosur still can’t win a match on grass.

» Aside: Alan Rickman would make a quite EXCELLENT umpire. And it’s not just the equally magnificent voice.

» Unnoticed and unsung: Dominika – 4th round or better at every Slam. Take a bow.

Tennis Is Served...

Oz: The Non-Bracketology Post.

Oz: Magnificent.

Oz: Define “upset”

Oz: Ode to Lleyton….a night to rememborize.

Oz: Kind of a big deal, no?

Oz: Don’t Jurrrdge Me.

Oz: Day Three Drive By

Oz: “He just does…”

Oz: The Artful Dodger

You Just Knew.

Let it go, Petko - the fans will (still) come.

D̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶E̶v̶e̶r̶ change: 2012…Why you so 2011?

Fare thee well 2011: 43 of the most fugly, flatulent and forlorn moments of the year

Novak Djokovic and the Politics of Admissibility

ATP WTF: Why we *shouldn’t* [only] be talking about Roger Federer’s longevity

ATP WTF: BEHOLD THE POWER OF THE ‘COJONES’

Rafael Nadal: “The Score is True”

ATP WTF: Tomas Berdych and the reformatory power of melancholic angst

Roger Federer: ZING done right.

Why you should give Andy Murray’s musings on boxing a fair hearing.

The Truth That Dare Not Speak Its Name: Roger Federer still won on a fast, indoor court. Kinda. [And the trophy ain’t that bad either *ducks*]

Deceit and Entrapment: Novak Djokovic and the $1.6M Matrix of Cynicism

The unanswered question of Loyalty behind Dmitry Tursunov’s smackdown of Pete Bodo

WTA Championships: 10 Post-Istanbul Thoughts

WTA Championships: Pre-Finals Catchup

ATP Slapstick: Janko Tipsarevic and Gael Monfils on the verge of qualifying for London

Pipsqueaks win titles too

Charting Petra Kvitova’s success and other ‘Voodoo Economics’

What Andy Murray’s Win in Shanghai does (or doesn’t) mean.

Empty Euphoria

Andy Roddick and The ‘R’ Word: “A Cultural Thing”?

Pope’s Catholic, Dawkins Atheist, Caro passive…

The Asterisk and its discontents.

USO: BOSS.

USO: Talk about under the radar.

USO: Sooper Dooper Saturday.

USO: On moral superiority, double-standards and ideological dislike

USO: Ready,Set, Draw…

USO: Week one Round Up

Caro parts ways with Piotr.

Rogers Cup: ‘Excellence’, it’s a platitude

Cincy: Noticeboard

Rogers Cup: Well it wasn’t for want of trying

Rogers Cup: Noticeboard

A Statement on the recent events in Canada

Rogers Cup: Bad things happen to good people and to multimillionaire tennis players with high rankings

Some weeks you get the Milk, Other weeks you get the Vodka

Behold Ernie, ‘Creature of the Night’.

Stanford: This Descent into Despair just got Asymptotic

Stanford: Pretty Sure This Qualifies as #Winning

“Happy dancing Spaniards”

Whatever July might have lacked for on court – it gave, and gave, AND GAVE *off* court.

2Hander's Take: Born-Again Single-Hander...

Wimbledon: Parting Shots - The rest

ATP WTF: Why we shouldn’t [only] be talking about Roger Federer’s longevity

The Truth That Dare Not Speak Its Name: Roger Federer still won on a fast, indoor court. Kinda. [And the trophy ain’t that bad either ducks]

Whatever July might have lacked for on court – it gave, and gave, AND GAVE off court.