ATP WTF: BEHOLD THE POWER OF THE ‘COJONES’

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.

Read More...

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

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.

Read More...

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

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.

Read More...

Monte Carlo: Quantum Fluctuations

7 consecutive MC titles. Takeout: Rafa wins on clay even when he sucks. But you already knew that.




Except it shouldn’t have been that way – not this year.

Whilst its always good to see Rafa “come home” and begin winning again on a surface as organic to him as sunlight is to photosynthesis, I started off the week guessing that he’ll be upset at least once this clay court season. Nothing I saw in MC changed my mind.

Without wishing to get too specific he hasn’t “looked right” since the year began – those who’ve observed him closely (or who’ve heard/read me bleating endlessly about it) know exactly what I mean.

The only reason I keep bringing it up is because it doesn’t seem like its down to any specific technical failing and/or injury. Which, in my mind, makes it worse.

Some of his shot (mis)selection has been straight out of a comic book. The UFEs, meanwhile, have had all of the uncertainty and spontaneity of quantum fluctuations.

We saw it in both the IW/Miami finals, we saw it in the Miami QF vs Berd, we saw it against Murray in the SFs, and we saw it again in the final.

Does it surprise me that Rafa, being Rafa, found a way through on clay – something not possible, just last month, on a hard court vs. Nole? Not in the slightest. But let us please not pretend Daveed didn’t entirely blow his chances (of which there were many).


To put it bluntly, this is about as ineffectual as Rafa gets on a clay court.  A better player (like say Nole or Fed) would almost certainly have called him on it.  A “lesser”but nevertheless solid player like Daveed might be expected to too, but should, in any case, have forced a third set.

And yet, the vast body of reflection and analysis following the final will inevitably be of the “night follows day”, “sun rises in the east”, “Rafa wins on clay” variety.

I’m afraid I simply don’t see it that way. Not quite.

Foolish to argue against a 230-16 [93%] win/loss record on clay forged mostly without resistance over 7 years – as we saw, even playing as badly as he was, Rafa can be relied on to find options on clay which simply don’t  appear to exist anywhere else.

All the same, things don’t appear to me to be as certain this year as they plainly have been in years gone by. And I don’t think I’m alone.


***



One last word on Murray. Well two actually:

1) The SF wasn’t simply the best performance I’ve seen from Murray since before his slump began (things could hardly have gotten any worse). It might even have been the best I’ve seen him play on clay.

Why is this SUCH a big deal?

A Masters-1000 semi final on his “worst” surface (more on that later) and his first ever set off Rafa on clay, all after his poorest spell of tennis since he entered the top ten.

Only, you wouldn’t know just how well Murray played if you read the match reports, all of which were at pains to point out (correctly) that Rafa played like horsesh*t,  particularly in the 2nd set. He did, no point in disputing that – its what I’ve been saying all season.  But not crediting Murray would be like claiming Rafa only won the last set because Murrays elbow began to play up as the cortizone injection wore off.

Strange how some are only willing to recognise Rafa’s poor play when it’s consistent with their attempts to undercut Murray. Else its all “Night follows Day”, “The Sun rises in the East”, “Rafa wins on clay”…

2) I’ve never really understood why clay should be Murrays “worst” surface.

I get why he might prefer hard or even grass, but “worst” seems to carry an additional level of stigma that I don’t feel is warranted for a player as skilled as Murray.

Fed and Nole have the results they do on clay not because of any particular adeptness on the surface – but because of their adeptness at TENNIS.

The same can almost be said to apply to Murray. By the same token, if he loses on clay, it will be for all the same reasons he sometimes loses on hard courts. Namely passivity and a questionable temperament. Yep, those two cretins again. Feel free to rip on him for that (I know I do), but lets stop pretending clay is his “worst” surface.

Read More...

Quote of the Day

 

"I will try my best. The last two matches I have won against him," he said. "In Paris last year I killed him on clay and hopefully that result is still in the back of his mind.

"After beating Roger Federer there is nothing I can't do."

-- Jurgen Melzer on David Ferrer, whom he plays in the semis

Read More...

London WTF: The Seven Layers of Grunge.

 

 

 

 

A welcome dampener to the wild, euphoric and, frankly, irresponsible British outpourings that followed his Sunday afternoon carving-up of Robin Soderling .

 

No – I’m happy this happened. Maybe now the press will realise that couldn’t actually be sustained. Believe it or not it is possible to get get through this thing without painting the sky seven different shades of argyle.

 

In fact the worst thing you could do in the aftermath of that ‘sub-prime’ performance would be to analyse what went wrong. Don’t even try.

 

Make like sunshine.

 

Announce a royal wedding.

 

Declare your support for the nuclear disarmament of developing countries.

 

Pretend. Nothings. Happened.

 

Coz in the grand scheme of things it might not matter. And in the grander scheme of things it might turn out to be exactly the kind of stimulus package he needs. The stick rather than the carrot.

 

It was nigh-impossible not to be sardonically-totalled by the careless, catatonic, dithering way Muzz began what was undoubtedly his most important match of the RR stage.

 

 

 

His shirt was the wrong colour. His shot selection was iffy. His first serve looked like it was in need of a banking bailout.

 

Like he said, against Fed that’s simply not going to get it done – against a Fed as focused and unforgiving as he was yesterday, it’s ATP hara-kiri – a wonder, really, that he avoided the bagel.

 

Far from being anything tactical, he simply wasn’t present.

 

Which is why I think a tactical analysis is essentially redundant and perhaps even counterproductive – why risk ushering in a double dip recession by focusing on any remaining layers of grunge that might still lurk in the subconscious of his tennis memory banks?

 

 

 

It’s not all bad. He was hardly going to better the euphoria of his first match – the best opener played by anyone this week.

 

Better to detox early on during the RR stages rather than in the midst of a chaotic semi with Novak or Rafa.

 

Fed will, now, only miss out on qualifying if he loses in straights to Sod (stop sniggering) and if Muzz defeats Daveed in straights in which case we have a three way “games-won” face-off.

 

 

 

But I don’t expect they’re thinking about any of that.

 

 

 

Speakin’ of detox….here’s someone that managed to exfoliate all seven layers of grunge remaining from his very tepid opener against Muzz.

 

Which is all the more surprising as Daveed had troubled him throughout the season both at the Slams and, it seemed, everywhere else.

 

Sod will have to beat Fed in straights (STOP SNIGGERING I SAID) and will need Muzz to lose to Ferru to stand a decent chance of qualification.

 

Which leaves me in something of a quandary. You don’t root against Muzz at home – you just don’t do it.

 

So which is it to be?

 

The Mighty Viking or the Celtic Tiger Kitten?

 

The home favourite or my favourite?

 

Faust himself would struggle with this one.

Read More...

London WTF: ‘Argyle’ Andy

 

 

 

 

Murray d. Soderling 62 64

 

Yep….it was that darn good.

 

Sod never got going, but in truth Muzz ran down everything he did manage to send his way and got him into all sorts of four dimensional knots every time he came to the net.

 

Sometimes you can neither run nor hide. Thankfully Sod has a couple matches to go, but will have to raise his game having come out so scarred and ‘set-less’ from this encounter.

 

 

 

 

There was some talk about why Muzz should change his “passive” style of play when it’s good enough to beat the #4 player in the world so emphatically.

 

Truth is, the #4 player (get used to hearing me say that) could neither buy a first serve  nor any semblance of momentum – most of those other six won’t have those problems and have more options to draw on if and when they do.

 

A spectacular way to come through what was, after all, his opening match – it’d be equally spectacular folly, though, to expect to continue to win playing with the same slicey-dicey economy. A little mix and match never hurt anyone – and there's plenty of wandering monsters lurking in both groups looking to do just that.

 

Have to admit I had my doubts about the argyle vintage wear – but it looks FAR better on court than the pinstriped thing you see in the online brochures.

 

 

 

 

It also has other vintage approval.

 

 

 

Federer d. Ferrer 61 64

 

A straight sets dismissal that went on for at least half a set too long.

 

It’s no surprise, surely, that this would be Ferru’s eleventh consecutive loss to Fed. Far more alarming that he couldn’t buy a first serve and took a full set to enter the match.

 

 

You can cope with seeing Ferru getting comprehensively outplayed – it is, however, jarring to see him so jittery and lacking in confidence. Not the ‘Federer complex’ surely – you have been there ten times, one of which was in the final of this very event.

 

And a far better match it was too.

Read More...

London WTF: Daveed Cameron unveils a few last minute additions to the coalition.

 

 

 

 

It hasn’t been a good month for David Cameron.

 

 

First there were the student riots  that saw the near-sacking of Tory HQ (a couple of broken window panes) and a fire extinguisher being hurled off its roof that only narrowly missed police.

 

Since then, floods, banking bailouts not to mention the continuing fallout from the the deeply unpopular “austerity” measures – a word that almost sounds like a period themed wallpaper.

 

He was even taken to task for employing a personal photographer on the public payroll – what is a man to do?

 

1. Announce a royal wedding.

 

The scarcely concealed theory being that flooding the public sensibilities with talk of “Kate and Will” & “Will and Kate” will gently assuage the grim public mood so ostensibly damaged by those nasty public cuts.

 

Who has time to worry about your home being repossessed when you might be debating Kate’s bridal wear and the rights and wrongs of Wills presenting her with Diana’s ring? 

 

Or why she hasn’t ever held a proper job (it would seem, disturbingly, that some of us believe privilege has no part to play now that the royals sometimes marry outside of a carefully screened courtly set).

 

Complete the set piece by flooding the airwaves with a series of period romps showing the gentry in a lovingly eccentric and well-meaning light and the working class in a sufficiently reverential one. Sit back and let it simmer.

 

And if that doesn’t work…

 

2. Hobnob with tennis elite inside Downing St.

 

To be fair to him Cameron has actually played tennis before. Though there's no reason to suppose he was any better than Tony Blair who almost had a panic attack before going out for a charity knockabout with Pat Cash & Illi Nastase

 

 

Nice one Ferru. A gauche, awkward Viking has been made to feel even more socially inept and about *this* small.

 

All in all, Sod’s win in Paris has meant I haven’t very strong views about whom I’d like to see win. They all seem to make a compelling case.

 

 

Group A

 

Rafael Nadal.

 

Simply coz, other than this title, he really has won it all (in some cases several times over). Think Fed and RG 2009.

 

Novak Djokovic

 

Simply coz it’d be nice if the revival we saw at Flushing actually turned out to be one, rather than one of the many false starts we’ve seen since winning Indian Wells 2008 – the last title he won playing the way I like him to. Seems fitting for him to win at least something this year – and he has a chance to do that not just here, but to also clean up at Davis Cup and at Aus next year (hat tip @DavidLawTennis). That would be something.

 

 

 

Tomas Berdych

 

Simply coz he ‘s wallowing in doodoo at the moment and I don’t want him to go the way of Marin – for that way lies madness.

 

 

 

Andy Roddick

 

Simply coz this is the 8th time he’s qualified(!) yet has somehow never made it beyond the semis. And because he has a better chance here than at another Slam. And because Elena’s retirement has made me especially protective towards anyone associated with tennis circa 2004-2006. And because I’m still not up to talking about that yet.

 

 

Group B

Roger Federer.

 

Simply coz those blasted 5 unconverted MPs threaten to define what I still maintain was a better ‘one-Slam’ year than 2008. (Side note: how many “declining” players can cite having a ‘one-Slam year’ as an exception to the norm?)

 

 

 

Andy Murray

 

Simply coz having comprehensively scattered his seed on the Masters-1000 scene (read 6 Masters and 0 Slams), there’s a certain justifiable urgency surrounding the need to “step it up”. Winning here isn’t quite a Slam. It is, however, the next best thing – and it’s at home, and it wouldn’t do either him or his street cred any harm. Or, for that matter, David Cameron’s.

 

 

 

Robin Soderling

 

Simply coz “Simply coz” alright?….though I do so wish he hadn’t been drawn with Dave Ferrer.

 

Daveed Ferrer

 

Simply coz he tries so hard. Always.

 

P.S No one seems to have noticed that for the first time in six years Kolya is not part of the draw. Please tell me some one out there cares.

Read More...

Tennis and The Tea Party

 

 

Remember that time Rafa was cartwheelin’ fistpumps all over town after beating a qualifier in round two of a 500  event? Well…

 

 

 

 

 

 

*whispers* Think we should tell him it’s not 2003?

 

We don’t see this sort of thing nearly so often from you now, but like I said to Rafa – don’t ever change.

 

Roger Federer hit for the cycle in 2010: a Slam, a Masters Series titles, a 500-level and a 250-level title. (If this were any other player it would be a banner season; because it's Federer, we keep hearing how it's least productive output since 2002.)

-- SI.com

 

Actually no. Well, sort of.

 

See, the only people that actually focus on it being his “least productive output” are the type of cavemen that probably still think he’s world #1.

 

This is the opinion of a hot-headed fringe group – the ‘Tea Party’ of tennis.

 

Anyone else with even a passing interest in the sport (including me :p) picked up on his multi-tiered title tally (tongue twister, much), as well as noting that this is now his 7th consecutive final outside of the Slams.

 

 

And if we really want to be picky, then I think you’ll find it was 2008 (USO, Estoril, Halle, Basel), rather than 2010, that was his least productive.

 

Not that a deliberately skewed perception is anything to be surprised by – never let nerdy facts get in the way of a chance to play contrarian.

 

By the way, it might interest you to know that the exact same thing’s happened to Kim Clijsters, who’s also won a title at every WTA level (a Slam, a Premier-Mandatory, a Premier-5, an International Event…and of course the SEC), yet all we keep hearing is how unwholesome it is of her to be getting so “Williams” about her scheduling.

 

And so it was that Fed, in this week of mediocre sequels (I hope no one seriously bought into the idea of that ARod semi as “Wimby part 2”) and trumped-up revenge narratives (Fed either “only cares about the Slams” or he uses titles like this to avenge Slam losses – which is it?), fought his way past Pete Sampras’s title count to 65 ATP singles titles – 4th overall in the Open Era.

 

It’s a relatively light meander up to McEnroe (77). But to meet the real nutters – tennis’s gasoline-guzzling hell’s angels – you have to work your way up to three digits. Only there do you get to meet the likes of Ivan Lendl (94) and Jimmy Connors (109). I wouldn’t get too close however – not unless you want to get pulled into a drinking game involving engine oil and an industrial solvent.

 

***

 

Rafael Nadal

David Ferrer

Fernando Verdasco

Nicolas Almagro

Albert Montanes

Juan Carlos Ferrero

Feliciano Lopez

Guilermo Garcia-Lopez

 

8 of the 14 Spanish men in the top 100 have won ATP singles titles this season.

 

 

Simply an astonishing stat: it’s one thing having such an epic presence at the top of the game – quite another to make good on it.

 

Granollers had a chance to join this esteemed Spanish inner circle of truth. All he had to do was go through Daveed Ferrer.

 

 

And yet, just as you don’t think of beating Fed in Basel, you don’t beat the tournament co-owner in his own house – it’s just not the done thing deary.

 

(images: getty)

Read More...

Shanghai: “Vindicated”.

 

 

You might expect me to feel vindicated given how loudly I’d been pontificating about how Rafa’s participation in both Bangkok and Tokyo mightn't be the best thing in the aftermath of Flushing.

 

 

You’d be right. I do.

 

Feel free to compose 15th century couplets praising me in the comments section below. I’ve hired a couple of minstrels to relay them in the great medieval banquet I’m hosting in my honour .

 

   

 

There is, however, another possibility: that the very same thing would have happened, had Rafa done nothing more strenuous than a spot of fishing and the odd pillow fight with Xisca in the month, or so, after winning in Flushing.

 

That according to the law of averages he was actually due a loss, a real high-profile one (piddly events like Bangkok don’t count), given he’d seen the quarters or better of every event he entered this year.

 

Couple that with Jurgen playing what he described as “the match of his career” (“I could hit winners from [sic] any shot”) and it suddenly seems that much more plausible.

 

Playing like that, I can see Jurgen beating any top five player – including Fed. Like the man said though, you don’t often manage that, let alone against the very best.

 

Won’t stop me rooting for him to qualify for the WTF (over say NANDO, or BERDMAN).

 

 

 

According to the sales blurb, Fed’s shirt is supposed to be lavender (some people have even taken to referring to it as “purple”).

 

Maybe it is - under UV-lighting (As an interesting aside, I rather like the idea of having all sorts of weird subliminal sh*t UV-encoded on it – stuff to get in his opponent’s head – stuff to project power – sneering at the haters – whatever he wants. Just consider the possibilities for a moment).

 

His opening matches haven’t been especially polished, though that’s arguably exactly what’s needed at this point. He peaked early against Sod in NY and just look at how that turned out.

 

 

Sod always worries me when he plays Ferru – there’s no reason on paper he should be troubled by him and yet he somehow always is. Not today, thankfully – a straights win there means we get a re-match of Flushing.

 

Can we get a leeedle late-season surge going dya think Sod? Would that be too much to ask?

 

(Images: Getty)

Read More...

Shanghai: So What Have We Learnt, Gentlemen?

 

1) Just what is Rafa so pumped about?

 

Being Rafa of course. Silly question.

 

(Reuters)

 

If the Asian Swing really is a “swing”, then Rafa’s the kid that always takes things too far by pushing your 7 year-old self so high up, you end up crying.

 

I don’t suppose I’ll ever completely understand why playing these piddly events means so much to a guy that’s just written history. But then isn’t that exactly what Rafa’s all about? Barely stopping short of non-metaphorical cartwheels after beating a qualifier in round two of an ATP 500 event? Don’t ever change.

 

I might be wrong about this, but it’s almost as though he’s relishing the feeling of being able to play with the total abandon that must arise from being, a) injury free and b) able, therefore, to deliver his level best on a surface not traditionally considered “his bag”.

 

What all this means is that he’s got “nothing to lose” in the truest sense of the phrase: not in the way, say, Oscar Hernandez might have “nothing to lose” when he takes to court against Fed; not even in terms of ranking points (virtually none to defend until next year).

 

Perhaps this might be the best chance his career ever offers him of winning the WTF - the one title that eludes him. God knows what will happen if he wins in Aus.

 

Needless to say, this is both hugely problematic and profoundly dispiriting news for the rest of the tour.

 

I’d be be doing cartwheels too.

 

2) How good is Djoko’s Calculus?

 

If tennis was A-Level Maths, then  Djoko just went through a point of inflexion at Flushing.

 

 (getty)

 

I don’t think for a minute that he’ll repeat those highs right away, but I really don’t want to believe that was just a one off .

 

Personally I think it’s perfectly natural to have a slight dip in trajectory after such a defining performance before readjusting to a renewed sense of your self worth.

 

But he does SO need a good showing here: he’s got all those points to defend in Paris.

 

3) How much can ‘The Cone’ help Fed to “get it together”? “Get what together”, exactly?

 

In some ways, Fed’s in the same kind of “what now” transition Djoko is. The difference being that whilst Djoko’s Flushing performance was a step up from the way he’d been playing of late, Fed’s is more business as usual - which means that he’s mostly kept it together and (perhaps more importantly) hasn’t had any real WTF results (Baggy/IW perhaps the oddest loss, and yet take a look at what he had to say).

 

 (Reuters)

 

That gusto totalling of Sod in the gustiest conditions we’ve seen this year was as good as anything we’ve seen since the final of Melbourne (if not better given the wind).

 

I realise this will go down as one of his two worst Slam years since 2003, but it’s worth noting that it required three career-defining performances from top ranked players to bring that about – not something he’ll want to see repeated, but not nearly the catastrophe suggested by the column space devoted to doom-mongery.

 

Worth also mentioning that whilst I think input from the Cone will be invaluable over the coming months, I stand by my original assertion that his role will be (and should be) more about quietly nudging Fed back into reoccupying that mental space that wins Slams - renewing that sense of confidence that he can, indeed, beat everyone, dominate even the way he says he can (telling, that he chose  “dominate anyone” over “everyone” – not even he would claim to be able to dominate the way he did in 06-07).

 

Less important will be the need to “come to the net”, “to mix things up”, or any one of the manifold tired technical enhancements being touted as this years “silver bullet” solution to his “problems” (if you can call them that).

 

The tour moves on, players develop new weapons, so it is, of course, critical to keep your finger on the pulse and to understand how best to refashion a gameplan to respond to that.

 

It’s one thing to say that “Rafa has a beefier serve now, so I need to be ready for that”.

 

Or that “Djoko is clearly returning more fearlessly from the back of the court - I definitely ought to be prepared for that”.

 

Or that “Muzz is undergoing something of a career-tailspin, in a bit of a funk right now, so maybe I can bully him a little and profit from that”.

And yet, I can’t help feeling that a player like Fed, or indeed Rafa is less about mere technicalities, than they are about their formidable presence and belief: the belief that they really are, naturally, a superior order of being on the tennis court – in, of course, the most inoffensive way imaginable.

 

4) Where’d it all go wrong for Muzz?

 

*Grits teeth*

 

I want to say good things - hopeful things. It’s just that they don’t seem to accord with the narrative right now.

 

 (getty)

 

It wasn’t so much that he went out to Wawa at Flushing – it was the miserable, vacuous way in which he did. And there weren’t even any answers forthcoming from the post-mortem.

 

I didn’t follow Beijing very much but from what I gather, things weren’t considerably different against Ljuby.

 

Can you do us all a favour and appoint a coach already? A Coach-shaped cut out will suffice until you find a real one – something, anything to direct all all those death stares and verbal refuse at.

 

For one thing, I really don’t think he’s the “going it alone” type.

 

What was perhaps most concerning about the Flushing loss was the lack of any real diagnostics in it’s aftermath – Muzz was at a loss to explain his lack of energy and even went on to say he “might never win a Slam”.

 

Nothing hugely irresponsible about that – even the top players are more likely not to win a Slam than they are whenever they enter one. But being in the top four since 2008 and one of the esteemed few that has a winning record against Fed and Djoko and a not too blemished one against Rafa either, you’d think he’d have a less instinctive measure of his own self worth – though perhaps not, given that that presser was given less than an hour after the match.

 

In any case, get on to it Muzz, and soon. I have this horrible vision of you being drawn to play Phillip Kohlschreiber in the not too distant future with no one in your box and Miles Maclagan in his.

 

I agree: let’s not go there.

 

5) And the Others?

 

» I’m trying not to read too much into Sod’s loss to Fed at Flushing.

 

The wind was wreaking havoc, Fed was playing his best tennis of the year – looking back at it now, it was never really going to happen.

 

But I have to raise an eyebrow when Sod goes down in straights to Daveed Ferrer.

 

There’s also the uncomfortable fact that despite his recent success over Rafa and Fed – he’s now lost to both of them in their most recent respective Slam encounters.

 

 AP

 

» Davydenko: Remember him? Actually defending points here and, of course, at the WTF next month.

 

» Too early to diss Berd very much. A first round exit at Flushing is certainly a shocker – though it’s worth remembering how very new it all is to him. If he flames out early here or in Paris, or at the London WTF (assuming he qualifies), we’ll talk.

 

» Don’t expect too much from Delpo until the middle of next year. And then maybe only after that. But you already knew that.

 

» ARod is infected with the passive, top-ten, grinderman bug -- that had hitherto plagued only Novak – until further notice. I almost think less of myself for not expecting very much from him in what’s left of this year.

 

» Daveed Ferrer is  a top ten player – I keep having to remind myself of that. Don’t expect him to give anything less than his insolent, blue-collar, overachieving best to make the most of it.

 

» Mikhail Youzhny has a shot at end of season glory of some kind – and should by rights be made president, of something.

Read More...