We all know of course who the real number one (and number two for that matter) is, but have to say I think Dinara, like Jelena before her, is coming in for a disproportionate (and completely unfair) amount of flak.
-- Firstly I think it's worth remembering that the rankings system is a rolling, week-on-week measure of a player's performance in the last 52 weeks. Whatever else your view may be, the fact remains that for whatever reason, both Serena and Venus have these past few years, been a little thin on presence at the tournaments outside of the Slams. Both in terms of not always showing up and not performing as well as they might when they do. Credit though to Venus in particular, for putting in a strong showing this last year and dispelling the myth that their off court pursuits have somehow put a dent in their desire.
-- The Slams ARE already worth twice as much as the 'Premier' (formerly Tier-ones) events -- 2000 points versus the 1000 that the winner of a Premier event will pick up. Furthermore, from this year, the Slams are to be weighted more systematically internally, so that a player progressing to the latter stages of the event will receive more points than they would have done in the past - a welcome change I think, broadening the difference between the first and second weeks of Slam, and a good kick up the backside for any top seeds that go out early.
-- Dinara has since last year, won three tier ones, and reached the final of two Slams. I know she's had a pretty dismal 2009 (aside from the final at Melbourne), but it'd be incredibly unfair to her to throw all of that out of the window.
-- Are these people that are so critical of Dinara (and presumably the rankings system) demanding that points be further skewed in favour of the Slams? If so, I think it's worth noting that were that to happen, Dinara would in all likelihood, still finish pretty close to the top as she's made Slam finals twice in the last year. Unless they're suggesting that we also drastically increase the difference in points awarded to the winners and runners-up at a Slam - which by the way really is as insane as it sounds.
-- Having said that I'm not completely in favour of further increasing the weight attached to Slams as it would launch players like Ana Ivanovic (God knows what's going to happen to her ranking when she loses the points for her RG win last year in a couple of months time) into the stratosphere.
-- Perhaps these people that have such a big problem with Dinara'sascendancy, will take some 'comfort' from knowing that she has shed-loads of points to defend in the coming months, and given the current state of her game will in all likelihood, quickly lose the top spot to someone more 'undeserving'.
-- It's not that I don't think there's something fundamentally wrong with the winner of the last two Slams not being able to hold on to the top spot. But let's be honest - the real reason we're seeing anomalies like this has little to do with the way the rankings are administered, and rather more to do with the general bran-flakiness of the tour. But I promised myself not to talk about that for a while.
The iron's no longer hot but I thought I should include these picks for the sake of completeness.
Miami's Iron Maidens:
Have to admit I'm struggling here (my own rules prevent me from including Azarenka in the list).
Svetlana- Some hairy moments aside, this wasn't what I'd call an unproductive week for Sveta. She's ditched her coach (who knows what makes these things work), but seemed to be playing more freely and effortlessly than I've seen in months. Oh and she won the doubles with Amelie. Still things to work on, but plenty to be proud of too.
JieZheng - Just coz I love the way she plays and she went out to (an unstrapped) Serena in the fourth round. No disgrace in that. Great things really do come in small packages.
Na Li - One of the cleanest ball strikers (and one of the better techniques) on tour, I do find it a little surprising she hasn't had more success. Still, a quarter final here shouldn't hurt.
Miami's Damsels in Distress:
OoohhhBoyyy...
No shortage of contenders of course, but I think Dinara, Nadia and Alize particularly stand out for me. I'm a little disappointed with Alize who's recently gone from being a gutsy dependable presence to a frightened, unimposing wreck.
Which leads me to the main point of this post. Just what is going on with French tennis these days?
I've been more than generous in heaping (deserved) praise upon the mens game, but here's something to wring your hands about: I don't think it's a coincidence that two of my thre
e picks for the more disappointing performances in Miami were French.
Despite not being 100% against Djoko, I don't think you can fault Tsonga too much: he's already won two titles this year and made the quarters at Melbourne.
I want to limit the scope of my criticism instead, to three players in particular: Gael Monfils, Richard Gasquet and Gilles Simon. (pointing)You, you and you - My office - now....
Richard Gasquet
I don't think it would be that valuable to rehash all th
e problems he's had with belief and mental toughness. That's hardly news, and in any event, is a charge you could level at French tennis in general: for all their talent, they're running a little thin on that stuff you sometimes find on roads - grit.
But here's a few other reasons why I think Reeshard comes up short so often.
-- His shotmaking is probably the reason why most people think he should be a top tenner at the very least. Some even thought of him as a Slam contender a few years ago. Quieter on that front now, though easy to see why. He can take the ball on the rise and can rip winners from pretty much anywhere on court. But that's very much the point for me. Why, if you had the hand skills to take the ball as early as he does sometimes, would you chose to spend 75% of the match camped five feet behind the baseline. It defies belief. I don't care that he's capable of hitting the occasional ripped winner from back there that defies
the laws of physics. He's shooting himself in the foot, and it's costing him the early stages of his career.
-- A corollary of the previous point. His style of play is way too passive for someone of his ability. He seems to occupy a space that straddles the line between being able to step in and end a point in one or at most two shots (which I would argue he should be doing more of), and hanging back (for far too long) and engaging in high, loopy clay court exchanges. I don't like it one bit. Gael Monfils suffers from the same ailment. Murray used to too. Then someone knocked some sense into him. Now he's threatening for the #3 spot.
-- Have to credit Mark Petchey for this one as I certainly didn't think this was as big a problem as some of the replays he ran appear to suggest it is (must try and dig out a YouTube clip). Reeshard's never been the best mover. But he does seem to scramble around an awful lot - undeniably a result of playing from so far back. Unless he's able to win the point in the initial few exchanges, he too often gets turned into his opponents' yo yo. But here's the thing. Next time you see him play, watch how inefficient his side
to side movement is. Whenever they're chasing balls down, the top players tend to always have their feet in a decent enough position to recover their balance and more centralised position at the baseline. Net result: their scrambling looks less laboured, smooth even - and they don't tend to lose any momentum as they chase the next ball down. I don't expect many players to have the pristine footwork of Federer or Murray. But if Reeshard is to have any credibility as even a top ten player, he's going to have to improve upon that horribly imbalanced and inefficient, jittery side-to-side movement - especially if he intends to spend that much time scrambling around, which I would argue he shouldn't even be doing.
Anyway the point of that analysis -- prepare to have your hearts pierced -- is that I don't think Reeshard is quite the player he's sometimes been bigged up to be. Yet. His dazzling array of shots -- some of which we wouldn't even get to see if he shortened points in the way I think he should -- often distract people from noting some pretty glaring defects in an otherwise fairly complete game.
"Cover your eyes COVER YOUR EYES!"
It' s not that I've suddenly stopped admiring those groundstrokes -- I still think he can crack the top ten on the strength of those alone -- I just think that to be considered in the same breath as Djoko and Murray you need to be more of a complete a player than he is just now.
Gilles Simon
On the one hand it's not that I don't admire what he brings to court. I've already spoken loads about his fitness and defence -- I even think there's a lot to be said for his shotmaking. But here's the thing (there's always a thing): Admirable as all of that is, it's still a pretty slender and limited bag of tricks to have made possible the incredible run of form he's had recently, which more and more are beginning to suggest was on the back of a few dodgy performances by the top players. Would he have still cracked the top ten if that didn't happen? Maybe, but his stay would be more brief. Would he have still got to the final of M
adrid last year? Probably not. Now that some of that dust is settled, could it be, that some of these earlier losses we're beginning to see, are a truer indication of his standing in the game?
Gael Monfils
Another guy who I think is way too passive and more than capable of wrestling the initiative from his opponents and ending points earlier than he does. But that's not what I want to talk about. I would argue that Gael's bigger problem is to do with maturity. Or the lack of it. For a guy that had so much success as a junior and has just cracked the top ten, he's one of the poorest thinkers out there. It's not just that his tactics don't always appear to be well thought out. When he's in trouble with his gameplan, he really looks lost out there. That's ok I suppose as he's still pretty young, and having Roger Rasheed in your corner can't hurt.
Much as I love this sort of thing...
But I really do think that the time has now come to cut out some of the more flamboyant on court amateur dramatics. You know, all that stumbling, scrambling and diving around after balls that are hopelessly beyond you. It is a crowd puller, I grant you, and is great for building up his image as a crowd pleaser as well as for tennis in general. But I think there comes a point at which you have to ask how good that is for your body (he does seem excessively prone to injuries), and whether you're in this racket (pun intended) to garner public affection or on court success. That's where I think Rasheed will be particularly useful. Whatever else you may think about him, he doesn't suffer fools easily and will be sure to give Gael a pretty hefty boot up the hindquarters if he feels he's not taking things seriously enough. Maybe he already has - I seem to detect less larking around on court recently.
I'm gonna try and be kind here but after a pretty tumultuous and eventful week, those were two of the poorest finals I've seen in a while.
I can't really fault the women of course; Serena played as well as her heavily strapped leg would allow her to (credit to her for not pulling out) and Azarenka showed great mettle in doing what was expected of her under the circumstances.
Her unimaginative and drone-like point construction mean she'll continue to top my 'learning-to-like-but-probably-not-trying-hard-enough' list (girl plays like she's hooked up to a TomTom navigator - "Hit the next double hander, to the right!") - but I do on a certain level, respect someone who keeps it simple (very simple), keeps it real and just goes out there and executes. And it doesn't get anymore gutsy than taking out Serena in her own back yard (straps or no straps).
However I really did think we were going to see something pretty special between Novak and Andy.
There's not a lot you can say about the match other than that Andy, not withstanding a slight lapse in concentration in the second set (a likely result of the injury timeout Novak took at the beginning of the 2nd set) that only slightly prolonged the match doing little to change it's eventual course, did exactly what most people following the event expected him to.
Andy was for me, hands down, the best competitor of the event. He looked and played his way through like one of the top four players in the world with all the style, confidence, pizzazz and flamboyance that implies, handing poor old Victor Troicki a particularly malignant 6-1,6-0 drubbing along the way. Message to the locker room: 'Look, No Hands'.
Having got through Berdych, Tsonga and that newly inducted member of Club-Marat, I was beginning to think Djoko had a real chance of reacquiring some of that vitality that's been missing from his game for more months than I now care to remember.
It's not that either of the wins he had en route to the final were that convincing: Berdych was as Berdych is, Tsonga was very clearly not at the races, and as for that bloke wot broke his tennis bat, well, even Novak might struggle to draw positives from that one (Scratch that - being an effecter of that tantrum probably ranks alongside the title itself with Novak).
But the experience of winning some consecutive matches again (against some pretty tough opponents ) should surely have paved the way to a renaissance of sorts. No?
Instead we saw much of the indifference and lack of conviction that has marred his game and personality for several months.
Murray's win here has put him within only 170 points of the #3 spot (and incidentally around 2000 points of #2). I've put my belief in Novak for many months now, but it's surely now only a matter of time is it not, that we see Murray duly enthroned as the new world number 3? I'd say as early as Rome, and with the way things are I don't expect him to stop there.
***
Some parting thoughts.
Firstly can we all just agree that for a number of different reasons, and despite not always having a Fifth Slam-like quality about the tennis, that this was the most thrilling mens event we've had in a while - and that includes the last couple of Slams. Whether it was Roger totalling his racquet, Del-Potro's totalling of Nadal, Wawrinka's clinic on countering Rafa with a (right handed) SHB, the reemergence of Taylor Dent and that wonderful tap dance he does at the net or the continued resurgence of the A-Rod, there was more than plenty to love and get excited about.
Nadal continued to impress even in his defeats. This guy is a class act in every sense of the word and I continue to be reminded every time I see one of his matches why I'm grateful it was him and not someone else that took the #1 ranking from Roger. I'm not about to read anything alarming into the very evident reality that Rafa was pretty out of sorts and well below average. Guys just won the two most important events of the year to date. You've got to be pretty obtuse to think there's something very wrong with feeling a little tired after that. And lo and behold - it's the clay court season again. What a perfect way to begin begin loving your work again? I'm pretty sure there's some crushed shale dissolved in with Rafa's blood plasma. Expect further awesomeness in the coming months.
Federer? If you continue to believe it's business as usual after what happened in Melbourne and against Djoko here yesterday, might I suggest a less psychedelic strain of tint on your specs? It's too easy to suggest appointing a coach, and a little naive to think that'd suddenly change everything. But it's also naive to believe he can turn things around by continuing to hold faith in his natural abilities. He has very obviously now, hit a wall.
For what it's worth, I don't think he was that far from his best up until those scary moments in that last match against Djoko, but it's becoming increasingly clear that he's going to need to get on top of whatever it is that is causing these inexplicable, and it seems recurring moments of madness. I do sometimes find the continual insistence of a lot of Fed fans to appoint a coach a little tiresome and not always that well thought out. But if such a presence is someone whom he trusts and respects and is, more importantly, capable of getting him to think about his game in a different way, the partnership might just end up -- like a placebo effect -- imparting in his game the degree of robustness he needs to at least start winning some of those matches against Rafa and Andy.
***
This weeks Star Trekkers:
Djoko- Not really a return to the winner's table and still very far from his best I'm afraid. But he did manage to get to the final (albeit in the face of a series of very dodgy performances from his opponents) protecting his #3 ranking (for the time being), and didn't pull out of in his match against Tsonga, also earning him his DorandoPietri Award. All good as far as I can tell.
Del-Potro - Tried something different with a more aggressive approach to point construction and came out on top. Gotta like players that take risks, by playing outside of their comfort zone. Took out an underperformingNadal, executing a particularly exquisite drop shot in the process. I doubt he's got what it takes to hang out for any length of time with those other four, and this more proactive approach is hardly a mainstay of his game, but he's no longer the Top Ten's Whipping Boy. Someone else will have to take that role on. Gael Monfils?
Taylor Dent - What's not to like? Serve and volley at it's very best. His match against Federer was my pick of the tournament before I saw the Rafa butt heads with Del-Potro. Shame his fitness is not yet in synch with the rest of his game. Can't wait until it is.
This week's Lost In Space:
Gael Monfils, David Nalbandian and Gilles Simon. Underperformingextraordinaires every last one of them
It's a little late so I'll leave the Women's picks for the next post.
// EDIT - Gasquet was out with a shoulder injury in Miami - me being me I assumed he went out early; substituted him with Nalbandian under 'Lost in Space'
Some reflections on a truly shocking day of tennis...
I don't like the speediness of the unravelling that snowballed from the end of the second set. I mean where in the hell did that come from!? It's less worrying if you come in on the back of some consistently less polished form, or have a physical ailment (like Nando and his butt) - but he was alright early on this week (particularly against Dent), was he not? Or was I watching a different guy out there? More worrying if direness like that creeps up on you inexplicably. I mean what if that happens in a Slam final? I guess it already did.
I don't like the stat of 47 UFEs.
I don't like it that for a part of set three, Roger ran the complete gamut of UFEs (double faults, beyond the baseline, bottom of the net) - all over the course of only two games.
I do like the 'totalling' of the racquet - it benefited him four years back in the final against Nadal at this very event, when he managed to come back from 2 sets down. That was back in the day when they still played 5 setters. But to my knowledge has only done it on one other occasion - I seem to remember it happening against Nalbandian 2-3 years back. Daveed was as bewildered as everyone else. Far away somewhere Marat is quietly raising a toast to Roger and his 'totalling'. Welcome to the club Roger. Club-Marat.
I don't like it that Djoko's managed to secure this 'win' with some pretty appalling stats of his own - 22/30 winners to UFEs from what I remember.
I don't like it that I've found myself saying "A Win's a Win" a little too frequently in reference to Novak these past 7-8 months.
Contrary to what you might have read in the last paragraph, a win is in fact a win, and I don't like that far too many fans (Fedophiles and otherwise) will begrudge Djoko this win.
Conversely, I don't like it that far too many Djoko fans will go totally overboard in their 'lording it' over the Fedophiles.
I don't like it that from the end of the 2nd set Djoko's 'gameplan' was, for the most part, to simply put the ball into play.
I don't like it that, with Nadal out, Roger comprehensively buggered up his best chance at a Masters event since God knows when. It would have been his first since Cincy 07. I don't even remember who he played in the final.
I don't like it that, even though I rooted for Djoko's return to the winners table, harped on incessantly about how it would benefit the top of the game, that the shoots of his recovery (if that's what they are) came in the face of the worst display of tennis I think I've seen from Roger since Cincy 06 when he went down in a stinking, steaming heap to Andy Murray.
I don't like it that we're now going to have the obligatory two weeks of amateurish exchanges between the doom-mongerers that see this as 'the beginning of the end' and those that insist that 'this was nothing more than a bad day at the office'. It isn't either.
I don't like it that I'm finding it hard to admit that Djoko might be back to something like his best. Not until "I see him pull off a straight set win against a more solid player..", I exclaimed. Well Tsonga is considered a 'solid player' isn't he? Or is he no longer a member of that clique in this crazy tennis world of ours? And now his casualty list includes TMF. Oh and don't forget his dismantling of Berdych a couple of rounds back.
A couple of days back I was pretty sure that outside of a Fedalistic final or a Murray-Nando epic (which is surely the non-event of the event), the Wawrinka-Nadal match was likely to prove to be the match of the week. Sure Nadal was edgier, off balance and more cautious in almost everything he was doing and he had mentioned how poorly he'd been playing after coming through against Gil a round earlier. But it would be incredibly unfair not to credit Wawrinka for sticking to his gameplan - and what a gameplan for someone who you wouldn't normally think of as a tactician.
He mixed things up well, but the key for me were those groundstrokes of his, the heaviness of which I've talked about in the past, and which he put to good effect in keeping Nadal behind the baseline. Do we need further evidence that it is -- contrary to popular opinion -- possible for a right handed single-hander to put together and execute an effective gameplan against Rafa? We all know of the kind of damage Rafa can inflict on them, but he remains uniquely vulnerable to flat heavy strikers of the ball. Insight for Roger: Go hang out with Stanislas more than you already do...
Cue Juan, a guy whom I've previously dismissed as "taking too long to construct rallies on his terms" and having 'lurching side to side movement", though he does hit the ball very hard.
And though he took the first set, I was quietly confident that Rafa's mental strength would help see him through much in the same way as it did against Wawrinka, despite quite clearly playing far below average.
Sure enough (though after a quite horrendous start) he surged ahead in the second set, but at 5-3 up something quite extraordinary happened. Juan hit a drop shot so exquisite that I remember thinking to myself "that's perhaps the best shot I've ever seen Juan play". Nadal went on to take the set but the tone for the match was set.
Yes Nadal was far from his best, but the real reason Juan came out on top for me was in his willingness to take risks and go against the natural grain of his game - which is to bludgeon balls back until you're in a comfortable position dictating play before pulling the trigger.
I think we all knew what a great ball striker Juan was when he shot up to #6 in the rankings with that great series of wins coming into the US Open last year, but had since acquired the look of a frightened schoolboy that has inadvertently stumbled into the Senior Prefects' Common Room; understandable really, as he then underwent a series of top ten losses so ruthless in their nature that he really must have thought he was undergoing a perverse and painful (but hopefully short lived) Top-Tenner's initiation rite as Nikolay (6-3,6-2 at the Tennis Masters Cup last year), Roger (6-3,6-0, 6-0 at Melbourne this year) and Rafa (6-2,6-4 last week at Indian Wells) all lined up to knock seven shades of you-know-what out of him. Well it was either that or to be made to stand in an empty court with your arms tied behind your back while the other guys place bets on what part of your body A-Rod can serve into next.
I sort of get the feeling that it'll not be long before he reverts to his more passive style of point construction and I still strongly believe the A-Rod is more worthy of the #5 spot, but I'll tell you what - if he even manages to produce that more plucky form once every three months it'll be enough to keep the top four honest and prolong his stay in the top ten.
***
[3] N Djokovic (SRB) d [10] J Tsonga (FRA) 63 64
And the winner of the 'DorandoPietri' Award for Human Endurance is......NovakDjokovic. It wasn't his best performance tennis wise - although enough to squeeze past a particularly out of sorts Jo-Willy. The urge to quit in that 2nd set must have been tremendous.
Marathon runner's often speak of 'hitting a wall' - a point at which the fatigue is so great that your mind and body virtually shutdown: I'm pretty sure Novak hit his about five times over and remain concerned that Novak is more prone to these types of physical breakdowns than a world number three (or a top tenner for that matter) should be. I'm also certain that there would have been no third, had Jo-Willy somehow managed to squeeze that 2nd set.
Instead here's my more romantic interpretation of what might have been.
Take a close look at what happens one minute into the video when Dorando collapses and has to be picked up and escorted over the finish line by a bunch of London Coppers, before being taken away on a stretcher.
***
One last thing. Neither of the Williams Sisters have been that convincing over the course of this event. Serena in particular got into one too many three setters for my liking early on. Venus seemed more comfortable, like she was going through the motions en route to their semi final clash - particularly against her quarter final opponent Benesova - who has just become my resident villain of the tour.
I've got no problem with a healthy desire to win, heck I've been lamenting the lack of spine these past several months. I don't even expect you to smile when you shake your opponents' hand after a loss. God knows, your body's hurting, your mind's hurting and you just want to get off court. But does it really hurt so much to look your opponent in the eye? Never mind the fact that your opponent is a seven time Grand Slammer, a living legend in the game. The fact that you've only just cracked the top 50 last year might serve as a reminder that a little humility wouldn't be amiss.
But back to Serena, who, that semi final not withstanding, has been less than awe-inspiring here this year. I fully expect her to come through against Azarenka in tomorrow's final but it won't be easy. Victoria's young, fit, hungry, spirited, consistent and hits the ball like a bomb. Serena might be on to something if she starts the match bellowing louder than her opponent.
A slight detour before I return to the more regular wrap ups. I've just finished watching Juno. Yes I know it's nearly two years old, and I'm not normally in the habit of watching anything tagged 'Teen' or 'High-school', but I had to see what all the fuss was about.
Not going to post a film review on a tennis blog but I will say that if you can stomach the Hipsterisms ("Honest to Blog?") and are patient enough to weather the incessant, and at times laboured torrent of one liners -- that have all the pace of a Dementieva rally and aren't always as 'snappy' and 'witty' as the hype would have you believe -- there is quite a warm tale in there that sensitively and comically handles a really tricky subject.
Now - here's the problem with a tennis fan watching indie films, and the main point of the post. It's not the first time I've been guilty of trying to look for Federer/Nadal like protagonists, or at least caricatures of my favourite players when I should just have been enjoying the film.
But the funny thing is I didn't have to be nearly as exacting as all that, as 10 minutes into the movie we're shown Juno's love interest. A quick search of any tennis messaging board will confirm that I'm not the first to notice this (particularly as the film's been out for almost two years), and I'll admit there's also dozens of images out there in which he looks nothing like him, but the resemblance of Mr Cera to to a certain Latvian Wunderkind is at times so striking, that I think its worth examining again:
And if that's not 'Separated at Birth' enough for you, they're both also born in 1988.
What I really want to see is Gulbis turning up to the Montreal Masters (most of Juno's cast and crew are Canadian) dressed like this:
Sensory stimulation. Forget listening to whales murmuring, if Tennis were prescribed as therapy, these are the matches you'd be made to see. Tennis the way it should be played. A real contrast of styles - and I'm not even sure I'd call it old school.
In short Dent supplied us with the best net play that I've maybe seen since Federer won his first Wimbledon title. Back then Taylor was known more for his 140mph+ service. I knew he was a great serve-volleyer, but I forgot how good. Or the relative absence of this style of play has made me forget just how good things can get.
Whatever it was it required Federer to raise his game to a level I'm pretty sure we haven't seen from him at the Masters level for around a year and a half.
Loving the comeback from Dent, who is taking off the entire clay court season to spend time getting back into shape - can't wait - I'd love to see what a more trim Dent could accomplish against the top players.
[3] N Djokovic (SRB) d [21] T Berdych (CZE) 63 62
Novak's been very busy this week persuading the media that he's feeling much better about his tennis and life in general. I actually want to believe him and he seemed to play well enough.
Trouble is Berdych was as Berdych always is, and sadly seems destined to remain - though I'd loved to be proved wrong. Just when you think he's put a couple of good points together he almost rears up as if he's just been reminded of how UN-Tomas like that last point was and quickly settles into his comfort zone. Trouble is his comfort zone is not what his therapist might refer to as a 'happy place'.
Hearing the ball come off his racquet really does make you feel you're in the presence of potential greatness (it does sound rather Safin-like). Federer observed after his 5 set scare against him at this years Aussie Open that 'he wished he was higher up the rankings so you don't have to play him so early'. Hear that Tomas? Even TMF himself wishes you'd play that little bit better.
And as for Novak, I remain unconvinced, at least until I see him pull off a straight set win against a more solid player - preferably by dictating play the way he was last year.
[4] A Murray (GBR) d V Troicki (SRB) 61 60
Ouch. Every so often the top 4 (perhaps subconsciously) flex their muscles a little and remind us (and maybe themselves) of the kind of carnage they're capable of. Perfect way to recover from his more shaky performance a round earlier.
[5] A Roddick (USA) d [9] G Monfils (FRA) 76(2) 64
More loveliness from the A-Rod, who is my unofficial world number 5 right now. The commentators observed that though we often bemoan the lack of variety on Tour, not many would pick A-Rod as the guy to remind us of the game's many subtleties. This performance had it all. UN-Roddick like smoothness at the net. Murray style rope a dopes. All demonstrating how far he's come. How I wish this maturation had happened say 3 years ago.
[6] J Del Potro (ARG) d [11] D Ferrer (ESP) 63 62
Haven't seen any of Juan's matches, but with the results he's had here is beginning to look a little more world number six like. Still think he'll have a tough time against the Tsonga's and Verdasco's of this world.
[10] J Tsonga (FRA) d [7] G Simon (FRA) 67(4) 63 62
Simon's had one too many losses recently all of which suggest that his run of good form maybe nearing it's end. I still think he's one of the game's best defenders and is endurance is almost Ferrer-like at times, but you just get the feeling lately that he's had the success he's had on the back of a series of sub par performances by the best players.
[8] F Verdasco (ESP) d [18] R Stepanek (CZE) 62 62
Stepanek's been a warlock this year. Scary, scary play to accompany his scary post match 'Living Theatre'. Except today, when Nando reminded him that worms aren't sometimes that scary at all. Sometimes they're just fish food.
[8] S Kuznetsova (RUS) d [13] C Wozniacki (DEN) 64 67(5) 61
A horrible, horrible stewy mix of immaturity and tactical miscalculation on the part of Wozniacki, and more of that frailty I spend a large part of my time hating on the part of Kuznetsova.
To be fair it was HOT out there; and Sveta appeared to play a great first set featuring a lot of the effortless power-precision that draws me to her play.
But I can only hope that the passivity that Caroline showed in the early part of the match was a conscious tactic in hope that Sveta would implode in the way she usually does. It didn't work - and it took Caroline the best part of two sets to realise this. Then she pressed the panic button and so began a kamikaze like bid that saw her lose the last set 6-1.Read More...
All images on this site have been found in the public domain.
Credit has been given wherever possible. If you feel your copyright is being infringed upon by any particular image, please contact me and I'll have it taken it down.
I just wanted to post some quick thoughts on the news that Safina is soon to be enthroned as the new world number one.
Posts
