Not Bad….

Ward d. Wawrinka 76(3) 63

I didn’t get round to seeing this.

The unkind thing to do would be to be assume that Stan stunk the house up as much as Ward played it down.

Except he beat Feli en route to the QFs of Eastbourne last year, and took a set of Marat here the year before that, so it isn’t, in some senses, THAT strange.

Except Ward is ranked around 200 places below Stan at #216.

So yeah, it is strange. Kinda.

He plays Sam Querrey (the defending Champ) next.

w00t.

Read More...

Quote of the Day

“Roland Garros plays faster than Queens….funny, but that’s how it is….”
--Ivan Ljubicic after his win over Ryan Sweeting at Queens yesterday

 

I’ve paraphrased a little and, admittedly, the comment was made in a light hearted spirit in an interview given to Eurosport, but Ivan’s not a guy prone to any type of drama or hyperbole – even in humour – and the sentiment he expressed was dead serious.

(Pic: getty)
Read More...

Roland Garros: Parting Shots

-- Let there be no illusions about this: the only reason Fed was “under the radar” is if you chose to put him there. Not everyone did. Just so we’re clear.




Two things in particular (aside from the “Rafa effect”) lost him the final: blowing the 5-2 lead he so convincingly built up in the opening set (obviously), and the first serve that was the absolute linchpin of his victory over Nole.

But for brief sporadic appearances, that serve all but deserted him in the final especially during its most crucial moments. There were of course flurries of activity when even Rafa admitted he couldn’t stay with him. There were also far too many netted returns.

It’s almost banal to the point of counterproductive to indulge the question of whether the SF in particular was Feds best performance since Wimby 2008. I’m certain I’ve seen intermittent echoes of “what once was” several times since then (WTF 2010 just one of many). But as an unremitting exhibition of quality at this level, its right up there.

And if he plays as well as this at Wimbledon, well, the world’s his slimy mollusc.

-- Never have I felt more vindicated than with respect to Francesca Schiavone

Quite possibly the most sincere runners up smile of all time.

It certainly wasn’t a given that she would follow up in the way she did after last years win. But then neither should it ever have been in so much doubt – her results over the year as well as the fact that this was the most open draw in recent history meant I gave her as much (or as little) a chance as any other top tenner. I even made her the banner for my noticeboard.

The reception she got from even the most respected commentators (as well as other more reliably callous sectors of the media) was nothing short of repugnant.

I entirely understand natural caution – I exercised the same caution in the immediate aftermath of her RG win last year, just as I do now with Li Na.

But even after results like these (all, incidentally, Slams and Premier events over the last 12 months): Montreal (QF), US Open (QF), Tokyo (SF), Beijing (SF), Aus Open (QF), Rome (QF)…

One wonders what the woman had to do to get noticed, let alone a little respect.

For shame.

-- Big up to Novak for the third longest streak in ATP history.




Were it not for AbFab it would be the second longest (did anyone think he wouldn’t leave his indelible mark on the event in a way in which only he’s capable?)

Its funny how the narrative suddenly changes. Rafa is suddenly the best athlete on the planet. Fed’s the favourite for Wimbledon. If you say so.

For what its worth I still think Novak’s the best player on the planet right now. The streak may be over but you simply don’t lose that sort of momentum overnight – however well Rafa or Fed might have played.

-- Biggest “disappointment”: Maria Sharapova:

This is not a knock. Anything but, in fact.

But I simply can’t dismiss a sense of waste – not with the overwhelming narrative or weight of (justified) expectation coming into this.

Consider the results: IW (SF), Miami (RU), Rome (Winner). Consider the possibility of a Career GS for a self-professed ‘Cow on Ice’.

Winning Rome in particular put paid to any doubt remaining in the minds of her strongest clay-court sceptics, and when you place that alongside a draw as open as the day is long, you simply can’t help but feel a sense of lost opportunity at the really quite poor SF performance she turned in.

It was windy for sure. Her opponent dealt with it. And so did both of Marion and Fran in the second semi final played on court that day (incidentally, in EXACTLY the same conditions). In fact, it was of such a high quality you might reasonably think of it as the the ladies match of the event.

These things happen, but no one’s interests are served by blaming a clear case of nerves on other secondary factors.

Needless to say, the run bodes incredibly well for Wimbledon.

-- Andy Murray turned in his best ever FO




Lets be honest – his draw wasn’t strewn with either land mines or tripwire.

But can anyone deny his five set comeback against Troicki demonstrates anything other than serious mettle?

Every seen Andy Murray dictating play from the baseline with his forehand? He did in Paris, for almost the entire two weeks. That’s not something I've seen on even the fastest courts.

Throw in the drama of a rolled ankle (which actually seemed to focus his aggressive intent further still) and you have something quite special.

”Worst Surface?” Colour me surprised if clay doesn’t, one day, turn out to be his best.

-- Fedole

The first set of this was the best set of tennis you’ll probably see all year – from both men. As well as Fed was playing in all departments, it was really his serve that was the absolute linchpin of this victory.

-- “Fingergate”

There really is no limit haters will go to to justify their vitriol.

I couldn’t care less who you might choose to direct your most potent rage towards (though I do find the number of people that predicate their support of one player with such caustic abuse of others quite astonishing – see Caro below); but can we stop pretending that a simple gesture or what someone said in a presser somehow gives it credence?

It really doesn’t, and your opinion of him will remain unchanged irrespective of what he may or may not do. Far better to be open and honest about that – I know I’d respect your right to be as obnoxious as you want.



The gesture itself is fairly innocuous and seems a retaliatory swipe against the doubters that would have you believe he was over the hill. Not to mention that I’ve seen countless other players do it – and not just in tennis.

-- At a certain point, all that fevered and reckless schadenfreude that erupted in the minutes after Dani’s win over Woz (and is probably continuing to this minute) will have to stop.

As with any other form of light entertainment, there’s only so much of it you can take before you begin to feel queasy.

More to the point, the relentless scrutiny of Woz in particular (that appears to be prompting so much of the derision) is simply a threadbare hoax: Dani could have and would have brutalised any number of top ten players playing the way she did in the opening set. Maybe even Clijsters.

There was a second wave of derision over her decision to play Copenhagen instead Eastbourne. Like I said, it left you feeling queasy – she’s simply too much of a sitting duck right now. If she elicits such toxic chemical reaction in you, ignore her, stop following her on Twitter. It’s really not that hard.




The discussion about her style of play and, in this case, her scheduling is entirely appropriate.

To reiterate: you’ve just come off one of your most alarming Slam losses as a world #1, you’re about to undergo the clay-to-grass transition the very best of players have historically struggled with, and you need, so very desperately, to win a Slam, any Slam.

How do you justify not doing anything and everything in your power to get as much grass court practice under your belt?

-- The Clay Court Myth just won’t go away [And it is a myth]

Murray, Pova, even an American against the world #1, turned in a career defining performance on the red dirt, and we’re still stuck pretending that their historical troubles on the surface are a consequence of some imagined limitation in their game?

-- “ScriptGate”

I’ve been steering clear of this one mostly because everything that needs to be said has been already.

I’ve read both sides and whether or not you feel there’s an issue over the way in which the release of scripts impacts the livelihoods of reporters, what immediately leaps out and punches you square in the chops is the arrant hegemony of the IWTA.

Put simply, any legitimacy they may possibly have garnered for their cause was shot to bits the minute they pretended to have some god-given right over the release of information itself, the copyright of which must surely reside with the players themselves.

Perhaps the most bizarre episode of the affair is in the emergence of Pete Bodo as Freedom of Information Champion for an article he wrote five years ago.

I haven’t always agreed with him – the “milk maids” episode was so bizarre it actually worked as a caricature of sexist sports writing.

But far too many people are simply out to win popularity contests by fashioning ever more unimaginative tracts with which to lampoon him with.

Whatever else you might think of him, there can no doubting that he’s been committed to his craft for decades – there’s a wealth of experience there whether you choose to admit it or not.

And as “scriptgate” shows, it’s worth remembering people are mostly far more complex than how you might chose to caricature them.

(Pics: getty)

Read More...

Roland Garros: Weekend Winners

Congratulations Rafael Nadal on securing your 6th RG Title and tying Bjorn’s record.




I honestly didn’t think you had it in you this year – perhaps not even make the final. For shame. How very callous that seems in retrospect.

OF COURSE you would find your mojo against Robin Soderling. Whatever made me think that wouldn’t happen? Well, since you ask – maybe that your win over Ljubicic was the worst I’ve ever seen you play in a RG match you’ve gone on to win (in straights as it turned out). Maybe that, in spite of seven finals, you hadn’t looked yourself all year. And I still think at least one of the two clay court losses to Djokovic demonstrates that. That’s my defence anyway.

The win over Murray in the QFs was, of course, impressive, but only in the final did you come to resemble the player that represents the rule rather than this “dabbler” with the exception. As you yourself indicated, you were a little lucky that Fed blew that 5-2 lead in the first set, but from then on in, the familiar motifs of creating offence from defence, maintaining an impeccable depth that’s been AWOL all year, and making Fed play that dreaded “one extra ball” were only too evident.

Rafa indicated several times in his presser how a win attained after such a struggle is that much sweeter (than, say, one in which he won the final for the loss of only four games). Still, I think this quote goes right to the heart of his troubles this year.

“Well, the real Rafa is both the Rafa who wins and the Rafa who plays well and the Rafa who suffers and doesn’t play that well…These two Rafas are real Rafas. The most positive thing is that I was capable of reversing situations and keeping a good attitude in order to reverse the situation.”

Like I said last week, the 1.3 Billion people narrative starts to lose some of its mystique once you’ve heard it 1.3 Billion times. Even so, its significance should be clear – you couldn’t understate it if you tried.



Couched between all the fevered reaction about the future of the Chinese tennis “system” (in every sense of the word), the various competing corporate concerns and the quest to put tennis on the map of the fastest growing economy, is an essential truth that has, rather sadly, been overlooked all too often – that Madame Li is an impeccable tennis player.

I defy you to find sweeter, better-timed, more crisp groundies anywhere on tour. And that’s before you even get to the textbook action, videos of which should be used as a teaching aid.

The talent’s always been obvious, but I didn’t think she had it in her to hold it together mentally  for 7/7 Slam matches. I still don’t – sorry, but there’s simply been too much evidence to the contrary [Not that I would mind being proved as wrong about her as I was right about Franny].

Finally, little disappointed we didn’t get to see hubby Jiang Shan on court during the trophy ceremony. I was keen to see whether it would garner as much coverage as Brian Lynch and  Jada did – because, you know, other players have families too.

But then again (comical pressers aside) that’s never been their style. Her speech was similarly understated, leaving many glam0-philes uncomfortable and disappointed. I found it a refreshing change.

(Pics: getty)

Read More...

Roland Garros: Noticeboard

 
Rafael Nadal won his sixth FO crown tying the record with Bjorn Borg.

Li Na shook off nerves to become China’s first Grand Slam Champion.

Does any Slam provide bigger stories than the FO?

More thoughts to follow.

Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Rafa	Muzz	Gael	AbFab
Sod	Chela	Fed	Djoko

Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Sveta	Pav	Li	Pova
Marion	Fran	Vika	Petko

 

Legend

Top’o the World

Hot Stuff

Sympathy Vote

Young’n Restless

Stacked

PICK OF THE DAY

PC

3pm start Rafael Nadal(ESP)[1] vs. Roger Federer(SUI)[3]

1) We all know how open the women’s draw is. Can we agree the men’s draw is “as open as it’s ever been” too? “As its ever been” in the last 6 years?

2) Does believing Francesca Schiavone has a chance at defending her title really imply the cerebral degeneracy most seem to think it does?

3) Write down the following and put it in an envelope under that loose floorboard beneath the stairs: “Novak Djokovic’s streak will be brought to an end by someone outside of the top ten”. Just a hunch.

4) Caroline Wozniacki winning her first Slam, or Clijsters winning her first Slam on clay – your choice. You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law.

5) Tommy Haas’s name in a Grand Slam draw (*w00t*). Alongside Lleyton Hewitt and, er, Nicolas Mahut. Make of that what ye will.

That’s all for now.

Read More...

Roland Garros: The not-so-short story of how I ended up rooting for MuFeDalOvic. Yes really.

 

I generally get very prickly at having to hear long, drawn-out justifications from people of why they choose to root for a particular player. Who you choose to root for (or against) is your own business and is based largely on primal instinct – lengthy, breathless justifications spectacularly miss the point. Root for Daniel Koellerer if you should be so inclined – I simply couldn’t care any less.

But what really offends me is the (unsubtle) implication that their particular brand of loyalty to their player is morally superior to anything you can conjure up for the same or any other player – that they’re somehow more in tune with its vagaries  than you can ever hope to be – a consequence, presumably, of  their inherent superiority in this and every other sphere. [If you say so deary]

For this and other reasons, I prefer not to talk explicitly about my loyalties  – they should be obvious to regular readers in any case.

Many people, however, find it very strange when they learn that I’m a fan of Rafa, Fed, Nole AND Murray.  Its the only reliable way I know of getting someone to snort-choke their drink through their nose – a particularly cruel and unusual party trick.




How very unearthly. Rafa and Fed at the same time?? *shiver* FED AND NOLE AT THE SAME TIME??  *barf* [At this point they’re practically reeling in repugnance and consider me something of a dilettante, beyond contempt itself.]

I can understand that many (perhaps most) prefer living in a world governed by mutual exclusivity – the boundaries are clear, you know exactly how to behave, who to offend, who to befriend, and I can certainly imagine it being less complicated  all round (though I’m sure committed fans would disagree). That’s fine, but my relationship with tennis is rather different. I don’t say this with any type of pride – if anything, its always been this way. And at times it feels somewhat masochistic.

I started out, back in 2003, rooting for Roger Federer. Can’t say this was my first love (Goran) and it may not, in any case, have been this way if there was someone as dominant around at the same time (an Agassi to Sampras for example). But there wasn’t – and I couldn’t, in any case, conceive of anyone playing tennis that way. I admired his game for all the same reasons any avid FedFan will tell you – the movement, the silky, deceptively powerful groundstrokes, the infamous Foster Wallace “religious experiences” yadayada…

To this day, I can remember almost breaking out in a rash when Andy Roddick went a set up in the early stages of his 2004 Wimbledon title defence – they only went four sets as it turned out, but it felt more like nine.



As the years rolled by, Rafa broke on to the scene. Like most, I was utterly captivated, and admired what he did on clay,  preferring still to remain steadfast in Camp Swiss Big Cheese – even though Rafa had  exposed (for the first time) the only vulnerability in the most complete game I’d ever seen.

And so it remained until the end of 2007 – the most dominant year in Feds career. Which is when things got complicated…..

Fed went down with mono, lost to Nole in the Oz semis of 2008. Fed fans immediately went on the defence. Everything from the the most trivial loss to the irregular movement of certain planets was blamed on mono. Some of it even carried over to the USO in 2008. The protective instinct against the doubters was undeniably sound, but its execution in many cases was suffocating, overwrought and unnecessary. My view was the great man would vindicate himself and welcomed it when he did, winning the USO and the Olympics doubles title that year.

It happened again at Wimby 2009 (JacketGate) when the phenomenon was at its most suffocating. I didn’t blame Fed, but merely suggesting (as I did) that the Jacket was at odds with why I’d become a fan in the first place and wasn’t perhaps in the best of taste was made to feel akin to an overt act of hostility.

Later still, a similar reaction was evoked when I took a stance against what I felt to be some of his less polished moments. I hold no one above criticism – as a long-running fan I almost felt it my right. The net effect: a door had been opened. And I admitted other players in.

The mantra of art and beauty was also starting to wear rather thin. It was still true that he played (by far) the most elegant game on tour, but all that talk of “poetry” suddenly felt rather hackneyed and it seemed (at least to me) that some of the emotional responses triggered by exposure to his game (or any work of art) could be derived from other styles of play – at least in part.

So I began (prepare to flinch) to dabble. *eek*  And actually, I tell a lie. Rafa had already been admitted “in” for some time, perhaps as early as when he first appeared on the scene. I found the humility completely disarming.

Every time I say that, someone wilfully misconstrues it as an implication that Fed is anything but. I honestly don’t care anymore. More often than not his Swiss reserve is misconstrued as arrogance. For my part, I’d consider it completely dishonest if he didn’t wear a certain amount of pride on his sleeve very visibly for all to see. Is there anything more intolerable than those displays of faux-humility we so often have to endure?

And that’s just the point: Rafa doesn’t make an effort to appear sincere or insincere – he’s simply Rafa. And such effortless humility has a unique charm I can’t honestly attribute to ANY other player. Perhaps such a subjective assessment is just as flawed as the type of fandom I claim to find so objectionable – it is what it is, and I make no apologies for it.




Then there’s Novak. Not gonna lie: I found him utterly repellent when he first appeared on the scene back in 2007. The breast beating, the chip on his shoulder so prominent it was visible from other planets – even his efforts to endear, like the impressions,  seemed try-hard and, ultimately, counterproductive.

And here’s where he came into his own – not only did he quickly dispense with all that crap, he replaced it with an attitude and demeanour as measured and professional as his game itself (something never in doubt). I almost DON’T CARE if this is an act – its effects are overwhelmingly positive. And when you do something for long enough (however insincerely), its not long before it becomes “you”. Feel free to continue hate, but you’ll struggle to find concrete reasons to do so.

And as for Murray, I should think his appeal is obvious: he doesn’t have Fed’s vintage professionalism, he lacks Rafa’s clout and presence, and he’s not anywhere NEAR as savvy as Novak. In fact, he doesn’t seem their equal either in maturity or prowess; rather closer, in fact, to the grumpy sixth-former that refuses to grow up. Yet, in spite of all of this, possesses the talent to beat all of them. I find that combination utterly irresistible. And I feel vindicated when the best his haters can come up with is that he’s “grumpy” – or that he has oversized teeth. 

To cut a long story short, they all hold a unique appeal for me and my rooting interests tend now to be more oscillatory – veering mostly towards the the guy that’s struggling most. I root for the guy that’s trying valiantly to scrape his way out of the ditch. And I root against the guy that’s trying (albeit indirectly) to keep him there.

I was rooting for Fed when he  was struggling in 08-09 right through to his first (and only) RG title in 2009. I was rooting for Rafa only a year later when he was able to put his poor form, injuries and parents’ divorce behind him. I was rooting for Novak at the USO 2010 when I felt he’d missed out on his potential and had been lagging behind the others for too long (only the possibility of a Career Slam for Rafa swung things in his favour in the final). And since the beginning of this year (and probably until he wins a Slam) I’ve been rooting (devoid of all patriotism) for Andy Murray.

The only exception to the rule is Sod, whose tennis is so outlandishly repellent, it actually commands respect. I’ve come to treat the carnage he sometimes inflicts on an unsuspecting draw as a necessary public service, the way a natural disaster sometimes paradoxically ends up being instrumental in stimulating necessary growth.

The same goes for Sveta and Franny on the women’s side – though for very different reasons.

So yes, I’ll be rooting for Fed tomorrow – I feel that’s the only option for a guy that hasn’t reached a Slam final since Oz 2010. It helps that he played the SF he did, it helps that it’s against Rafa at RG, but I doubt it’d be any different if it was Wimby.

There’s really no conflict at all. In fact it feels rather closer to coming full circle.

Read More...

Roland Garros: A bull, a goat, a falcon and a (wounded) badger.

Rash, foolhardy and insolent maybe, but I do think Fed has a better chance against Novak than most give him credit for. You all know how I hate talk of “conditions”, “altitude” and the like – and I still do (mainly because its used, usually, to justify some preconceived narrative that may or may not have even a partial basis in reality).

But I really do think the faster Babolat balls – the cause of so much whinging from the players last week – are conducive to allowing Fed to play his naturally aggressive game. The only issue with that theory is they probably confer exactly the same advantage on Novak. Not so much of a game “changer” as a “leveller” then.

Another thing. I’m not normally one for fanning the flames of drama and hyperbole, but Novak referred to his SF opponent as “the most *successful* player of all time” (my emphasis) this week. No that’s not deliberate at all.

And its “party spoiler” Roger (his words) that now stands between him and the #1 spot – and, one assumes, world domination. The symmetry could be described as “poetic” if it wasn’t so loaded.

Fair to assume the gloves are coming off (assuming, that is, they were ever on).

As for the other SF, I’m banking on Rafa’s brief flurry of form against Sod (as if anyone thought he wouldn’t find his mojo for that match) to be just that. Wounded Badger has been popping pills since he rolled his ankle and has, somehow, been able, not simply to sustain a high level, but to produce career-defining form on his “worst surface”.

At some point, therefore, something’s gotta give; which is why we can’t have Raga swaggering around on Phillipe Chatrier as if he owns it – even if he does.

Wounded Badger’s been through all of the top three players in the world multiple times. Just never in a Slam final. But then he’s never been in the business of dictating points off his forehand either (Yeah, that almost never happens). Things change.

Read More...