The Match

Note: This was originally written for TENNIS.com on 7/7/08.

The quality of tennis on Sunday was so astronomically high that no one deserved to lose. And there would have been no loser - for one more day at least - had the fifth set tiebreaker remained level for just a few more minutes. But thankfully for all involved, there was a resolution before darkness completely infiltrated the gates of the All England Club yesterday. Even the defeated Roger Federer agreed. "It would have been brutal for fans, for media, for us, for everybody to come back tomorrow," he said afterwards.

Federer's loss to Rafael Nadal as the French Open was brutal. This Wimbledon defeat, by contrast, was stinging. You only had to see Roger's post-match chat with John McEnroe for the proof - he could barely get through Mac's questions before being overcome with emotion.

As difficult as the match was for Federer and his fans to take, Nadal and his supporters were simply jubilant after its conclusion. Facing this opponent on this court was a test of the highest order for Rafa. He ultimately succeeded in a career-defining match that will forever remain in the annals of tennis.

The McEnroe/Bjorn Borg 1980 Wimbledon final took place before I was born, and I didn't watch tennis in the 1990s as intently as I do now. For me, this match - The Match - is the greatest tennis match I've ever watched. It had everything: a heightened importance from the start, gripping drama throughout, and a display of unmistakably great tennis. We even saw Federer, who possesses one of the greatest forehands of all time, whiff on his favorite shot. As the match progressed, I came to expect the unexpected.

But this was more than just a match - it was an experience. Thanks to multiple rain delays (troubling at the time, but meaningful in retrospect), this early-morning final turned into a day-long odyssey. My only hope is that, since memorable matches of the future will inevitably be compared to this classic, that fans won't be disappointed if the drama can't be equalled. Considering all of the circumstances and history involved, this may have been a once in a lifetime moment.

Federer and Nadal were keenly aware of this significance as well - I can't ever recall seeing a match where both players so visibly wanted the win. It was more evident on Federer's face later in the proceedings, but it showed in his game throughout all four hours and 48 minutes of play. Roger dipped into his champion's reserves often, when survival was the only option left.

In the third set, Federer faced triple break point at 3-3. In my notebook, I wrote "THE GAME" to denote that this series of points will determine how the rest of this match plays out. If Roger could somehow recover to win the game - which he did - this match was headed in a new direction (which is also what happened). If Nadal broke there, I'm positive the match would have ended in straight sets.

More Federer magic happened in the fourth set tiebreaker. The moment everyone will remember here is when Federer struck a backhand pass down the line to save a championship point. But coming back from 5-2 down - with Nadal serving twice - was Federer's best work. Once in the fifth set, Federer invoked memories of the 2007 Wimbledon final when he saved break points early on at 15-40. Roger was serving great, dictating play with his forehand, and showing the patience that is absolutely necessary against Nadal. For the first time in hours, I thought the match was going to go Federer's way.

It didn't. And it's not because of what Roger did or didn't do, but because of how his opponent played.

You know how Nike occasionally stitches a bull onto Nadal's sneakers? It's very emblematic of his relentless fight when playing. (Expect Nadal's own personal clothing line to be coming out soon too.) Rafa dealt with a rain delay in the third set that seemed to help Federer. He dealt with losing two championship points in the fourth set. And he dealt with mounting pressure in the fifth set after Federer clawed all the way back. In spite of all this, Nadal's shot making and mental strength somehow remained at their peak.

I remember watching Nadal play for the first time in the 2004 Davis Cup final against the United States. I definitely thought he was something special then. Years later, I thought he would - eventually - become the next No. 1 player in the world. But I don't think I ever expected Nadal to perform the way he did yesterday. That mystique was previously reserved for Federer, and Federer alone. Nadal has it now.

Nadal has something else too - the unofficial title of best tennis player in the world. In spite of what the rankings presently say, Rafa has overtaken Roger at the top of the mountain. Federer held on as long as he could - through a difficult start to 2008, to the massacre at Roland Garros, and through rain delays, tiebreakers and championship points yesterday at Wimbledon. But the Spanish bull is relentless.

There's only one Roger Federer, and there's only one Rafael Nadal. But today, Nadal is the one who is the best tennis player in the world.

Roger up on Centre

Note: This was originally written for TENNIS.com on 6/16/08.

There’s been a lot of grumbling lately about the ATP Tour schedule, led by its top three players, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic. I find this somewhat ironic because this top-ranked trio, by definition, has excelled under the current schedule, and this past week’s results suggest that they stand to benefit the most from the compacted calendar. All three played deep into the second week at Roland Garros, but there was no noticeable fatigue or impact on their playing abilities. And all of this took place, even more amazingly, on two completely different surfaces.

Federer cruised through the 32-player draw in Halle, maintaining his monopoly that he’s held there for years. Nadal and Djokovic met in the final of Queen’s, each taking out a man who previously dominated the tournament (Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt, respectively). Speaking collectively for this trio, there’s no better way these past three week could have unfolded.

Of course, tennis isn’t played collectively. So while this is great news for all three studs, I think its better news for Nadal and Djokovic, and less so for Federer. After Federer showed the first chinks in his armor at the Australian Open, Pete mentioned that Wimbledon could be of critical importance to him, since Roger was unlikely to win at the French. That scenario unfolded exactly. It’s not just the chase for 15 Grand Slam titles that makes Wimbledon so important. If Federer were to lose – and Nadal or Djokovic to win – his number one ranking could be in a perilous position.

Things will be tougher because of what’s happened at the last two Slams. In Melbourne, Federer was beaten in straights by Djokovic. In Paris, he was flattened by Nadal. These were huge confidence boosters for the winners. Now, it’s not impossible to see Federer turning the tables on these two at Wimbledon, but I have a feeling that this is going to be an extremely tough test for Roger in a week’s time.

Djokovic and Nadal have dominated since the beginning of the year, and they looked great on grass in Queen’s. Did you see the first set tiebreaker in their final yesterday? The shot making reminded me of what Federer can do, with a twist. Nadal’s serve does the job on both clay and grass – it will skid more on the slick surface. Federer should expect to hit plenty of backhand returns once again, though he will be able to get more power and control on the shot, as it won’t kick as much. Djokovic’s groundstrokes are quite powerful (remember that 100 mph swipe yesterday?) and precise, from both the forehand and backhand wing. And don’t sleep on Roddick either – he’s also beat Roger this year. I’m not sure where Roddick will be ranked, but can you imagine if Federer’s last three matches are Roddick, Djokovic, and then Nadal?

Make no mistake about it – Federer is the favorite at Wimbledon, and a big one at that. He’s now won 59 straight on grass, and beat his closest rival, Nadal, each of the last two years at the All England Club. That was probably in the (unknown) Tennis Channel commentator’s mind when, in between the first and second set of the Queen’s final, he said, “Eight days away from The Championships themselves. Roger up on Centre.” Let’s see what he does this year.

Tennis Confidential

Note: This was originally written for TENNIS.com on 6/9/08.

Many people dread the daily commute into New York City, and I can see why after living here for the past few weeks. The most common gripe is how long it takes. Most city dwellers not only spend time in transit on the train, but often have to factor in the time it takes to walk to the station as well.

Once onboard, any number of distractions can add unneeded stress to your trip. Finding a seat can be an adventure. The train can come to a complete standstill – dashing hopes of catching another train afterwards. And it takes only one blabbering person to ruin a train ride – who always seems to be sitting near you.

In spite of this, I actually love my morning jaunt. My forty-minute train ride is usually spent reading a book, the Post or TENNIS. My latest read was Anthony Bourdain’s culinary exposé, Kitchen Confidential. I asked for this book for Christmas, and it exceeded all of my lofty expectations. Anyone with even a passing interest in food should pick this up; you’ll learn as much about gastronomy as you will about the “culinary underbelly,” as Bourdain puts it. If Vince Spadea’s look into the behind-the-scenes world of tennis is called Break Point, Bourdain’s account could be called Broken at Love: Going for the Double Break.

After racing through the wonderfully descriptive and crafted text, I wondered why I enjoyed this book so thoroughly. Undoubtedly, Bourdain is a “gifted turner of phrases,” as Andrew Freidman (Rolo Tomassi) told me, but that’s not the core reason why the book succeeds. Rather, it’s because Bourdain, an executive chef, was so deeply immersed in his subject. He was on the kitchen line for years, and wrote about what he did, not what he saw. You can sense this realism in every one of the 300 pages.

This got me thinking about my own writing. I write about Roger Federer regularly, but I will probably never return one of his forehands. And it seems to reason that the people who should write about such topics are those who actually know what it feels like – not journalists who can barely hang with their weekend playing partners.

It’s a sobering thought. But even though I haven’t stared down Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros, I
feel that I am – for some reason – qualified to comment on the sport. I think it’s because I play as much tennis as I can, even if not at the professional level. I have my own unique insight, one that even Federer is unaware of. Even though I may not understand the sport the way Federer or Nadal does, the fact that I play at all makes watching tennis in person or on television that much more of an experience.

Playing tennis regularly makes me aware that the two pros on court aren’t just playing a game of pong – each shot is the result of numerous, concurrent actions that take place before and during each stroke. The sport is a complex one, but playing it – even if you can’t replicate your favorite player – unlocks more knowledge. This increased understanding makes reading an article or watching a telecast much more rewarding. In my case, I get more command of what I write. All of these activities require practice, but the payoff is worthwhile.

I encourage all of you to play as much as possible. Tennis is fun, provides great exercise, and can help your confidence. But it also makes the professional game more enjoyable, even if it’s not your career calling. Playing is one of the best ways to get involved with the sport, along with watching it and reading/writing about it. I like to call it, “the trinity.”

Tennis Town

Note: This was originally written for TENNIS.com on 5/24/08.

[Also: Remember when I wrote back in January that I was involved in some "other tennis-related activity?" This is what I was referring to.]

A few years ago, I realized that I should actually enjoy what I do for eight hours each weekday. So I decided to turn my tennis passion into a profession. Since then, I've been on a steady (but sometimes not-so-healthy) diet of tennis that has led some people to question my sanity. But it has been a very rewarding journey, and I've met a lot of people along the way.

One of the first questions I get after introducing myself is, "Where are you from?" I often reply, "New York," because I don't want to bog down the enquirer's mind with the geographical nuances of New York State. Of course, and as any upstate New Yorker will attest, that person will assume I'm from New York City. That wasn't true - I lived almost five hours north of Gotham, near Utica. Until now.

Last week, I hopped on board a train at Utica's Union Station, bound for New York City. The train was late, dirty, and uncomfortable - everything I remember about Amtrak - but I didn't care. A few weeks earlier, I received a call that I'd been hoping to get for some time - an invitation to come down to Manhattan and work with the good folks at TENNIS. I will primarily be assisting Kamakshi Tandon, your yeoman online editor, but I will also be helping out wherever is needed around the office.

This was a necessary change for me. There was nothing with the Utica area - in fact, you can find some of the kindest people and best food in the state there - but besides my four years of college near Rochester, I'd hardly been outside of Oneida County for an extended period of time. I wanted to try something new and, coming from a relatively small town, the bustle of Madison Avenue certainly qualifies as different.

I've had the "bug" to come down to New York City for a while. Many of my friends have moved to the area, my beloved New York Rangers play just blocks away from where I am typing this, and the city is an epicenter for sports media, including tennis. But the biggest pull to New York City is its charms, which you can only experience by walking around the streets and understanding what the people do. I've done this countless times over the past few years, but never in a more moving way than last year at the U.S. Open (an experience I chronicled on my website).

It may sound low-brow, but despite Broadway, the museums, Wall Street and amazing restaurants, New York City feels like a "tennis town" to me. Without a doubt, late August (when the Open starts) is when I sense this most. But there are other reasons. The city has a diverse population, and many play, or are fans of, this international sport. Also, there's an an array of places to play, ranging from public courts in City parks, to metro-area racquet clubs, to more expensive options for those so privileged. But the biggest reason of all is that there is a constant demand for court time, no matter where you go (as I write this, Tom Perotta is talking about the struggles of getting court time). People want to play tennis here. As much as New York City provides access to tennis on the professional level, it houses a significant group of people who love the game at its grass-roots level.

Add up all of the above, and that's the reason I got on that train, leaving everything I've known behind. The only struggles I had boarding the passenger car were physical - I was lugging two bulky suitcases, a briefcase holding my laptop computer, and of course, my tennis bag. Mentally, I've never been more ready.

I've been in New York City for about a week now, and I'm learning something new each day. This morning, I finally uncovered which of the many paths I should exit Grand Central Terminal to most quickly arrive at my morning destination. But there's a lot I still need to discover. I haven't yet decided where I want to live. I haven't found a bagel shop that I want to frequent each morning. And I haven't yet stepped foot on a tennis court.

But I know I'm in the right place.

For US(A) fans only

Note: This was originally written for TENNIS.com on 5/5/08.

The U.S. Open is my favorite tournament of the year, but in my opinion, it's going to lose a little bit of its luster after this year. According to reports, USA Network, which has broadcast the tournament since 1984, will not be renewing their coverage rights in 2009. ESPN will instead become the primary home of the season's final Grand Slam.

Since I can remember following tennis, I have always found the U.S. Open broadcasts on USA network to be the most enjoyable to watch. Once late August rolled around, the network practically renamed itself from "USA Network" to "U.S. Open Network." USA provided comprehensive coverage from day to night, and I always thought that the network and the tournament really worked well with each other. There was something unique about USA’s coverage of the U.S. Open, and I didn’t sense this in other tournaments on more expansive sports channels. The U.S. Open was the USA network's jewel (it's one of the few sports that it covered, period), and they polished that precious stone each year. It was done so well that whenever I annually tuned into USA for tennis, it was like seeing a good old friend for the first time in a great while.

I watch almost all sports on television, and I find that tennis usually has the best announcers. Why? Because they let the play to the talking. Now to some degree, this is inherent with the way the sport works - silence is mandated during play - but most hockey, football, and baseball commentators usually lay it on too thick for my taste. Tennis is different, and USA provided a forum for some of my favorite announcers to work their craft.

The tandem of Ted Robinson and John McEnroe is reviled by some, but don't count me in that lot. I find their analysis to be timely, insightful, and most importantly, appropriate. Sure, they share some stories from yesteryear during a match. But some matches last in upwards of 4-5 hours - so cut them some slack. I also found Jim Courier's recent work in the booth to be quite enjoyable.

As for ESPN - I have mixed feelings about this. In general, they do a good job producing a Grand Slam event. They seem to have shifted away from the tape-delay-a-thon that wrecked older Australian Open coverage years ago, although that had a lot to do broadcast hours and time zones. The greater concern for me is quantative: will they cover enough tennis? ESPN promotes itself as the "Grand Slam Network," but it also touts similar titles for many other sports, nearly all of which have a greater viewing audience then tennis and events that can fit into smaller broadcasting packages.

ESPN has other networks to which it can hand off coverage of the U.S. Open on line with multiple or lengthy story lines. Since I obviously can't evaluate them now, I'll just say this - I'll believe it when I see it. Tennis is way down on the totem pole in terms of ESPN's holdings. It was number one for USA Network. Yes, the Blake/Agassi '05 classic ran late - but we saw the end on CBS (at least where I was). And I've seen plenty of other great ones that ran into the night. Roddick/Sampras in 2002 was great. So was Martin/Ginepri in 2003. USA did these quality matches justice with a quality broadcast.

In an age where television coverage has shifted from a luxury to a demand, let's hope - if these reports are true - that ESPN keeps a great tradition going.

How Monte Carlo = Roland Garros (Not just Nadal)

Note: This was originally written for TENNIS.com on 4/28/08.

The road to Roland Garros is a long one, paved with a mixture of crushed brick and plenty of sweat. It’s been said that clay is the most forgiving surface to play on from a physical standpoint, but try telling that to the many players who are playing three challenging Masters Series events in a span of four weeks. And if you’re Rafael Nadal, the three-time defending champion of [insert name of clay tournament here] four consecutive weeks of play are required (in order to fit Barcelona into his calendar).

Nadal, among others, has aired his thoughts about the compacted nature of this year’s clay season. But as they say, the show must go on. And in Monte Carlo, the usual dynamos of the dirt didn’t skip a beat. The seeds played out perfectly in the last two rounds, with the “real” number one on the surface, Nadal, capping things off by again stifling his closest rival, Roger Federer. To reach this final match, Nadal brushed away the fourth seed, Nikolay Davydenko, while Federer garnered some revenge for his loss at the Australian Open against third-seeded Novak Djokovic, after the Serb abruptly retired in the second set.

While seeing the top four seeds reach the final four of a tournament isn’t that uncommon, having the top eight reach the quarters is definitely a rare occurrence. It almost happened in Monaco this week, with the top six seeds advancing to the elite eight, along with party crashers Sam Querrey and Igor Andreev.

Normally, I wouldn’t make too much out of this. But for a number of reasons, I think there’s a very good chance that what we saw unfold in Monte Carlo is what will also happen at the French Open. The top six seeds (David Ferrer is No. 5, and David Nalbandian is No. 6) are all spectacular players on clay – their lowest clay title count amongst them is four, aside from the still-youthful Djokovic, who has two. As for Andreev and Querrey, they could find their way deep into the second week of Roland Garros, but they represent a specific type of player who will do well in Paris. Andreev symbolizes the (are you ready) clay-court specialist, while Querrey’s presence is emblematic of a wild card candidate who can make waves from time to time (Carlos Moya ’07, Julien Benneteau ’06, Victor Hanescu ’05).

In addition, look at the box scores of Thursday’s matches that sent the top six into the quarters. Except for Davydenko’s three set tussle with Philipp Kohlschreiber, the remainder of the top six seeds crushed their competition – five of the ten sets in these matches either ended 6-0 or 6-1. And even though these matches were in a best of three format, all of these top six seeds have proven they can handle best of five set action. Last year, their combined records in Grand Slam matches were 104-20 (80.7%).

This is the beginning of the arduous clay season, where players – in theory – should be at their freshest. These eight emerged from this playing field, and while they may not all duplicate this result at Rome or Hamburg (due to the congested calendar), I think the same eight will prove their worth at Roland Garros, after everyone has had their fill of clay. I don’t have a crystal ball, although I did get a very clear view of this past week’s proceedings in my cousin’s home theatre, equipped with a stunning 92” high definition projector screen. Will I be able to watch tennis the same again? Like my predictions above, only time will tell.

Before I go, a few words about these competitors:

Nadal – Rafa is now an unprecedented four-time defending champion of Monte Carlo (Ille Nastase was champion in three consecutive years, from 1971-73). He can make similar history at both Barcelona and Rome, should he earn the four-peat at these upcoming events. And even though winning the French Open four straight years wouldn’t give him the best run at Roland Garros outright (Bjorn Borg can also tout that, winning from 1978-1981), we won’t think any less of the achievement.

Last year, Nadal accomplished what I called the “Quadruple Trifecta” – he won four different clay tournaments for three consecutive years. If he can defend his titles at Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome, and Roland Garros this year, do I then call it the “Quadruple Superfecta?” I’m not sure I like how that sounds. I’m instead thinking of dubbing it the “Perfect Square,” since Nadal will have 16 titles if he can win four tournaments for four consecutive years.

Federer – The start to his clay campaign has gone as well as he could have expected. Retirements by two of his toughest opponents help, but he looked right in form against Nalbandian in the Monte Carlo quarters.

Djokovic – Novak has significant points to defend at the next three Grand Slams, but he also reached the quarters at Rome and Hamburg last year. If there’s one equalizing factor in this three horse race atop the rankings, it’s that Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic were so dominant last year that they each always have points to defend somewhere, so an early loss may not be as punishing as it first seems.

Davydenko – He’s looked a lot more threatening since last year’s U.S. Open (did you know he didn’t lose a set at Flushing Meadows until his semifinal match against Federer?), and his win at Miami should do wonders for his confidence.

Ferrer – It’s going to be a stiff test for anyone to upend Nadal on clay this spring, but in spite of the 6-1, 7-5 defeat he suffered to Rafa, David probably has just as good a chance as Roger, Novak, or Nikolay does of slaying the clay Goliath.

Nalbandian – Steve Tignor had a great description of Richard Gasquet in a recent ESPN.com blog post, where he called him “The Microwave” – as in, he can get hot at any moment. Thinking back to how Nalbandian played at last year’s Madrid and Paris Masters, and then, how mortal he can look at other times, David could likewise be compared to this kitchen appliance. But to give him some credit, he’s a microwave from Williams-Sonoma (he won’t break down as quickly).

Andreev – Ever since Tignor (not picking on you Steve – seriously!) pegged Igor to shine bright in Indian Wells (he ended up losing to Mardy Fish in his first match), he’s been on a tear, reaching the quarterfinals at both Miami and Monte Carlo. Reaching those heights at Roland Garros is not out of the question, but if it’s not him, I could easily see Juan Monaco or Nicolas Almagro taking his place.

Querrey – Sam’s play was a great story this week. Just getting by Carlos Moya in the first round was an achievement, not to mention his subsequent wins over Andreas Seppi and Richard Gasquet. But what I take most out of Querrey’s success is that I can’t help but think about what James Blake or Andy Roddick could do on clay, on a good day.

Captivating clay

Note: This was originally written for TENNIS.com on 4/21/08.

When a player is labeled as a “grinder” on a fast surface, it generally means that he/she employs an unimaginative style of tennis. But on clay, it’s a term of grudging respect, sometimes even endearment.

On dirt, the action slows down, sometimes considerably. Fans can witness feats of great athleticism, like a sliding get to retrieve a drop shot, but they can also be lulled to sleep when players casually trade moon balls over the net.

And don’t forget that this tricky surface can breed some very unforgiving bounces, as no two spaces on the court are uniform in their composition.

Clay court tennis may not be the most attractive mode of the sport – even the players themselves look quite unkempt by the end of a match – but for my money, it’s definitely the most dramatic.

The unique nature of clay court tennis is the primary reason for its theatrics. On no other surface can you see players glide to return a ball, or resolve a dispute by checking a mark on the court. Each of these characteristics, however minimal they seem, causes points to be played differently. There’s something very attractive to me about these elements, especially when contrasted with the occasionally robotic nature of hard court tennis.

One defining aspect of clay court tennis that has a great impact on how a match unfolds is rallies. The slower surface negates the effectiveness of a “power” game, leading to lengthier exchanges with more groundstrokes. If hard court tennis is checkers, clay court tennis is chess – more strategy is required to win a point.

With all of these factors in play, clay court tennis is not just a test of skills; it’s just as much a test of endurance. Points can go on for interminable lengths of time, with double-digit rallies (in terms of shots hit and seconds passed) commonplace. These prolonged sessions have a much more dramatic feel than a typical hard court point does. Whereas you can “see” a hard-court point end even as it progresses, it’s much tougher to pinpoint the finality of a point on clay. I find that both players and fans have more invested emotionally in these types of points.

There’s another reason why I find clay court tennis fascinating – the players. You’ve all heard the term “clay-court specialist” before, right? You know, that overly restricting, beaten-to-death description given to anyone who succeeds with consistency on clay? Well, as I was watching the U.S. Men’s Clay Court Championships this past week, I saw two true clay-court specialists in action – Marcel Granollers-Pujol and Oscar Hernandez. And although you may not hear much about their accomplishments (...it was surface driven…it was in a minor tournament…the draw was weak…), I was engaged by their stories.

Both Granollers-Pujol and Hernandez will take plenty away from Houston. Hernandez, 30, turned pro in 1998, and plays almost exclusively on clay. He has one hard court victory – in his entire career. But he entered the week with a pedestrian 32-52 record on his preferred surface. His run to the semifinals marked his first ever visit to the final four of a tournament - and thus that much sweeter.

Granollers-Pujol’s achievement is just as meaningful. The 22-year old has been battling in Challenger tournaments over the past two years, playing four in the month of March alone. This week, he defied the odds and won his first career ATP title. When he served an ace to win his semifinal match against Wayne Odesnik, Granollers-Pujol let out a ferocious yell of joy (with good reason – he saved two match points earlier). The next day, when he served out the third set to win the title, he looked at his coach with a more tender countenance. But both expressions were beautiful.

Now, I realize these underdog stories take place on any surface in tennis. But it seems that they are much more prevalent on clay, and not just in the smaller events – remember Martin Verkerk and Albert Costa (and why not, Gaston Gaudio, too) at Roland Garros? At a time when men’s tennis is utterly dominated by a select few, those narratives are impressive and welcome.
As the speed of grass courts has slowed in recent years, the surface has lost some of its identity. Many players seem to agree with Tim Henman’s assessment that grass is “increasingly slow, heavy and high bouncing.” That sounds like a slow hard court to me. It also means that all of the surfaces, aside from clay, play similarly.

Clay is a unique surface in today's game, so it’s no surprise that the players are likewise unique – from Oscar Hernandez and his steadfast devotion to clay, to Rafael Nadal and his current 95-1 streak on the surface. It’s all very interesting to me as a writer, and captivating to me as a fan.

On clay, you never quite know what you’re going to get – just like the bounces.