The Cold, Hard Truth

Spin was in this past week, as Andy Murray and Jelena Jankovic, masters of high-arcing groundstrokes, earned weighty titles in Montreal and Cincinnati, respectively. To top such loaded fields with spin instead of strength, these two champs needed to scamper along the baseline to whatever was fired at them, ad nauseam. Retrieve enough bombs from artillery like Juan Martin del Potro, Dinara Safina, and Elena Dementieva, and you might survive. But Murray and Jankovic did more than just survive, they thrived, and both ended up closing out their tournaments in commanding fashion.

Murray had a fairly simple time in Montreal until the final, where he faced one of the tour's hottest players, del Potro. As I watched the final, which ended 6-7 (4), 7-6 (3), 6-1, I started to draw comparisons between this match and one that features two more accomplished men, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. While Roger and Rafa's history, excitement, and execution were not replicated, their styles were evident, at least from my perspective. Maybe Murray and del Potro were simply showing off what they've learned from these two tennis icons.

Murray represents a toned-down version of Nadal, neutralizing the strikes of del Potro and unleashing offense of his own on occasion. As for del Potro, he reminds me even more of Federer than Murray does of Nadal. The serve: it bailed del Potro out of all kinds of trouble this week, especially against Andy Roddick in the semis, and it did so during the pressure points. The volley: underrated; the tall man from Tandil has surprisingly fine touch at net. The forehand: a swing that needs to connect perfectly (it's a big, whipping swat, like Federer's) to have results. But when it does, it's often a point-ender, stopping most opponents in their tracks. These are all traits of the 15-time Grand Slam champion.

Of course, Murray and del Potro brought their own unique elements to the act as well -- most notably an insatiable hunger to win, even at the Masters level. Roger and Rafa's bundles of Masters shields can barely be contained on the placards that bear their names near their seats. Murray and del Potro have a ways to go. But it was a joy to watch both of these men play at such a high level this week. It seems odd to say that there can be so much depth in just the men's Top 10, but it's true on the ATP tour.

Unfortunately, no such depth exists on the WTA side of things. Sure, the big non-majors have been shared by a number of different ladies (Venus Williams in Dubai, Vera Zvonareva in Indian Wells, Victoria Azarenka in Key Biscayne, Safina in Rome and Madrid) but that strikes me more as a lottery -- who will get hot this week -- than a signal of relatively equal abilities. This week, Jankovic drew the winning number.

This is nothing against Jankovic, who clearly earned her title, beating Azarenka, Dementieva and Safina, among others. But so many big names faltered around her in mystifying manners that it warrants mention. Venus and Serena Williams both lost in straight sets in the third round. Zvonareva also fizzled in round three. Svetlana Kuznetsova, champion of Roland Garros and No. 6 in the world, lost to a player who hadn't played a professional match in over two years. And Safina crumbled in yet another final, this after winning her semifinal match against No. 14 Flavia Pennetta 6-2, 6-0.

If we're talking about strange losses, I'd be remiss to not mention Federer's incredible collapse from 5-1 up in the third set against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in Montreal. But a high seed doesn't wilt like clockwork on the men's tour. In Montreal (ATP), all of the top eight seeds advanced to the quarterfinals; just four did in Cincinnati (WTA). The season may have changed, but the story hasn't.

A Sporting Narrative

I can enjoy any sport, if compelling enough, for its annual duration: a season. I rarely follow baseball anymore, but when the Tampa Bay Rays magically held off the duopoly of the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees to win the AL East last year, I briefly reacquainted myself with a childhood pastime.

But as 2009 began, I weaned myself from Major League Baseball completely. The Rays are still a fine small-market club, playing above their expectations and in the hunt for a Wild Card spot. But in baseball, and almost every other team sport, the landscape completely changes from year to year because of free agency, and its continuity suffers. While the Rays haven't changed too much, their competition up the east coast has, significantly. The Yankees spent over $400 million during the off-season to acquire star first baseman Mark Teixeira and pitching aces C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett. In 2008, we saw the Rays outplay the gilded Bronx Bombers. But we will never find out if the Yankees -- their 2008 incarnation -- could rebound and retake the division in 2009, because we're watching an entirely new New York team. The story starts over each year: an unfortunate byproduct of most major American sports.

Tennis is an exception to this; there is a clear narrative that develops from year to year, which makes it the most compelling sport of all. The players (or "teams") change, but not because something was purchased to make them so. They are the same composition, but their qualities evolve with each experience on the court. Really, has their even been a team in any major American team sport that stayed constant from one year to the next since...1980? 1970?

The tome of Roger Federer contains some of the finest prose I've had the pleasure to watch, but many smaller literary works published by the ATP and WTA capture my interest. A good example is the story of Juan Martin del Potro, a cracking tale, even though it’s only just begun. Del Potro was smart to play in many smaller tournaments last year -- Stuttgart, Kitzbuhel, Los Angeles, Washington -- to prepare for the U.S. Open. True, his ranking precluded him from automatic entry into the bigger Toronto and Cincinnati Masters events, but he could have focused exclusively on qualifying for them, where he may have been fodder in the end. Instead, he gained much confidence and ranking points by playing -- and winning -- those four tournaments; a year later, del Potro is No. 6 in the world. (An aside: Based on how, and where, Sam Querrey has played this summer, watch out for him next year. He's taken a path similar to del Potro's.)

Since then, del Potro hasn't taken the next step -- winning an event of greater prestige, like a Masters -- but he's clearly knocking on the door. The 20-year-old (!) beat Rafael Nadal in Miami when the Spaniard was at the height of his powers, and nearly derailed Federer in the French Open semifinals. On Sunday, he defended his title in Washington, not a chump-change tournament, by any means. Del Potro's last three victories came against Lleyton Hewitt, Fernando Gonzalez and Andy Roddick, a run that resembles the later rounds of many Grand Slams. This most recent triumph should give del Potro even more confidence heading into Montreal and Cincinnati, which he will play this year. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if he takes that next step soon.

Flavia Pennetta's win at the L.A. Tennis Open might seem like a random, meaningless blip on the tennis radar. Indeed, it will probably be forgotten by week's end. But Pennetta has slowly but steadily evolved into a strong player that's regularly in the later rounds of tournaments. From 2004-07, Pennetta was meandering around the Top 30; she was a solid but unremarkable presence on tour. In 2008, she shot up and finished the season ranked No. 13; now, she's No. 11. The Italian has won eight titles in her career, and two in the last 30 days (Palermo is the other). It would be unreasonable to expect great things from this dirt devil at the biggest hard-court tournaments this summer, but wins over Nadia Petrova, Vera Zvonareva and Maria Sharapova on asphalt can't be discounted. Pennetta, 27, may not be able to handle a challenge from a Williams sister, but against the highly-touted but still largely-unproven youngsters -- say, Caroline Wozniacki, Victoria Azarenka, Sabine Lisicki -- the veteran should assert her authority admirably.

Leaving the office

Astute readers may notice that there is no italicized note preceding this post, as there has been for the majority of my recent entries. There's a reason for that: this post is a Gasquet & Racquet exclusive. For those of you keeping track, the last time I wrote a post solely for [G/R] was back in January, when I pined for a Federer/Nadal final at the Australian Open. It would have been their maiden meeting at a hard court Grand Slam, but after they both lost their semifinal matches, I was denied this treat. Eight months later in Flushing Meadows, another possible asphalt encounter was derailed when Nadal lost his U.S. Open semifinal to Andy Murray. Am I perturbed? Slightly. But I'm confident that we’ll see a best-of-five clash on concrete between the two sometime soon. (Of course, they more than made up for these missteps with their midseason duel on grass.)

But let’s get back to why today’s entry is, for once, original. As many of you know, I’ve been labouring for a number of other tennis websites this year. The lion’s share of my work was done for TENNIS.com, but I’ve also written for NBCOlympics.com and USOpen.org. (I'd mention another tennis magazine's website that I wrote for, but they had their chance – and dropped the ball.) Because of these commitments (which I’m not complaining about), I’ve had practically no time to write exclusively for [G/R]. As far as problems go, this is a good one to have.

Writing for all these established sites has been quite an experience, and I’ve had the pleasure of meeting some nice people along the way. Besides the crack editorial staff at TENNIS, I've talked tennis with respected veterans like Jon Wertheim (Sports Illustrated), Bonnie Ford (ESPN.com), and Bud Collins (Boston Globe). I've even met two New York Rangers beat writers who I admire, Sam Weinman (The Journal News) and John Dellapina (Daily News). It’s nice to know that hockey writers like tennis too!

I can't say that I expected all this when I first started [G/R]. Back in the summer of 2005, I had just graduated college (from the famous SUNY Geneseo) and I had no idea what I wanted to do. I wasn't sure whether I wanted to stay in the business world, try my hand at academia, or just find a job worth doing so I could keep a collegiate relationship going. Within days of starting my first full-time job at a national insurance company, I knew at least part of the answer: I definitely did not want to be working in insurance. I’m underlining that for all of you underwriters, customer service representatives, and claims adjusters reading this in your cube. Follow me towards the light…

After submitting piles of job applications to a domestic tennis association – all of which went unanswered – I decided that I needed a better sales pitch besides "I love to watch tennis and I know everything about the ATP Tour." That's when I started thinking about putting that knowledge to use in a website of my own. It was the first step in the journey that’s led me to where I am today.

(Ironically, I hated the proliferation of blogs back then – and I still despise the word “blog” today – but I quickly realized that creating a weblog was the only choice that I had. I didn’t want to pay a large sum of money to a website designer, especially since this was a trial-and-error run from the start, but I also had minimal publishing experience of my own. (My attempt to build [G/R] would have resulted in a poorly constructed html site via an out-of-date Dreamweaver, at best.) When I saw this very template on someone else's Blogger-hosted website, I liked it, signed up, and created my own.)

One of the things about Gasquet & Racquet that I'm most proud of is the site’s name. There are some crappy names of tennis websites out there (some bland, some over-the-top), probably because there are too many lazy webmasters guilty of pandering. So when "Top Spin Tennis" popped into my head, I quickly dismissed it and went with a name that I liked. Richard Gasquet was, and still is, one of my favourite tennis players to watch. His last name is also has the same suffix as tennis’ tool of the trade. I thought “Gasquet & Racquet” looked cool, and the site was born. (But contrary to popular belief, this was never intended to be a Richard Gasquet fan site, even though I devoted many posts to him, and I advertised the site on Gasquet's personal website. Regardless, I loved the name and still do today.)

Originally, I had planned for [G/R] to become the exclusive “haven” to discuss the ATP Tour. Little did I know, a) how difficult that would prove to be in practice, and, b) that there was an incredible site (which I didn’t visit regularly in 2006) that had me beat a long time ago. What you don’t know can’t hurt you, I suppose.

Blissfully ignorant, I did the best I could in the first year, posting at least twice a week and spreading [G/R] links guerrilla-style on tennis websites (shameful, but when you heckle over a $250 processing charge for an endorsement on a commercial insurance policy that’s valued at more than $100,000, you become desperate). But I enjoyed the tortoise-like progress I was making, up until mid-2006. That's when I lost, as I called it, "The longest set.” It was an unfamiliar and difficult time for me, and the site suffered because of it. [G/R] pretty much shutdown operations until the holiday season, and even when I started to write again, I had a difficult time constructing those final posts of the year.

The quality of my writing may have been the only thing worse than the site’s infrequent updates. It’s scary for me to reread some of these early posts, but I'm happy to say, years later, that I've definitely improved my prose. (Still, as crude as it is, I loved my post about my trip to the 2005 U.S. Open, where my tennis addiction started.)

As 2006 ended, I was stuck in the same dull job, made little progress towards a career in tennis, and was still miserable after a tough break-up. I definitely considered canning the site altogether, since it did take up a lot of my time. But doing this would have likely ended any chance I had of landing a job in tennis, which was the only industry that I wanted to work in.

I eventually decided to renew my [G/R] efforts, and kicked off 2007 with an important post titled, "Why I like tennis, part one." Getting to the core of why I love tennis so much was critical for me at this juncture. I slowly started to forget about my malaise, and focused more clearly on tennis and writing. When the calendar year changed from 2006 to 2007, a burden was lifted off me. (And as it does every January, the Australian Open helped reinvigorate my zeal.)

The year turned out to be unforgettable. As bad as 2006 was, 2007 made up for it. And I can honestly say that it all, in some way, originated from the work that I did on [G/R]. I covered my first professional tennis event (a Fed Cup semifinal in Vermont) midway through the year. After two years of attending the U.S. Open as a fan, I got to cover the 2007 tournament as a member of the media. (Read the U.S. Open Diary entries for all the crazy details.) I even got to write a weekly column for TENNIS.com. To celebrate, I planned on unveiling Gasquet & Racquet bumper stickers and t-shirts. Thankfully, those plans were shelved.

2008 would prove to be even more fruitful. With a year of tennis journalism experience under my belt, I was eager to make even bigger strides in ’08. A few months into the year, I gassed up the car and headed to North Carolina to cover the Davis Cup quarterfinals. Shortly after, I sold the car and boarded a train bound for New York City, as an internship at TENNIS magazine awaited. I've never been busier than I was this past summer: I covered AMS Toronto, the Olympic Tennis Event (full disclosure: from Connecticut), and last but not least, the U.S. Open. That is what I call, "The greatest road trip in sports."

Just a few days after the U.S. Open ended, I got word that I was going to be offered a full-time position at TENNIS magazine. When I heard this long-awaited news, I was shocked. But I’d been preparing for this for years, so I’m ready for the challenge.

I'm so proud to represent an extraordinary stable of writers, and feel honored to pen alongside them on TENNIS.com. I also owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to three people at TENNIS in particular: James Martin, Kamakshi Tandon, and Pete Bodo. Without their help and guidance, I would not be in the fortunate position that I am at today.

So, does that explain why 99% of this year’s [G/R] posts have been lifted from other websites? (And why the site has essentially become a "best-of" Ed McGrogan?) Hope so.

But due to my impending TENNIS.com commitments, [G/R] will be neglected even more so. I simply don’t have enough time to keep the site going full-speed ahead, and that’s why Gasquet & Racquet’s three-year run is ending. It’s not fair to visitors who expect updates and commentary about the ATP Tour to have completely random updates at infrequent times. I will keep the site online for its archive (and to keep the domain name); who knows, maybe I’ll post a favorite piece of writing from time to time. But I strongly anticipate that this will be the last post on Gasquet & Racquet for a while.

I had a great time creating and building this website, especially when I was blissfully unaware of how difficult sports journalism really is. Whether it was waking up at 3:30 am to watch the Australian Open, taking a vacation day to watch Tennis Channel's all-day coverage of a Masters Series event, or experiencing what it's like to have a media credential for the first time, this was a lot of fun. And I hope to have just as much fun as TENNIS.com’s new, full-time web editor. Hopefully, writing for [G/R] helped prepare me for the even greater demands of TENNIS.com.

Thanks for reading,

Ed McGrogan

Tennisworld: At the 2008 U.S. Open

Note: This was originally published on TENNIS.com on 9/9/08.

For the past two weeks, I’ve been pounding the keyboard for USOpen.org – but I saved plenty of good stuff for y’all. Here are a few things I’ve been thinking about during my two weeks at the U.S. Open:

T...his has been one hell of a summer for tennis, with the remarkable Wimbledon final, the Olympic Games, and a very interesting U.S. Open. Personally, I've also had quite a memorable summer. From Toronto to Beijing (via Stamford, CT) to Forest Hills to Flushing Meadows, I’ve covered four tournaments and watched more tennis in a seven-week span than I probably ever have before.

The three best matches that I saw in person were, in no particular order: Robin Soderling vs. Fernando Verdasco (AMS Toronto second round, played on Court 2 – which is normally used for practice), Andy Murray vs. Michael Llodra (U.S. Open second round, played on Grandstand), and Roger Federer vs. Igor Andreev (U.S Open fourth round, played on Ashe – but I watched from a seat on the baseline). What’s the common thread between these matches? Location, location, location. If you attend a tournament in person, I implore you to consider the venue before the players. You won’t be disappointed.

E...njoying a Guinness at a Midtown bar after a long day of writing, I looked up at the television and saw…tennis? Yes – our fair sport was actually being shown on TV, and I didn’t even need to double the barkeep's tip to make it happen. In fact, every TV in the pub was showing the Venus and Serena Williams quarterfinal. People sitting next to me were talking about tennis. It was good times all around.

To New York City taprooms: Show the U.S. Open during the two weeks that it’s being played in your city. That’s always a good decision.

N...ot sure whether baseball’s decision to use instant replay or Tom Tebbutt’s article in the Globe and Mail prompted this, but I got thinking about Hawk-Eye a bit. I specifically thought about a nightmare scenario that could unfold because of the use of Hawk-Eye. Can you imagine if the Federer/Nadal Wimbledon classic ended not with a dramatic winner or error, but with a call to the review booth? I’m sure that many of the "Greatest Match of all Time” paeans would have never came to pass, had that actually occured.

Now here's something even worse to consider. Let's say that Federer is serving for his 15th Grand Slam title, and he strikes a close first serve on championship point. Inevitably, Hawk-Eye would be summoned. That's fine, but think about the lasting impact of this. Federer's highly anticipated reaction to winning this historic title would surely be affected by this stoppage in play, and that is how people would forever remember this moment. Hawk-Eye could ruin one of the sport’s greatest moments, all because it had to verify whether the ball landed a few angstroms in or out.

So far, Hawk-Eye has largely been a success for tennis, but I worry if the sport could suffer a stinging embarrassment should a scary scenario like this take place.

N...ovak Djokovic: The black shirts work. They looked sharp, matched his rebel persona, and he played his best at the Australian and U.S. Opens when he donned black. Was it any coincidence that he looked overwhelmed against Federer in the U.S. Open semis while wearing white? Yes, it probably was. But Adidas should continue to outfit him in black - he looks good.

Speaking of Djokovic, here's an early prediction – he will end the 2009 season as the No. 1 or No. 2 player in the world. Djokovic hits the ball so well, has every shot, and is just beginning to hit his stride when Federer – and maybe even Nadal next year – have finally begun to allow other players to win big tournaments.

I...f you’ve never been to the U.S. Open before, make sure your maiden voyage takes place during the first week. When the second Monday rolls around, the National Tennis Center feels like a ghost town, and you'll miss the inescapable early round excitement and chaos. In addition, all of the important matches in the second week are scheduled in the vast Ashe and Armstrong Stadiums, as opposed to the quaint Grandstand.

During one of these lulls last Friday, I took a walk around the grounds to see if anything caught my eye. Strangely, I saw a match taking place on Court 11 that actually wasn’t contested by junior players. Rather, it was an old-timer’s game between Todd Martin and Pat Cash. I saw my first ever professional tennis match in person on Court 11 (2005 U.S. Open, Gustavo Kuerten vs. Tommy Robredo), and though I’ve been to the Open every year since then, I'd somehow never returned to this particular court. I found the same seat I had three years ago, and it was great reliving those memories.

It was also nice to watch well-played tennis in a very slowed-down form. It’s nearly impossible to do with the current crop of men, and most women as well. But seeing Cash and Martin exchange groundstrokes was pleasing to the eye. Martin still hits a nice forehand, and Cash used an array of backhands to defend and attack. I had an enjoyable time, for about four games, and then was on my way out.

S...eeing so much tennis in person makes you want to play even more. So last Friday, that’s what I set out to do. I eventually found an hour of time at my local club, and got in an early-morning hit with Clair Maciel of the USPTA. Maybe I should precede future hitting sessions with two straight weeks of tennis watching, because I was quite pleased with how I played. And it’s always nice to play against an opponent with a comparable skill level – that makes the tennis more enjoyable for both participants. Also, I’m not sure what’s in the Texas water, but I want some of it. Clair, a Houston native, has a service motion that's a thing of beauty, and it should be the subject of a future USPTA instructional video.

The moral of the story: Watch and play tennis. Don’t just do one or the other. You’ll have a better time doing both in the future.

W...hy I respect tennis players, reason No. 130: Gilles Muller. The only people who likely knew of Muller’s whereabouts prior to the U.S. Open were FLT officials, and none of them could have predicted what he would accomplish in New York. Muller played Federer incredibly tough in the quarterfinals and made Fed fans everywhere sweat out the result. The big question is: Will Muller return to obscurity, as he did after he upset Andy Roddick at the 2005 U.S. Open? I’m not sure, but I’ll be following his results closely for the remainder of 2008. That will be the telltale sign.

I also found this quote from Muller very revealing, on a different level: “There were even moments where I thought, 'Should I still keep playing'? Because, I mean, if you're playing at the challenger level, pretty much every week you're losing money because you have more expenses than you are earning.”

For all the money the top players earn in tennis, their is a chasm between the haves and the have-nots. Even players just outside of the Top 100 struggle to get by, as evidenced by this statement. In few other mainstream sports can I think of where the "130th best player" is not guaranteed a hefty salary, no matter his eventual output. Simply put, tennis players need to fight harder than other athletes to survive, and it's one of the biggest reason why the sport is so great to watch.

O...ne non-player who I want to acknowledge is John McEnroe. Whether you like his commentary or not (I do), you have to give him credit for his unparalleled love of the sport. Last Wednesday night, McEnroe called the Rafael Nadal/Mardy Fish match, which lasted until 2:30 a.m. The very next afternoon, he not only called the Federer/Muller quarterfinal, but he also called part of the mixed doubles final, which started at around 1 p.m. Johnny Mac is a tennis iron man, and I seriously hope that ESPN will keep him on board for future U.S. Opens. Also, USA Network – thanks for 25 great years of coverage.

R...oger Federer: You could feel his greatness from 2004-2007 because he hardly lost anything during that stretch. In 2008, that type of greatness evaporated, but a new kind of greatness surfaced at the U.S. Open. Federer held on to win three very tight matches (R16 win against Andreev, QF win against Muller, SF win against Djokovic) while facing immense internal and external pressure. That’s not to take away anything from Federer’s victory, but he's winning in a different, yet still great, manner now.

L...ong lines, average food. That’s what I have to say about my meals at this year’s U.S. Open. I was impressed with the selections last year, but I didn’t feel the same way this time around. Maybe it’s because I have a tendency to eat the exact same meal multiple times. Hopefully, the USTABJKNTC gets some new offerings in 2009.

For visitors, I would suggest the following:

- Lunch: Chicken Caeasar Wrap ($9.50). It’s expensive for a lunch, but this wrap is filling and usually quite tasty. It also won’t weigh you down for the rest of the afternoon.

- Dinner: Asada Beef “Action Salad” ($11.00). You have to venture outside the main food court to find this gem, but it’s worth the trip. (Head near the fountain.) Here’s what you get: a huge salad filled with tender beef, all sorts of veggies, and a spicy soy sauce that puts it all together. And for those so inclined, you can get fried wontons as an additional topping.

- Desert: Strawberry & Nutella Crepe ($8.50). The crepes at the U.S. Open are good – albeit pricey - and this is the best of the bunch. Get one in the evening and watch the action unfold all around you.

(Total food expense for the day: $29.00)

D...uring a long event like the U.S. Open, it’s easy to forget the little details that make up each day. Down the road, I want to remember these small things, which have a convenient way of escaping your memory as you age. That’s why I decided to write a lot of them down. In fact, that may be a reason why I began writing about tennis in the first place. There’s too much good stuff that shouldn’t be forgotten.

I’m glad I wrote that down.

The Slammys

Note: This was originally published on USOpen.org on 9/8/08.

For many reasons, 2008 was a season that went against convention. Would you have guessed that, heading into the US Open, Roger Federer and Justine Henin would have no Grand Slam titles between them? It’s been a very interesting year, no matter which player you support.
Typically, the four Grand Slam tournaments have a way of revealing everything in tennis, and that happened again this year, for better or worse:

The Best…

Match of the Australian Open: Lleyton Hewitt def. Marcos Baghdatis, 4-6, 7-5, 7-5, 6-7, 6-3 (Third Round)

Hewitt and Baghdatis had played each other just one other time prior to this match -- at Wimbledon in 2006. Apparently, they had a lot of catching up to do. Their third-round tussle in Melbourne lasted a beefy 4 hours and 43 minutes, but that was only half the story. Due to the length of earlier matches in Rod Laver Arena, this match didn’t get underway until the moonlight hour of 11:47 p.m. Hewitt – who failed to serve out the match twice in the fourth set when leading 5-1 and 5-3 – eventually prevailed at 4:34 a.m. local time. It was the latest ending to a match in the history of the Australian Open, transforming this extended narrative into an epic tome.

Match of the French Open: Dinara Safina def. Maria Sharapova, 6-7, 7-6, 6-2 (Fourth Round)

With clay-queen Justine Henin out of the picture, Sharapova, who won the Australian Open in January, had her best chance to complete the career Grand Slam (at age 21!). But her shrieks of joy turned to terror after her title aspirations were dashed for the second time in three years by her nemesis, Safina. Sharapova had her chances – she led the second set, 5-2, and earned a match point – but it would be yet another cruel ending in Paris. In 2006, Sharapova lost to Safina at Roland Garros (5-7, 6-2, 5-7) after leading 5-1 in the final set. This match was a turning point for both women – Safina reached the final and positioned herself in the top 10; Sharapova has since been plagued by injury.

Match of Wimbledon: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer 6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7 (Final)

Without fail, this was not only the best match of Wimbledon but also the best match of the year -- and the decade. Of all-time? It’s certainly up for debate. The quality of tennis was sublime, improving with every set. The drama was built alongside, thanks to the history and accomplishments of the two competitors. But the darkness also grew. Ironically, had this match run any longer, its lasting impact might not have been as strong, since its conclusion would have been suspended until the following day. But the tennis gods smiled – particularly on Nadal – who ended Federer’s five-year reign at Centre Court and won both the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year for the first time since Bjorn Borg in 1980.

Match of the US Open: Serena Williams def. Venus Williams 7-6, 7-6 (Quarterfinal)

Even if Federer and Nadal met in the US Open, it would have been impossible to best the quality of their Wimbledon final. But the Williams sisters had no problem doing so in their rematch. The evening crowd at Arthur Ashe Stadium was treated to a performance with endless plot twists – Venus led both sets, 5-3, yet ended up losing both in tiebreakers. The main reason for this turbulence was Serena, who saved all 10 set points she faced, including eight in an incredibly tense second set. The prevailing opinion coming into this match was that it deserved to be the final. Jelena Jankovic may have a differing opinion about that, but this match certainly lived up to its hype.

Match that I saw in person: Roger Federer def. Igor Andreev 6-7, 7-6, 6-3, 3-6, 6-3 (Fourth Round)

No trip to Melbourne, Wimbledon, or Paris this year, but I saw some great tennis during my sojourn in Flushing Meadows. The finest match was a late afternoon five-setter between Federer and Andreev. The latter looked like a top-5 caliber player on the day, hitting the ball with unbelievable spin and power. When Federer captured the all-important first break of serve in the fifth set, he looked ecstatic, as if he’d never before reached a Grand Slam quarterfinal. I had a great seat for this one, but you couldn’t escape the Swiss’ emotion from even the farthest-reaching seat in Ashe. (Honorable Mention: Andy Murray def. Michael Llodra, 6-4, 1-6, 7-5, 7-6 on Grandstand)

Man at the Slams: Rafael Nadal

Heading into 2008, everyone knew that Rafa was a force on clay. But few thought that the dirt devil could actually improve on his favorite surface. The proof lies in his Roland Garros contests against clay-specialist Nicolas Almagro (whom Nadal beat, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, in the quarterfinals) and an overwhelmed Federer (whom Nadal beat, 6-1, 6-3, 6-0, in the final). Four weeks later, Nadal thrived on the lawns of Wimbledon despite relentless internal and external pressures. And although he failed to claim a hard-court Grand Slam title, Nadal’s appearances in the semifinals at both the Australian and US Opens should not be overlooked. In one of the most dominating seasons in tennis history, the 6-foot, 1-inch lefty from Mallorca towered over everyone else.

Woman at the Slams: Serena Williams

No woman won multiple Grand Slam titles in 2008, but Serena’s resume stood above those of the other solo Slam winners. In Melbourne, she lost in the quarterfinals to Jelena Jankovic, but Serena’s eventual revenge in New York would be sweet. A poor showing at the French Open (a third-round loss to Katarina Srebotnik) was one of the few lulls in Serena’s season, but she quickly made up for it at Wimbledon. She reached the final, and although she came up short against her sister Venus, the loss seemed to inspire her to succeed in New York. She did just that, beating both Venus and Jankovic on her way to capturing her ninth career Grand Slam title. Serena didn’t drop a set in the victory, and she leaves Flushing Meadows as the new No. 1 on the WTA Tour.

The Worst…

Man at the Slams: David Nalbandian

Things change very quickly in tennis. Recall the Australian Open, when many pundits tagged David Nalbandian as a favorite to win after his torrid run to close 2007 (he won both the Madrid and Paris Masters events). The Argentinean instead disappointed with a meek third-round exit against Juan Carlos Ferrero. Come summertime, no one dared pick Nalbandian to excel at the Slams. They were proved right, as he fared even worse. Nalbandian lost in the second round of Roland Garros (to Jeremy Chardy) and, astonishingly, in the first round of Wimbledon (to Frank Dancevic). At the US Open, Nalbandian lost in the third round to a much more energetic Gael Monfils. The “best player to never win a Slam” might never end up winning one.

Woman at the Slams: Agnes Szavay

Szavay is just a teenager, so she should take 2008 as a learning experience instead of a setback. After winning three titles and reaching the quarterfinals of the US Open in 2007, Szavay headed into this year with greater things in mind. Unfortunately, things didn’t pan out as planned. Szavay had an inauspicious start at the Slams, crashing out in the opening round of the Australian Open to Ekaterina Makarova. While her Slam results improved thereafter, they didn’t match the expectations of a top-15 player. She had a good run to the fourth round of Wimbledon, but she also lost in the third round of Roland Garros (to Petra Kvitova) and in the second round of the US Open (to Tathiana Garbin). The best thing that Szavay can take away from all this is greater motivation for 2009.

Note: This was originally published on USOpen.org on 8/29/08.

New Yorkers tend to be a friendly lot, but you might not get that impression at the U.S. Open’s Grandstand court. I walked into Grandstand early Thursday morning, hoping to watch the day’s opening match in one of two prized locations – from behind the baseline, or in the shade. When I spotted a shaded seat (underneath the overhang from adjacent Louis Armstrong Stadium), I asked a woman sitting down if it was indeed vacant. She quickly put her hand over the seat and looked down, saying not a word, refusing to even acknowledge my presence.

I quickly realized that I wasn’t alone on this scavenger hunt. Behind the baseline, other hopeful fans swarmed around the seats like locusts, canvassing for any available real estate. Not surprisingly, and to their dismay, no one moved an inch. Finding a seat on a rush hour train in Manhattan might be easier than finding an open seat in this section of Grandstand. Keep in mind – this was at 10:45 a.m., when most other courts on the grounds are just beginning to fill up. But at Grandstand, not an empty seat remained among the thousand-plus behind the baselines and in the shade.

Fans can sit extremely close to players on the outer courts, and deal with much less stress when finding a seat. And the Louis Armstrong and Arthur Ashe Stadiums are where the world’s most elite players are usually scheduled to play. So what’s the big attraction of Grandstand court? I asked some fans who were lucky enough to snag prime seats their reasons for coming.

Pete Durmer had the best seat in the house for Bethanie Mattek’s second round match against Alize Cornet – directly behind the baseline, front row and center. From his vantage point, Durmer would have no trouble getting on television, feeling the vibration of the ball against the wall in front of him, or even whispering to a player, if it was allowed. “It’s nice,” said Durmer. “I hope they don’t ever go and start reserving these seats [like they do in Armstrong or Ashe]. It’s a pain in the neck and nobody’s sitting in them most of the time.”

For fans possessing only a grounds pass, Durmer’s baseline seat in Grandstand is the holy grail. But they are available on a first-come, first-serve basis, so it’s commonplace to see fans scoping them out just minutes after the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center opens. “I know a lot of people here that are pretty much regulars,” Durmer said. “I don’t see them this year, but there are some ladies here that sit in these seats all the time, every year.” Maybe they weren’t quick enough today.

Although Grandstand’s bleachers go up a ways, the open-air court is nestled tightly between the baseline seats and the shaded area behind the umpire. During the first week of the U.S. Open, top-ranked players often play here, providing fans the unusual combination of star talent in an intimate setting. Doug Sutton, who sat on the sidelines Thursday, knew exactly where he was heading when the gates opened that morning. “I’ve been coming out here for three or four years now,” said Sutton. “I like to come out here because of the intimacy and how close you can get to the players. We’ve been on the sidelines on both sides, because we like to be in the shade. In a few hours, the sun will be over behind us.”

Cindy Sutton and friend Tari Sager, who sat in front of Doug, echoed these praises. When comparing Grandstand to Armstrong and Ashe, they both agreed that, “This one’s better. It gives us a better idea of how hard these guys hit the ball. We have seen Pete Sampras play in the finals on Arthur Ashe but the seats there are so high. This is such a better venue to watch tennis. We always like to see who’s playing here first.”

The Grandstand has always provided a very personal viewing experience for fans, even when it was the second-largest court at the U.S. Open. When the tournament moved to Flushing Meadows in 1978, it sat just 5,200. Currently, it seats around 6,000, making it the third-largest court on the grounds. The expansion came as part of a renovation to the court in 2003. For a while before then, a restaurant looked over the court, giving diners a chance to grab a bite to eat, as well as a great view of the tennis below. In 2003, the restaurant was taken out, and replaced by the shaded seats that fans camp out at today.

Like everyone I spoke to on Thursday, the Grandstand is also one of my favorite places to watch tennis. At my first U.S. Open in 2005, I was enamored by the tennis that I saw around the side courts, but it wasn’t until I watched a match on Grandstand that I truly felt like I’d experienced live tennis to the fullest. The match wasn’t even a high-quality contest – Giorgio Galimberti retired in the fourth set of his second rounder against Richard Gasquet. But as I walked towards the exit that evening, I couldn’t wait to sit in those spectacular baseline seats again.

After the Mattek/Cornet match concluded, I headed back to the Grandstand to watch Andy Murray play Michael Llodra. As always, I hovered around the baseline seats to see if anyone would dare vacate them. And as usual, no one did. Even the media seats along the sideline were filling up fast, so I darted towards them and sat down in the first empty chair I saw.

Llodra and Murray played a fantastic match that the entire crowd appreciated. Murray, who ended up winning the match in four sets, also extolled the Grandstand environment in his post-match press conference. “It’s absolutely packed, great atmosphere, the crowd are enjoying it, they’re making a lot of noise,” said Murray. It seems that not only the fans appreciate this court.

When watching tennis at the Grandstand, the players appear larger, while the court seems smaller. This fixated my attention even more intently on action, instead of other distractions. Each point became a joy to watch. Andrew Friedman, co-author of James Blake’s biography, Breaking Back, watched the match with me and summed it all up: “The crowd, the players – this court is perfect for it.”

Even if you aren’t lucky enough to find an empty seat behind the baselines, make sure that you watch a match on Grandstand while at the U.S. Open. Wherever you end up will be the best seat in the house.

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/articles/2008-08-29/200808291220022161656.html

To print this page, select "Print" from your browser's File menu.
Why is Grandstand So Grand?
By Ed McGrogan
Friday, August 29, 2008

A most important third-rounder

Note: This was originally published on NBCOlympics.com on 8/13/08.

His five-set comeback against Janko Tipsarevic at the Australian Open (6-7, 7-6, 5-7, 6-1, 10-8) was more dramatic. His straight-set suppression of a surging Marat Safin in the Wimbledon semifinals was more emphatic. But Roger Federer's win against Tomas Berdych at the Olympics was arguably his most important victory in a trying 2008 campaign.

To highlight the significance of this win, a look back at Federer's season is required. His 44 victories are good enough for second best on the ATP Tour, but Federer has won just two titles, both coming at smaller tournaments. For a player who's hoisted twelve Grand Slam trophies, that's a troubling statistic. But another number is of greater concern to Federer -- his world ranking. For the first time in over four and a half years, he won't be the top player in men's tennis when the new rankings come out on Monday.

Federer's struggles can be attributed to numerous physical and mental hardships that haven't afflicted him in prior years. A bout with mononucleosis affected his play early in the year, and for the first time in four seasons, Roger didn't win at least one the prestigious Australian Open, Indian Wells, or Miami tournaments.

Federer is over these physical ailments now, yet still looks uncharacteristically mortal on court. It appears that mental issues are the culprit, though Federer rarely admits to it. One time that he did was at the Australian Open, where after his loss to Novak Djokovic, he said that he's "created a monster," where any loss of his is an unmitigated failure.

But that "monster" is one created by the media and fans. There's a real one on court in the form of a muscular Mallorcan named Rafael Nadal. Federer has always had trouble with Nadal before, winning just one of their first eight matches. He's now lost their last four, including their most recent encounter on Wimbledon's Centre Court. Federer annually put his opponents out to pasture on this lawn, but Nadal ended Federer' reign with an epic five-set win.

Federer's play since this loss suggests that he's hit a mental wall. In Toronto, Federer fell apart after taking the first set against unheralded Gilles Simon, and he barely scraped by next at Cincinnati against No. 59 ranked Robby Ginepri. The next day, he lost to Ivo Karlovic, and there was more talk of Federer's demise. Heading into the Olympics, an event that Federer deeply wants to win, many were unsure what to expect from the Swiss star.

Federer was unlucky to draw the 29th ranked singles player, Dmitry Tursunov, as his first round opponent. But Federer played exquisitely in a performance that reminded his fans of happier days. He then coasted through a modest challenge from El Salvador's Rafael Alevaro, setting up a third round match with Tomas Berdych -- the same player who ousted Federer from the 2004 Olympics in Athens.

To say that Federer wanted this win is a significant understatement. In just the second game of the match, Federer gave a vocal "Allez" scream after breaking Berdych early. You rarely see outward emotion from Federer until much later in a match, but today was different, with revenge and a gold medal on his mind.

After Berdych tied the score at two games apiece, Federer started to round into form. He hit strong returns, and they needed to be against the towering Czech, who's known for his gigantic serve. Federer kept points alive and won many of the ensuing rallies. He stormed to a 5-2 lead and won the first set 6-3.

Nothing has come easy for Federer this year, and that would be true once again in this match. Berdych won the opening game of the second set, and then broke Federer after the Swiss double faulted three times in the second game. Berdych consolidated the break with a hold and quickly led 3-0. Federer looked rattled, and would need a vintage performance to avoid a third set.

That's precisely what happened. Federer's signature shots, his serve and forehand, were on target throughout the remainder of the match. Determined and motivated, Federer made his service games look easy, and challenged most of Berdych's. He immediately broke Berdych in his next service game; after two more holds of his own, the set was square at 3-3. After each man held serve the rest of the way, the set went to a tiebreaker, which Federer wanted to win badly. In 2004, Federer lost the second set to Berdych, and the result was tragic.

Federer didn't let that same mistake happen this time, even after falling behind a "mini-break" early in the tiebreaker. He continued to return aggressively and attacked with his forehand, leading to a 5-4 lead that he wouldn't relinquish. In the end it was 6-3, 7-6, to Federer.

Hypothetically, let's consider what happens if Federer lost this match. His Olympic dream would be dashed once again, and who knows how well he will be playing in 2012. Federer's post-Wimbledon summer would have been summed up in one word: devastating. After disappointing at the two Masters Series tournaments, Federer needs a strong result at Beijing to regain some much-needed confidence. That's critical heading into the U.S. Open, one of his last chances to salvage this season.

Regardless of how Federer plays here going forward, he'll have this important triumph to look back on. The win against Berdych sent him into the quarterfinals, exorcised an old foe, and likely gave Federer some more confidence with his shots, which have been dodgy all summer.

Federer isn't writing this season off, with a gold medal and a fifth straight U.S. Open title within his reach. But if he didn't beat Berdych today, one of those goals would have vanished, and the other would have been put into great question.

Dear Roger

Note: This was originally published on TENNIS.com on 8/4/08.

Dear Roger,

Congratulations.

(Seriously.)

Although someone finally wrestled the No. 1 ranking from your grip, you should be commended for holding onto the top spot for so long. This remarkable longevity required exceptional play on all surfaces, and not just at the Slams. Since 2004, you’ve won 13 of the 34 Masters Series events you’ve played, and reached the final on seven other occasions.

Furthermore, your reign was unimpeded for so long because of your relentless commitment to excellence. All across the globe, you’ve played. And all across the globe, you’ve won. I’ve told everyone I know to watch you play during the past few years, because although you will win more tournaments, you will probably never have a run quite like what we saw from 2004-2007. Deep down, you must be extremely proud of yourself.

But deep down, you must be aching after what’s transpired this year. Djokovic matured, Nadal improved; you got sick. Even when you were playing great, like at Wimbledon, things sometimes didn’t go your way. The Olympics and the U.S. Open are still to come, and for your sake, I hope they are triumphs instead of tribulations.

But regardless of what happens, the No. 1 ranking is gone – for now, of course. When that seismic shift was made official, I thought about a quote of yours; one that sums up your approach to tennis so simply: “No. 2, No. 3, it doesn’t matter so much. It’s No. 1 that matters.”

All good things, including unbelievably good tennis, must end. And that’s why I’m suggesting that you take a short break. Not right now, but after the U.S. Open. Win or lose at Flushing Meadows, you deserve a vacation. A lengthy stay in Dubai might be nice this time of year. Or head back to beautiful Basel. Give yourself a rest from the media, the pressure, and the demands of the tour. Clearing your head might be the best thing for 2009, which you’re probably already thinking about.

You’ve already clinched a spot in the Tennis Masters Cup, so don’t worry about Madrid or Paris. The French capital has never been that kind to you anyways, both indoors and outside. And take a pass on Stockholm as well. I’m still wondering why you’re playing there in the first place, but if…I were you, I’d reconsider. Shutting it down for a while could be a big help, considering what’s happened this year.

Clearing all these events from your schedule will have you fresh for the two tournaments you should play – and enjoy. (You haven’t looked particularly happy on court of late.) The first is your hometown tournament in Basel. And second is the year-end championship. Wait until Shanghai to meet up with your buds in the Top 10 again. They might not even know what hit them after not seeing you for so long.

If anyone deserves to relax, it’s you, Rog. You’ve accomplished most of your career goals at just 26, and have made the sport of tennis better for all involved. You should enjoy the fruits of your labor. Even if 2008 didn’t turn out the way you wanted it to, end it on a nice note with an extended vacation after the U.S. Open. Go shopping. See friends at home. And when you see your friends on the tour again in Shanghai, remind them of why you were No. 1 for four and a half straight years.