Gasquet & Racquet

Leaving the office

2008-09-21T00:16:00.004-04:00

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

2008-09-16T11:36:00.003-04:00

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

2008-09-09T15:46:00.003-04:00

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.

Why is Grandstand so Grand?

2008-09-07T22:00:00.003-04:00

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.

A most important third-rounder

2008-08-13T14:01:00.002-04:00

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

2008-08-04T16:58:00.005-04:00

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.

Toronto: Nadal/Kiefer reaction

2008-07-30T17:59:00.004-04:00

Below is an exchange between myself and Andrew Burton, after Rafael Nadal defeated Nicolas Kiefer in the Toronto final.

Note: This was originally published on TENNIS.com on 7/27/08.

Andrew: Well, Ed, the sixth Masters Series tournament of 2008 is in the books, and this is the third won by Rafael Nadal. With two Majors, Barcelona and Queens also under his belt, this is shaping up as a career year for Nadal. It's odd to call it a breakout year given that he's been the world number two for the last three years, but there's no question who's the dominant player in the game in the summer of 2008.

Ed: Talk about a kicking someone while you're down - and I'm referring to the Federer fanatics, of course, who are still reeling from Wimbledon. Nadal did the same to the Toronto field this week, and Kiefer was the final player to receive his comeuppance.

Simply put, Rafa was and is by far the better player. More specifically, Nadal prevented Kiefer from getting in any sort of “zone” today. And at Nadal’s current form, that’s where opponents will need to be to defeat him. Kiefer’s few weapons were thwarted by Nadal’s returning shots, which often put Nicolas in uncomfortable spots. The unforced errors then began to flow. Toss in an underrated serving performance (in only one game did Nadal face break points), and you have a routine Nadal win on another big stage.

Andrew: It was Kiefer's first ATP final in three years, and he hadn't won a tournament since Hong Kong in 2000. He's a solid-looking chap, but against Nadal he had something of the air of a fellow who's had two or three Budweisers and been pushed into the ring at the fairground - you know, "last three rounds against the Champ, and win $200!!!"

The Champ usually lets you dance around for 90 seconds and throw a couple of jabs, then throws a quick combination. Suddenly you're backpedaling and looking for a place to hide, but Nadal makes the court (or the ring) seem awfully small.

Ed: Kiefer at the carnival? I like the analogy. After all, he did try that "throwing the racquet" trick again today, like he did against Sebastien Grosjean at the 2006 Australian Open. (Though this time, his opponent actually hit the ball over the net before Kiefer's toss.)

In spite of Kiefer's inability to threaten Nadal, he did have a real nice tournament. He beat two big names in Nikolay Davydenko and James Blake, and took advantage of an upset-riddled side of the draw. He’s played well in his last few events – quarters of Hamburg, semis of Halle, and third round at Wimbledon – but I wouldn't bank on the veteran showing staying power near the top. Facing championship point, Kiefer tossed the ball up for his first serve, but caught it, instead of hitting it. I think he wanted to be caught in this moment for one last time.

Andrew: Kiefer's main chance coming into the match, it seemed to me, was to hit two out of three first serves in, then mix it up. He started the match with two holds, but made no impression on Nadal's serve. Kiefer had needed a dominant serving performance to have a chance in this match, but it wasn't to be. He's a 52% first server for the year - today it was 47%, and he won only 30% of the points on his second serve. He'll be pleased about his performance in this tournament, but not, I regret, about what he did today.

More ominously, for me, he seemed to be aiming for the long strike: Kiefer set up about six feet behind the baseline and off neutral balls was aiming down the line for winners into the corners. He made very few of these shots, and throughout the match he was rarely able to move Nadal out of position.

Nadal, on the other hand, has impressed me with his offense throughout the tournament. It starts with the serve, but it continues with point construction which moves his opponent into uncomfortable positions. Nadal went 10/10 on net points throughout the match, including one BH smash OH that had Peter Burwash in the TSN booth purring.

Ed: The shot that I thought Kiefer had the best chance with was his backhand, which at times was hit accurately and with some pop. But it wasn't struck with the type of consistency needed to trouble Nadal throughout the entire match. To Nadal’s credit, he never underestimated Kiefer – saying so in his interview last night, and practicing what he preached on court today. The intense focus was again on full display.

Andrew: Kiefer briefly threatened to make a match of it in the sixth game of the second set. We had six deuces, and Kiefer set up three BPs. On the first, he simply dumped his second shot in the net; on the second, a DTL FH for a winner landed half an inch outside the ad sideline. Kiefer challenged, which was smart - a 1% in call might, just might, have changed the momentum of the match. On the third BP, Kiefer played a nice touch BH drop shot, but chose not to close the net behind it. Nadal's legs are fresher than Gilles Simon's were yesterday. He made the ground and responded with his own FH drop shot, and put away the despairing Kiefer pick up.

On Kiefer's next service game, all the wheels came off. From 30-0 up (two big first serves), Kiefer double faulted twice, then shanked a ground stroke off a neutral Nadal slice. At 30-40, Nadal rolled three FHs into the center of the court, then drove Kiefer deep and wide with a venomous CC BH and finished the point with a FH winner. All Kiefer could do was toss his racquet in despair at the ball. Nadal then held at love. If it was a boxing match, the challenger would have been pinned in the corner with his elbows and gloves in front of his face, giving the Champ a choice of body shots or roundhouse hooks.

Ed: I’d also like to mention Nadal’s service hold at love in the next game, which emphatically signaled that this match was over. If Rafa loses serve there, all the momentum built from the six-deuce hold and the break thereafter is lost. Looking back, this may have been where Kiefer could have caught Nadal off guard, except Rafa gave him no opening whatsoever. I'm confident that Kiefer fully believed he could beat Nadal, but it was here when he may have finally accepted his fate.

Andrew: Someone in the stands held up a sign that was picked up on the Jumbotron midway through the second set. In magic marker on yellow card, it read simply "Where Is Federer?" It's not easy as a fan of the guy to write this, but had I had my own card and magic marker, I'd have written "Half a lap behind" (apologies for the mixed sporting metaphor, BTW).

One of the key attributes of a winning tennis player is closing out matches. Federer's loss to Simon was only the second this year when he'd won the first set (the other was to Murray), but it also came from a point where Federer was serving at 4-3 in the third with a break. I doubt that I'm alone in thinking that once Nadal had the lead, he wouldn't surrender it.

Ed: Andrew is part of the royal family of tennis statisticians, so I'm not even going to try to compete with him. But here's my two cents: Nadal went 4 for 4 on break point chances, but I thought that Kiefer’s 31 unforced errors was a much more telling statistic. No matter who was serving, Nadal ruled when the rallies began. The 6-3, 6-2, final score may not give Kiefer enough credit for how he hung in there, but the match was nonetheless a one-sided affair.

Andrew: Several journalists tried to draw Nadal out on the prospect of becoming No. 1 next week at his press conference. He showed more message discipline than a White House Press Secretary, insisting that he was still No. 2 and happy to be No. 2, although he'd like to be No. 1 like all players.

Ed: Yes - the ATP guy in the interview room had to halt all those types of questions with a plea of "Any questions about today's match?" But obviously, that's where the discussion is these days, since the official changing of the guard could take place this week in Cincinnati. Does Nadal’s win this week, coupled with Roger’s sudden loss, make him the favorite at the U.S. Open? I’ve incorrectly gauged the Federer/Nadal rivalry so many times before – backing Roger – that I think I’ve learned my lesson. I think it's 50/50.

Andrew: Well, there's a lot more tennis to be played before we get to Flushing Meadows, on different continents. Who else will try their luck against the big two? Will Djokovic reassert himself? All of a sudden, he seems to be being counted out. I have a sense he may remind us he's still in the mix.

Anyhow, the most recent challenger has just been carted off with smelling salts under his nose, and the former Champ is trying to work out what's happened to his own knockout punch. Rafael Nadal, undefeated on three surfaces, is ready to hand out a few more bloody noses.

Toronto: Two Steps

2008-07-27T12:57:00.003-04:00

Note: This was originally published on TENNIS.com on 7/27/08.

Even though Rafael Nadal has been dominant on court lately, winning six of his last seven tournaments, he's also brought out the best in some of his victims. Roger Federer's third and fourth set heroics at Wimbledon are the finest example, and there have been multiple instances of inspiration this week in Toronto. Jesse Levine looked like a tour regular instead of a qualifier against Nadal, and Richard Gasquet looked like a U.S. Open contender, at least for one set. Tonight, Andy Murray rose to the occasion, looking like a force to be reckoned with in the coming weeks despite losing 7-6, 6-3.

A tiebreaker was required to decide the first set, just as it was in Nadal’s match on Friday. This time around, Rafa won the overtime (much less strenuously: 7-2), but his opponent didn't fade into the night, as Gasquet did. Murray continued to play at a very high level in the second set; what resulted was the best match of the tournament. Andy impressed me, enough so that I consider him a serious threat at the Olympics and U.S. Open. Well, maybe until he runs into Nadal. He elaborated on this after the match:

"Obviously I think Federer and Nadal and Djokovic are still the big favorites going into all the top tournaments, but I think I'm in the pack behind them. I'm one of the best on this surface, and I can push those guys when I play my best."

Nadal had to fend off repeated resurgences from Murray, who played just as well as he did against Djokovic. He continued to serve with poise, return serve aggressively, play stymieing defense, and go for shots when openings came. If you didn't watch the match, trust me, Murray did this all well, in spite of the straight sets defeat.

This is where Nadal enters the picture. He's going to be the top-ranked player in the world shortly, but he's already established a level of reliability in big matches that was previously occupied by Federer. An aura, if you will.

The element unique to Nadal's aura is his intensity, a byproduct of his relentless drive to win. With Nadal leading 4-3 in the second set, Murray prepared to serve. I'm sure he couldn’t help but notice Nadal jumping on the other side of the court, vocally demanding of himself a break of serve. Which is exactly what happened. A game and three match points later, Nadal reached his second career Rogers Cup final.

Rafa's hard court "struggles" have been well documented, whether you agree with them or not. He's looked great this week, putting these theories into serious question. And although we won't be able to see him play Federer or Djokovic, we've seen what Nadal can do against Gasquet and Murray, two very established and threatening hard court talents. His exceptional play so far speaks highly of his chances for success tomorrow, against Nicolas Kiefer, and at the all-important U.S. Open. Toronto is one small step, in preparation for one large one. Although Rafa only appears focused on the first:

"My only expectation is to try and play a good match tomorrow, and if possible win the title. I said when I arrive here I don't think about No. 1 and I don't think about the hard court season or U.S. Open or Olympics, I think about Toronto."

One step at a time.

I'm in Toronto (Friday)

2008-07-26T11:34:00.002-04:00

Note: This was originally published on TENNIS.com on 7/26/08.

In last night’s quarterfinal matches, three of the four participants played great tennis in front of a sold out Centre Court. A big surprise was the one who didn’t – Novak Djokovic.

The Serb’s shortcomings last night were perplexing, since Djokovic had the most rest since Wimbledon, and plays his best on hard courts. His recent achievements on pavement include championships at the Australian Open and Indian Wells, and he also won last year’s Rogers Cup. But he didn’t play like this dominant force on Friday against Andy Murray, losing 6-3, 7-6. Djokovic’s unforced error count was unusually high, and he never developed a rhythm aside from a three-game stretch in the second set (when he erased a 4-2 Murray lead). He did not look like he was having fun out there.

Murray, for his part, looked exceptional on court. His serve was booming, touching 220 kph on the gun at times. But it was his play during rallies was most impressive. Djokovic hit few clean winners against Murray because the scampering Scot ran down nearly every ball, always forcing Novak to hit one more.

Murray’s superb defense was anchored by his backhand, which never wilted under pressure. It’s a very compact stroke that works well on a surface with a predictable bounce. Andy quickly got into a groove with the robotic shot, deflecting Djokovic’s shots back like a rebounding wall.

After seeing this shot’s effectiveness, it reminded me of someone else's backhand. Then it hit me – the backhand of Gilles Simon, a fellow Toronto semifinalist. Simon’s backhand was similarly useful against Roger Federer – it rarely won points, but it forced Federer into many errors. If the two should meet in the final, I would suggest that they stay away from hitting to the backhand side.

The second match of the evening featured Richard Gasquet against Rafael Nadal. Gasquet played great in the first set, winning a marathon tiebreaker 14-12.

I watched Gasquet’s third round match against David Ferrer the night earlier on Grandstand, where the Frenchman overwhelmed Ferrer with his forehand and serve. The backhand certainly did its damage, but Gasquet struck these other shots with just as much force. He smartly tried to do the same against Nadal – keeping rallies short was critical if he was to succeed.

After both men broke serve twice, they headed to a tiebreaker in the opening set. Gasquet played courageously at this juncture, fending off two Nadal set points and staying headstrong despite losing five set points of his own. Finally, on the sixth set point, Gasquet won the set with, appropriately enough, a forehand strike (after many backhands found the net). But that was the last great tennis we’d see from Richard.

The evening’s proceedings concluded with Nadal steamrolling Gasquet in the final two sets, 6-2, 6-1. I hadn’t yet seen Nadal play in person so far this week, so I made an effort to watch him closely. Sitting courtside helped.

The greatest compliment that I can give Nadal is that he doesn’t just play every game, or even every point, with unrivaled intensity – he does so every shot. No matter what kind of shot Nadal must hit, he shows the same determination every time, and the results speak for themselves. It’s the simplest explanation I can give for why he rarely ever misses.

Leading 5-1 in the third set, Nadal was ready to serve out the match. I know I’m not going out on a limb here, but I’ve never been surer of a game’s result than I was at that moment. He indeed closed out the match with ease, but still treated each point as if it was his last. I’d be shocked if Nadal loses this weekend.

Toronto: A Court with No Fame

2008-07-25T14:29:00.004-04:00

Note: This was originally published on TENNIS.com on 7/25/08.

Court 2 at the Rexall Centre is nice, for a practice court. For match play? You may want to look elsewhere, especially if comfort is of importance to you.

The court lacks even the most basic amenities. There are no seats and no scoreboard, so when watching a match, your legs and ears become as important as your eyes. You’ll need to listen intently to hear the score from the chair umpire, which can be difficult at times. Whenever spectators are allowed to move on the neighboring Grandstand Court, a cascading rumble will sound behind you.

If this is where you’re expecting me to mention the court’s charm, you’d be wrong. It’s a recent build, banished to the back edges of the grounds near a wooded field. There’s nothing beautiful about it. But it does come with some perks, namely that you can practically touch the action.

For a devoted tennis fan, Court 2 may be the optimal place to watch a match because of the proximity to the players. You could whisper to a player returning serve while standing near the baseline, and will often have a better look at a ball than the line judges.

This intimacy can make for some unusual encounters. If a kick serve is struck sharply enough, it could head towards you, so watch out for the ball – and the player trying to retrieve it with his racquet. Other shots can stretch the court’s dimensions as well. I know first hand, after nearly being struck by an overhead smash from Robin Soderling.

With this unique vantage point, you notice minute details no matter where the players are positioned. That’s why I headed to Court 2 on Wednesday to watch Soderling’s second round match against Fernando Verdasco. A six-hour rain delay backed up the schedule to the point where matches were being played on nearly all side courts. A day earlier, the only reason fans headed to this remote outpost was to see Roger Federer’s practice session with Tommy Haas. Now, a spot in the final sixteen of a Masters Series event would be determined here.

I assembled on the sidelines with a crowd of about ten, two of which being Soderling’s coach and female companion. We watched two bashing baseliners go through the motions in warmups; it was still a spectacle to see from this range. It’s one thing to witness this power on television, and another to see it a few rows up in the stands. But standing five feet away provides an entirely new experience.

Soderling hits the ball slighty harder than Verdasco, though both were willing to trade shots from the baseline repeatedly. The blue paint in front of them was akin to quicksand. To Verdasco’s credit, his more versatile groundstrokes kept Soderling on his toes, and kept himself in the match.

The big difference between the two is the serve. Verdasco’s kick serves troubled Soderling on ocassion, but the Swede always had a weapon that Verdasco had to contend with. Early on, Soderling’s serves were struck with such velocity that they emanated a sound I’d never heard before. (Primarily because I have never stood so close to the court before.) I called it, “breaking the tennis sound barrier.”

These were not the only sounds we heard from Soderling. At 4-4, after losing a 3-0 lead, Soderling had the first of many Swedish conversations with his coach, who stood right next to me. At this point in the match, they were civil in tone. But serving won Soderling the set – though not his own. Verdasco double faulted three times in the final game to hand it to his opponent.

A baseline battle brought the second set to 5-5, but evidently, that wasn’t enough for Soderling. Chats with his coach became more frequent, and the crowd, which had tripled in size, came along for the ride. After all, he was more or less talking to us too. Soderling’s coach said nothing back, but Robin remained chirping.

I didn’t envision how Soderling’s constant irritation could possibly help his cause. Surely enough, he went on to lose the second set. This time, it was Verdasco who broke the tennis sound barrier, cracking the hardest return of serve I’ve ever seen in person. It drew “ooohs” from the crowd, and a tirade from Soderling. The bird was still chirping.

By this point, Soderling was complaining no matter what happened on court. Winners, errors, missed first serves by Verdasco (!) – they all led to more chirping. Verdasco picked up on this, and let loose some “VAMOS!” chants at exceedingly high volumes. Needless to say, it was an entertaining third set for the growing number of onlookers. I had a front row seat to a high quality tennis match and a carnival sideshow.

To my surprise, Soderling didn’t implode in the third set; he actually played his best. The match had stretched past the two hour mark, and fatigue started to become a factor. Each player was using more energy, but for very different things. Verdasco put everything he could into his groundstrokes, though they were still relatively powerless. Conversely, Soderling was focused more on court position, giving him more time to generate the necessary pace.

It was clear that the Spaniard was working the hardest, and it caught up to him in the fifth game, when Soderling broke for a lead that he wouldn’t relinquish. Surprising as Soderling’s victory was, even more astonishing was the fact that he said nothing when he got the crucial break.

One last note from courtside: During the third set, Verdasco called for the medical trainer. It probably took five minutes for him to arrive, and then another eight passed by after a medical timeout was taken. Soderling was none too pleased, and complained to the umpire. When Verdasco and Soderling met at net after the match, there was some tension, and they continued to go back and forth at each other on their way out.

The bird was still chirping, and I heard every bit of it. Find a court like this the next time you’re at a tournament, no matter the match. You’ll thank yourself later.

I'm in Toronto (Wednesday)

2008-07-24T10:53:00.003-04:00

Well, the weather was the big story here at the Rogers Cup.

Wednesday's tennis didn't begin until around 5 p.m., after rain marred play for the third consecutive day. Mercifully, the sun came out to shine, rewarding those patrons who courageously waited out the dreadful weather.

Shortly after play resumed, Jesse Levine rushed to a 4-1 opening set lead in his match against Rafael Nadal. But it wouldn’t last for long, as the Channel Slam winner regrouped and turns things around, winning 6-4, 6-2. It appeared that finally, things were back to normal in Toronto.

Then, like a flash flood, the grounds were again thrown for a loop. Roger Federer, winner of the past two Toronto Masters, unexpectedly crashed out of the tournament after losing to Gilles Simon.

I caught the last two sets of the match – a.k.a., the part where Federer fans should turn away. Roger's biggest problem was his serve, which became a liability as the match progressed. In the second set, Federer hit just 48% of his first serves in, with no aces to his credit. In the third, he was broken in his final three service games. It's probably the worst I've seen Federer serve since last year's U.S. Open semifinal against Nikolay Davydenko (though he won that match).

The signature Federer forehand was also off target. Instead of resembling a honing missile, it was a loose cannon, often struck long. Federer tried to be aggressive at times - especially late in the match - but was rarely paid off when attempting to take command.

Certainly, Simon deserves a lot of credit in all of this. That’s what I asked Federer about afterwards:

Q: Talk about the part of Simon’s game that was the most troubling to you, or the most difficult to play against tonight.

A: No, I think the problem was my game today, you know. I had everything to put him away. I didn’t think I served well today at all. It’s tough. Different balls than at Wimbledon. I was serving 70% in Wimbledon and here I’m serving 50%. Can’t serve any aces, so it’s just a different type of match. Maybe I guess first match on hard court I couldn’t sneak through the way I usually can, so it hurts obviously. It hurts your momentum because I think I get through the match and I get into the tournament and start playing better. But I got caught cold, so it’s kind of hard.

We'll have to see what happens from here on out, but this is obviously a terrible start to Federer's hard court stretch. And if Nadal can put up a big result this week, the number one ranking could switch even earlier than expected.

Since action didn't get underway until dinnertime, I caught just one other match yesterday - Robin Soderling vs. Fernando Verdasco. Due to the amount of backed up matches, it took place on a practice court, which made for a extremely intimate setting. Check back on Friday for a post about that - it'll be worth your time.

As for today's weather? The forecast calls for isolated thunderstorms from morning until night. It's clear right now, but fair warning.

McGrogan's Matches

Robin Soderling vs. Novak Djokovic

Emotions could run high in this one - both players can get animated when things don’t go their way. I wouldn't rule out an upset if Soderling can serve well enough.

David Ferrer vs. Richard Gasquet

The Soderling/Verdasco match ran long yesterday, so I didn't catch any of Gasquet's match with Alexandre Kudryavtsev. I’ll be sure to catch this one though. The winner likely gets Nadal.

Toronto: State of the Provinces

2008-07-23T22:14:00.004-04:00

Note: This was originally published on TENNIS.com on 7/23/08.

A capacity crowd packed Centre Court on Tuesday evening to watch Canada's last hope, Frank Dancevic, try to upset the world No. 3, Novak Djokovic. The environment was especially lively for a second round match, but Canadian tennis pros are rarely showcased in a big tournament, so this was a special occasion.

The Canadian Open (Rogers Cup) is the third oldest men's tournament in the world, after Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. But since the event truly went "open" in 1970, only three Canucks have ever reached the quarterfinals, and none has advanced farther. Dancevic is one of them, doing so last year in Montreal.

Frank (the Tank, as was chanted by some fans) played about as well as he could have early on, matching Djokovic’s renowned shot making with effective blasts of his own. Dancevic played confidently and fearlessly, and for the first eight games of the match, I saw no discernable difference between the two. The only thing Frank could have improved upon was his choice of colours – wear some more red!

Still, besting a Grand Slam champion is a tough ask, as Dancevic discovered against Rafael Nadal last year. When players of this caliber find an opening, the point, and likely the match, is over. That's what happened Tuesday night, as Djokovic broke Dancevic three times, including in the final game of the match. Djokovic himself had just been broken in the prior game, but he quickly returned the favor. The last Canadian was eliminated from the Canadian Open.

Even in defeat, this was an inspiring performance from Dancevic. But little else is inspiring about Canadian tennis. The landscape is bleak - Dancevic is the only player ranked in the Top 100, and his closest countrymen, Frederic Niemeyer and Peter Polansky, languish in the 201-300 category. Neither impressed me much this week: Niemeyer has huge serves but not much else, and Polansky, though still a young project, seemed content to loop groundstrokes back without much purpose behind them. Their well-rounded opponents, Tommy Robredo and Jesse Levine (respectively), had a field day with them in the first round.

After all the smoke had cleared, something didn’t click. This tournament has such a rich history and a very dedicated, knowledgeable fan base. Where are the homegrown players to complement them? I asked Dancevic after his match.

“Well, I think that Canadian tennis was struggling a little bit in the last, you know, five to ten or so years. We’ve got a whole new development restructured. In the last couple years we got a new president. Michael Downey came in a few years back. He’s really brought in some experts in from all over and made an awesome structure for junior tennis.

I think that moving on in the future we’re going to see a lot more Top 100 players. It’s a little disappointing that I’m the only one now, but I think in the near future we’re going to have quite a few more.”

Frank’s mention of a “whole new development” seemed to confirm a suspicion I had: At the professional level, the tennis culture in Canada may not be a very intense one. Consider that Niemeyer now has a miserable 1-11 record in matches here – but is still receiving annual wild cards. Weren’t there any better options available?

Frederic, a Montreal native, was asked about the pressures of playing in front of the home crowd. His response didn't strike me as very forceful:

“Not really pressure. I don’t feel the pressure, I just – yeah, of course maybe I want to do better. Yeah, so it’s a little pressure. But also it’s such – I’m away all the time during the year, and then I play a tournament in my hometown and it’s fun and it’s kind of – I feel that sometime I enjoy the tournament too much that just focusing on it.”

When the bar isn’t set high from the inside, expectations from fans on the outside are low as well. It's a vicious cycle. Polansky commented on this after his loss to Levine:

“There’s not too much pressure playing in this tournament. It’s a really big event so there’s not too much – they don’t expect you to win the tournament or sometimes even get past the first round.”

In all fairness, Polansky and Niemeyer are playing with house money, since they are rarely entered in tournaments of this stature. But their words revealed plenty to me. It seems that for some time now, professional tennis has grown stagnant up north. Last week, Aleksandra Wosniak became the first Canadian to win a WTA title in 20 years; the last male winner was Greg Rusedski in 1995, back when he played for the maple leaf.

But maybe Canadian tennis is at a crossroads, as Dancevic suggests. I hope so, because Canada has the facilities and the fans to support and grow the game. All it takes is one player, like Mike Weir in golf, to change the perception of the sport - and possibly make it thrive. In this sport-mad country, that could spell great things for Tennis Canada.

[Is Dancevic that player? I don’t think so. He hits similar to Robredo, and I think that’s his ceiling. But even that may be optimistic. Asad Raza hit it on the head, as he often does: “I just think Dancevic doesn't have a big enough weapon to differentiate himself from the other top fifty guys.”]

I watched the Dancevic/Djokovic match with Mike McIntyre, a Guelph native who blogs on protennisfan.com in his spare time (he works in insurance by day – sounds like someone I know). We got talking about the plight of Canadian tennis when he gave me this gem. Maybe the simplest answer is the best one of all:

“Up here, it’s hockey twelve months a year. Parents try to live the dream and get their kids into the NHL. They don’t have time in the summer for a second sport.”

I'm in Toronto (Tuesday)

2008-07-23T22:10:00.005-04:00

Note: This was originally published on TENNIS.com on 7/23/08.

The last time I saw Donald Young play in person was at the 2006 U.S. Open, when he faced a then unknown Novak Djokovic in the first round. Young won the first set that day, but won just four more games the rest of the match, losing 4-6, 6-3, 6-0, 6-1. I was curious to see his progress since then, so I stopped by his first rounder on Tuesday against Gilles Simon.

I entered with Simon leading 4-1. After watching Young promptly drop the next two games, it was obvious as to what was ailing the youngster. His ground strokes - which I really like from a technical perspective - are still quite error-prone in practice. Young has a slight pause before impact on both the forehand and backhand, in order to get all the cogs in his tennis machine operating the way he wants. But Young's problem is that this requires a lot of setup time - a luxury not often afforded on tour. The result was plenty of unforced errors, and shots hit at erratic speeds (some explode off his racquet, some look much too casual). His slice backhand could also use some work.

Not much changed in set two. Simon continued to return well, and largely waited out Young, who would inevitably succumb with an error. He made the 6-1, 6-3 win look even easier than the score indicated. Young's attitude didn't help matters - he often berated himself after minor mishaps, like missing first serves.

During the match, I noticed that Jose Higueras, coach of Robby Ginepri, was sitting in the stands. I asked him on our way out if there was any possible future between him and Young, another American. "No, just stopping by to watch him. I haven't seen him play in a few years." Seems Higueras was curious too.

A grim set of clouds signaled that yet another rain delay was imminent. So instead of watching a match destined to be interrupted, I opted to test my first serve speed at a promotional booth. Honestly, I was nervous even in front of a few teenage onlookers - a clear sign that I was never meant to play tennis for a living. I clocked a 89.5 mph strike, or 144 kph in Canadian. And I got all of it.

It was still lightly sprinkling when Peter Polansky's match against Jesse Levine resumed. I stopped by to see Polansky, a resident of nearby Thornhill, but Levine impressed me the most, once again. He showed a lot of heart in his qualifier against Benjamin Becker on Monday, and showed more moxie yesterday. Serving for the match at 5-4, Levine gifted Polansky three break points, but then won the next five in a row to advance to the second round. It could have gotten interesting if Polansky broke there, as the Canadian crowd was ready to erupt.

I returned to the Media Centre after catching a glimpse of Andy Roddick/Nicolas Mahut on Centre Court, just upstairs. Turns out I got back just in time, as an ATP representative informed me that Becker was here for an interview I'd made an earlier request for. In better spirits than after the loss to Levine (his racquet was smashed to bits), Becker was very accommodating and a pleasure to speak to. Look for parts of the interview in upcoming issues of TENNIS.

I leave you with this riddle: How can you clear out one side of a media room?

A: Put plates of gourmet cheese and crackers on the other side?

McGrogan's Matches

Jesse Levine vs. Rafael Nadal

Although I've talked up Levine the past two days, I'm certainly not expecting him to upset the world's hottest player. But this match could reveal something about Nadal's form on hard courts, as Levine should make him hit plenty of shots.

Alexandre Kudryavtsev vs. Richard Gasquet

I've never seen - and only just recently heard of - Kudryavtsev. He won the Battle of Lengthy Surnames that Begin with "K" after beating Philipp Kohlschreiber; he faces Gasquet next on Grandstand. Details about this unknown Russian to come tomorrow.

I'm in Toronto (Monday)

2008-07-22T10:35:00.003-04:00

Note: This was originally written for TENNIS.com on 7/22/08.

After a tennis-free day filled with twists and turns (not ideal), Monday represented a return to normalcy. And since I'm at a tennis tournament, that means watching a Richard Gasquet match.

Gasquet's opponent on Centre Court was Michael Llodra, one of the few serve-and-volleyers left on tour. Both men tend to ride the emotional rollercoaster, so I expected a three-setter from the start. I wasn't disappointed – Gasquet won 6-2, 4-6, 6-3.

"The Microwave," as Steve Tignor appropriately calls Gasquet, is known primarily for his picturesque one-handed backhand. But in order to uncork this shot effectively, you need great footwork, which Gasquet also possesses. It's a prerequisite for solid defense and opportune shot making, which helped Gasquet win nearly every point that didn't end with a Llodra serve or volley. Those were rare, as Gasquet also returned very well, eliminating the biggest weapon in Llodra's game. "It was the key of the match," Gasquet told me. "He has a big serve. He's lefty. He's really talented with his serve and after to the net, so it was important for me to return well."

As Llodra struggled early on, something dawned on me about serve-and-volley tennis. While I think that it's still an effective strategy, the problem is that it has to be executed perfectly to see positive results. Any slight mistake leaves you at the mercy of today's archetypal baseliner, who tends not to miss much after an opponent’s poor approach or volley. With almost no margin for error, it's no wonder that this breed of player is now on the endangered servers list. It’s simply a more difficult way to play tennis today. The tactic worked for Llodra in the second set, as he tormented Gasquet with wide, spinning serves. But he couldn't sustain this level of play for the entire match.

Shortly afterwards, rain temporarily halted play. I spent the down time wandering through a parade of retail shops, another tradition of mine at tournaments. Best deal: Complimentary yogurt. (The media dining is also "spartan" here.) Worst deal: Sun block priced at $10.16 CDN. But I had to buy one, which brings me to my two rules when attending a tournament. No. 1: Wear sun block. No. 2: Remember to bring your own.

After applying liberally, I headed to the side courts for more tennis. I first watched Canadian Frederic Niemeyer battle Tommy Robredo on Grandstand. It's a nice court, but it doesn’t compare to the Grandstand at the U.S. Open – unnecessary metal pillars impair the best baseline views. As for the match, Robredo won it 7-6, 6-1. Thoughts on this match – as well as Frank Dancevic’s two night matches – to come in a separate post tonight.

The other match I took in was a final round qualifier between Jesse Levine and Benjamin Becker. Moved due to yesterday’s weather, it turned out to be one of the best matches of the day. Becker and Levine split the first two sets, and then held serve the rest of the way, in compelling fashion, to force a final set tiebreaker. A packed side court crowd really got into this one – Levine is an Ottawa-born American, and I sat adjacent to the Becker camp, led by Coach Tarik Benhabiles.

The careers of Gasquet and Andy Roddick – Tarik’s former pupils – have flourished elsewhere, but Benhabiles clearly still enjoys coaching. He was always smiling and encouraging throughout this marathon of a match, which Becker lost 3-6, 6-3, 7-6 (8-6) despite saving two match points, and having one of his own. "Come on BB," he'd say, or more frequently, "Don't worry - enjoy." Clearly, Tarik practices what he preaches.

McGrogan’s Matches

Donald Young vs. Gilles Simon (Grandstand, 11:00 AM)

Young got into the main draw through qualifying, and will face another talented youngster (though five years older) in Simon. This U.S. Open Series is where Young has the potential to post some good results, though it remains to be seen if he will. We haven’t heard much from him since last year’s U.S. Open.

Guillermo Canas vs. Robin Soderling (Grandstand, 3rd match)

You’ll be able to find a good seat for this one when the Grandstand crowd empties after the Peter Polansky (CAN)/Jesse Levine match. I’m thinking three sets, and it could be worth your time.

Frank Dancevic vs. Novak Djokovic (Center Court, 7:30 PM)

Rexall Centre was alive during Dancevic’s match against Ancic – it could be electric depending on what happens here. Many pundits are picking Djokovic to win this week. This match should serve as a good barometer of his form.

I'm in Toronto (Sunday)

2008-07-22T10:18:00.002-04:00

Hello, loyal readers. For those of you who don't visit Peter Bodo's TennisWorld on TENNIS.com, my being in Canada for the Rogers Cup may come as a surprise. But thanks to the good folks at TENNIS Magazine, I'll be covering the event for them. If you look back at the archives of this blog, I think I mention in 2006 and 2007 that I planned on attending this tournament. Well, for one reason or another, that never worked out. But I've finally arrived now, and it's been worth the wait. I'll be copying all of my TENNIS.com contributions here, where they will be easier to find (posts at TENNIS.com get relocated very quickly). Hope you enjoy.

Note: This was originally written for TENNIS.com on 7/21/08.

Hey everyone – thanks for stopping by to read the first Canada Crisis Centre (CCC) of the week. Each morning before play begins at the Rogers Cup in Toronto, I’ll be writing a short post with some thoughts on the previous day’s tennis, and a look ahead to some of the upcoming day’s matches. I’m also planning a few separate posts for TennisWorld, and possibly a few other surprises on TENNIS.com. If that’s not enough Masters Series coverage, Andrew Burton will be posting here as well, and, don’t forget the standout work of Kamakshi Tandon, who doesn’t know the meaning of the word “vacation.”

So, I was planning to write about Roger Federer, who gave one of his first post-Wimbledon media interviews on Sunday. But on short notice, the Q&A session was scheduled much earlier than I expected. It was half over when I arrived on the grounds.

I also was thinking about comparing the physical demands of tennis players to hockey players. A few National Hockey Leaguers were going to take on some ATP pros in a faux-street hockey match on Grandstand court. But it rained all day, and the tennis guys wisely passed. (The hockey players still played – maybe that answers the question.)

Finally, I thought about reviewing some of Sunday’s qualifying matches. But the inclement weather was persistent throughout the day, and no balls were struck.

Sunday was a day of obstacles. I ran into a few more of my own. See, when the Rogers Cup is in Toronto, it takes place on the campus of York University. It’s odd to walk past an academic building and a massive stadium within a five-minute span, but that’s how it is here. Kamakshi, a local Canuck, gave me a tip that York rents out their dormitories on the cheap to tennis media folk. I booked a week’s stay for the convenience.

That convenience didn’t show itself yesterday. I weaved my way through the labyrinth of York for what seemed like forever – tiny SUNY Geneseo this is not – and parked my car in four different lots throughout the afternoon. Finally, I arrived at Vanier Hall, panting after lugging my belongings on a very muggy day. Kamakshi warned me that the accommodations would be “spartan.” Clearly, she knew the meaning of that word - her definition was spot on.

There’s no TV and no internet here. The bed feels like DecoTurf. I had a nicer desk and chair seven years ago as a freshman in college (again, Geneseo this is not). And there’s no men’s bathroom – on my floor at least. I didn’t just go back to school this week – I went back in time.

As for my neighbors? I don’t think I have any. In this thirteen-story edifice, I’ve only spotted two people, and heard just one other soul. And I don’t think it’s Federer or Rafa Nadal staying on campus for the quick commute.

But I’ve forgot these minor troubles already. I’m really looking forward to a tournament that in one way represents a clean slate for players, and in another way is the start of the final chapter to this most interesting year. Wimbledon’s theatrics gave this summer hard-court stretch a shot in the arm, and you can sense the excitement in the tennis community.

Torontonians were hanging around until dusk, in hopes of a qualifying match being played. You have to love tennis fans – the most dedicated in sport.

McGrogan's Matches

- Michael Llodra vs. Richard Gasquet (Centre Court, 11:00 am)

I saw both Frenchman play in Davis Cup this year. That is, if you consider Gasquet's dead rubber "play." But forget that for a moment. This match represents a contrast of styles, and it should be entertaining no matter who wins. Llodra's serve-and-volley could work well on this fast hard court, and Gasquet was a finalist in the last Toronto Rogers Cup (2006).

- Julien Benneteau/Frederic Niemeyer vs. Roger Federer/Stanislas Wawrinka (Court 1, second match after 3:30 pm)

Many prominent singles players are playing doubles this week (possibly to warm up for the Olympics). Other star-laden teams include Roddick/Fish, Nadal/Robredo, and Murray/Murray. Tiny Court 1 will be packed for this one; the Canadian Niemeyer is just a bonus.

- Frank Dancevic vs. Mario Ancic (Centre Court, 8:00 pm)

Real solid first round match here. These two have never met before, so expect a feeling-out process early on. Dancevic, Canada's best hope to do well here, will need to play even better to match his quarterfinal heroics last year. If he can get by Ancic, he faces a rested Novak Djokovic next.

The Match

2008-07-09T09:39:00.004-04:00

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

2008-06-17T20:22:00.003-04:00

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

2008-06-13T15:38:00.003-04:00

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

2008-05-26T13:40:00.005-04:00

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

2008-05-05T13:05:00.008-04:00

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)

2008-05-03T12:15:00.003-04:00

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

2008-04-21T20:52:00.003-04:00

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.

Thirst for dirt

2008-04-07T15:47:00.003-04:00

Note: This was originally written for TENNIS.com on 4/7/08.

It's a given that the undisputed king of clay, Rafael Nadal, is looking forward to the next few months on the tennis calendar. But I also think that for the first time in a long time, Roger Federer might be even more anxious to dirty his socks in red.

By Federer's lofty standards, the first three months of the year haven't quite gone as planned. Known for coming out of the gates flying, the world No. 1 hasn't won any of the four tournaments he's played in, nor has he reached a final. The last time Federer had a drought like this was -- are you ready for this -- over five years ago when he went seven events in a row without being in a final ('02 Madrid TMS, '02 Basel, '02 Paris TMS, '02 Tennis Masters Cup, '03 Doha, '03 Sydney, '03 Australian Open).

Just to be clear, I'm not proclaiming this dry spell to be the end of Roger, as he still reached the semifinals of the Australian Open and Indian Wells, as well as the quarterfinals of Miami. But not seeing Roger on Sunday in the spring is like not seeing football on Sundays in the fall - people start to wonder what's going on.

The upcoming clay season provides Federer the opportunity to silence his ever-increasing number of critics, as well as the chance to put his "disappointing" performances behind him. With no titles to his credit so far in 2008, any victory on clay will be a significant one, which might be the motivational factor that can rebound Federer from his early-season slump. In the past few years, Roger has come into the clay season with the motto, "French Open or Bust," because he's won essentially everything there is to win except the Coupe des Mousquetaires. This year, the tune might be slightly different.

There are two other reasons why Federer should be looking forward to the next few months, and they both deal with the savant of the surface, Nadal. Rafa will be playing in almost all of the tournaments that Roger is entered in, and naturally, will be favored to win them. In turn, some of the pressure on Federer will be alleviated. Nadal's impeccable record on clay (93-1 since April 2005) will be the focal point of discussion, as opposed to Federer-related chatter (though obviously, there will still be plenty of it). Even for someone as battle tested as Federer, the heavy burden of expectation -- where anything less than a championship is considered a failure -- is still taxing.

The other factor here is that Federer has beaten Nadal on clay, and he's the only person to have done so in the past three years. In Hamburg last May, Federer ended Nadal's 81 match winning streak on clay, winning 2-6, 6-2, 6-0. It was a monumental accomplishment, but one that was largely overlooked, in my opinion. I think a few factors contributed to this: Nadal's win over Federer shortly after at Roland Garros, the back-to-back scheduling of Rome and Hamburg, and the fact that Nadal doesn't usually play in Hamburg (unlike the stranglehold he has on the Monte Carlo, Rome, and French Open tournaments). These aren't "excuses" for Nadal finally dropping a match on clay, but by the same token I don't feel that Roger was given the proper due for his win.

Regardless, it was a massive victory for Federer that he can always point to for strength. He'll need it when they meet again on the dirt. I imagine both men are looking forward to that, but Roger might be just a little more, based on what's transpired so far this year. He's even playing in Estoril (pictured above), just to get a jump-start on things.

Let it go

2008-04-01T00:10:00.005-04:00

Note: This was originally written for TennisWeek.com on 4/1/08.

Up 7-6, 3-1, and firmly in control of his third round match against world No. 86 Ivo Minar, Andy Roddick started to let loose. Not on a forehand or a second serve, mind you, but on a let call from the chair umpire. What happened was that the spare ball that Minar had in his pocket came out during the point, causing the umpire to interrupt play, and call a let (which forced the point to be replayed).

At the time, Roddick arguably had the edge in the rally, dictating the direction of play while Minar was scampering around the baseline. However, replays clearly showed that this was simply an accident, as the loose ball dribbled on the court after Minar followed through on a groundstroke. It's actually a fairly uncommon occurrence for this to happen in tennis - I can recall only one other time I've seen this happen on television - but players clearly know that the rule states that a let must be called. (If the same player has this happen to him/her again, they lose the point.)

But even though Roddick undoubtedly knew the rule, he started steaming. First, he barked at the umpire. Then he gave cold stares to whoever was in his way. He made a point to turn this insignificant event into a major distraction. With Roddick, it's not a matter of when these dramatics occur, but why?

Andy should let something like this go, especially since the match was well under his command. But there have been so many instances of Roddick making a mountain out of a molehill (you only need to go back a few months to the 2008 Australian Open for proof) that you almost expect something like this to happen when even the slightest thing doesn't go Andy's way. The patron saint of tennis he is not.

At this level of play, I feel that tennis is more of a mental contest than it is a physical one. All of the top 100 players in the world have mastered the essential shots in the game - there's simply no way they would have reached this illustrious plateau otherwise. So when two players who step out on the court have all the shots in their arsenal, the match is going to come down to who can hit the necessary shot (which they've pulled off thousands of times beforehand) when the pressure is on. This is where Roddick has slipped up before.

Against Minar, Roddick escaped with a victory. But against a player of higher caliber, that one lapse in focus could have been the turning point. Close matches are ultimately decided by only a few points, so concentration throughout each contest is vital. Why add an unneeded distraction because of a simple let call?

These distractions not only manifest themselves in a microscopic view (the individual match), but in a macroscopic view as well. When I look at Roddick’s career to date, it's boggling to me how he has just one Grand Slam title to his name, and only four ATP Masters Series shields. Obviously, 99% of tennis players would kill to have these lines on their resume. But Roddick is a special player, foremost because of a serve that is one of the most effective in the history of the sport. Being in the era of Roger Federer is only part of the reason for Roddick's lack of further trophies and accolades - his mental game can be his greatest enemy at times. At a time, I thought that Roddick's robotic looking backhand was the aspect of his game that could hold him back from more Grand Slam riches. Now, after seeing the American unravel mentally so many times, I'm changing my answer to "himself."

Emotion is what can hurt Roddick, but he can get inspiration from it as well, as we've seen in the past (see: Davis Cup). Like it or not, it's a defining part of Andy's game. Frequently, this rears its head in the form of a ball being boomed into the stands after some poor play (which happened when Roddick got his serve broken by Minar late in the second set). I don't even mind this type of “therapy” as much, not when compared to some of the other outbursts that I've grown accustomed to seeing from Andy. Getting wrapped up over a let call (or more commonly, a questionable line call) is much more detrimental to Roddick's chances of success than is a ball abuse warning.

Time is fleeting for Roddick, as a new crop of younger stars on tour have already stamped their arrival. Maybe it's time for Roddick to rethink how he plays at times - I'm sure Andre Agassi, who knows a thing or two about changing one’s perspective on tennis, is only a call away.

Then again, maybe his recently announced engagement will be the thing that calms him down.

Following Richard Gasquet

2008-03-29T22:13:00.003-04:00

Note: This was originally written for TennisWeek.com on 3/28/08.

The first time I saw Richard Gasquet in person was at the 2005 U.S. Open. After nearly blowing a two set lead against Alberto Martin in the first round, Gasquet faced another experienced veteran, Georgio Galimberti, in round two. The match was played on the intimate yet ample Grandstand court, which I feel is one of the most underrated venues at the USTA National Tennis Center. The sun, sizzling for the entire day, was setting gently and ushering in a cool and comfortable evening. I was even lucky enough to get a great seat directly behind the baseline, where I had optimal viewing. It was a beautiful night to watch tennis.

But the most beautiful thing of all was still to come. As patrons filled the stadium, Gasquet and Galimberti took to the court and started their warm-up. That's when, for the first of many times that night, Richard unleashed his signature one-handed backhand. I was captivated by its elegance, along with many others in the crowd. During the match, I was hoping that Galimberti would hit to Richard's left, just so I could get one more look at this gorgeous ground stroke.

That night, I left Flushing Meadows as a Gasquet fan. I had seen Richard play on television before, but sitting mere inches away from him gave me an entirely new perspective on his playing abilities. Since then, he's one of the pros who I regularly check in on. And although I don’t track Richard’s every move with the same devotion as his many fanatics do, we share one thing in common each time we watch Gasquet play — we’re on a rollercoaster ride.

Gasquet’s major breakthrough on the ATP Tour came earlier that season, when he handed Roger Federer one of only four losses he would suffer all year in the quarterfinals of Monte Carlo. Richard did not go on to win that prestigious Masters Series event, but the performance boosted his confidence, which he would build upon by reaching the finals of AMS Hamburg a few weeks later. After being ranked No. 155 in the world and playing the Challenger circuit at the beginning of March, Gasquet headed into Roland Garros just months later firmly entrenched in the top 50.

The grass and hard courts seasons were similarly bountiful for Gasquet. He advanced to the fourth round at both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, and collected his first title on the lawns of Nottingham. In total, Gasquet climbed nearly 100 ranking places from the beginning of the year, finishing at No. 16. Even bigger things seemed in store for the teenager in 2006.

It would take a while for Gasquet to resume this level of play, however, thanks to an elbow injury that lingered throughout the beginning of the season. Richard lost his first three matches and had a woeful 6-11 start to the campaign, causing his ranking drop below 50 for the first time in over a year. It wasn’t until Nottingham, of all places, that Gasquet finally got back on track. He successfully defended his title, and rebounded nicely in the second half of the year, winning on clay in Gstaad, and on carpet in Lyon. Richard also reached the finals of AMS Toronto, losing to Roger Federer in three sets.

From 2007 to the present day, Gasquet has been a permanent fixture in the top twenty, reaching as high as seven in the world. But ironically, there has been a wide range of results amidst this lengthy level of consistency. At one end is the apex of his career to date, a five set comeback from the dead (two sets down) against Andy Roddick in the quarterfinals of Wimbledon. At the other end lies a mass of earlier-than-expected exits from Masters Series events and Grand Slams (with Wimbledon ’07 being the notable exception). Much like his results, there are also conflicting opinions about his game — for every person that praises the Frenchman for his play so far, there are others who say its all flair, without the substance.

Gasquet has had high expectations set upon him since he was just a child. At the tender age of nine, he was on the cover of French magazine Tennis, with the headline "RICHARD G: THE CHAMPION FRANCE IS WAITING FOR?" He was young then, and still is now at 21, but expectations have not subsided for the man with the golden backhand.

"At nine, I was really young and since a lot of people knew me, it was very difficult for me. The pressure affected my performance," said Gasquet in last September in Mumbai, India. "But now I am 21, still under a lot of pressure but with a lot of experience."

The future for Gasquet is anyone’s guess. Some predict multiple Grand Slam titles, while others see him in a line of Frenchman that value beauty over brawn on the tennis court. Whatever happens, it should be an entertaining ride; I wouldn’t count out seeing some twists and turns as well.

In the next few weeks, Richard has a lot on his plate.

Gasquet starts off in Miami against an always tough Dmitry Tursunov in the second round. [He went on to lose this match.] Afterwards, Gasquet is expected to travel north and join the French Davis Cup team, which will play a tough away tie in North Carolina against the defending champion United States. Gasquet’s singles opponents will be Roddick and James Blake, two skilled players that have given him some trouble in the past. Finally, there’s the clay court season, which culminates at the epicenter of French tennis, Roland Garros. And you can bet that some fans in attendance probably remember reading the magazine which baby Gasquet graced years ago.

Re: Federer/Sampras IV

2008-03-17T20:03:00.004-04:00

Note: This was originally written for TENNIS.com on 3/17/08.

After finishing a match at the nearby Har-Tru courts of Midtown Tennis, a friend of mine and I started discussing the Roger Federer/Pete Sampras exhibition match we’d be seeing later that evening at Madison Square Garden. That’s when my companion delivered the line of the trip:

“One guy is 36 and the other guy has mono. How good of a match can it be?”

I was wondering the same thing. Pete and Roger are two of my favorite players, but strangely, I wasn’t in a frenzied state of excitement to see them compete against one another. Rather, I felt that I should be there, but I wasn’t exactly sure why. Was it to pay homage to these greats of the game? To see the sport played professionally in New York City somewhere outside of Queens? Because the match very well might be talked about in the annals of tennis long after both men were dead?

I had many questions coming into the match, and I left with even more.

Back to his somewhat obvious question – how good was it? Judging by the 6-3, 6-7, 7-6 score, it was a well-played match. Indeed, there were many exceptional shots hit by each player. Both men served well, with the edge going to Sampras for his healthy barrage of well-timed and finely-placed aces. The rallies that did ensue were competitive, with some capped off by dazzling shots that rekindled memories of each man’s best. Each player’s signature one-handed backhand was frequently on display, bringing forth a cascade of applause from the sold out crowd whenever a winner was struck.

Viewing this match from the “good for the sport” perspective, the match was a success. Still, I couldn’t help but feel that something was amiss. And exhibition or not, that takes away from the enjoyment of the tennis as a whole. Had it not been for a (painstakingly) hour long introduction to the match, the first set would have been over before many people would have arrived in their seats. The second set continued with in a similar vein at first, but eventually ended in a tiebreaker- which was the part of the match that I was most skeptical about. As for the third set – I even exclaimed to my friends sitting next to me, after Sampras led 5-2, “is he actually going to win this?”

A number of scenarios bounced around in my head, ranging from how this was surely a contrived contest, to the irony of match-fixing currently being a hot-button issue on the ATP Tour. In what seemed like no time, Federer had reeled off three straight games to level the set at five. And wouldn’t you know it – we were headed to a tiebreaker.

With any exhibition match – but especially a dynamic one like this – you can beat yourself up by overthinking it. The significant question of “Who’s better?” is obviously an impossible one to answer at this time. But even narrowing down the match to singular points and asking, “Did he mean to do that?” – there are a limitless amount of questions that could be drawn from this match. I just don’t think there should be.

Exhibitions should simply be left as what they are – purely exhibitions. There is nothing that I have seen in the four matches played between Pete and Roger that has made me think differently about either player. I’m not saying they aren’t enjoyable – they are, but only to an extent. And that’s fine, because in any case I prefer to view these two players via the experience of actual matches that they have played.

(While we’re still on the subject of the GOAT debate, I also think that their encounter at the 2001 Wimbledon Championships is a very reputable case study of how their games match up. While it is true that neither player was in his prime years, each was roughly “apart” from that prime by an equidistant amount.)

For the record, I would like to see Pete play the grass court season. Sampras certainly still has enough game to compete with some of the field, and it’s only a three week long stretch. To get one more glimpse of Sampras on the Centre Court lawn – now that would be excitement. As for the never-ending ‘Federer vs. Sampras’ saga, we’ve had four chapters already. The point has been made, and I think it’s time to shelve it.

What's going to happen now?

2008-01-29T12:01:00.002-05:00

Note: This was originally written for TENNIS.com on 1/28/08.

“For the first time, coming out of the Australian Open, in my mind, number one is up for grabs this year.”

Patrick McEnroe of ESPN said these once unfathomable words after being asked “What’s going to happen now?” by Chris Fowler in this video. The sentence is spoken right at the conclusion of the panel’s look back at Novak Djokovic’s defeat of Roger Federer in the Australian Open semifinals, which gives the statement a very portentous feel. But even if the segment was edited that way intentionally, I agree that the point needs to be considered. The theory is one of many things we can take away from the Australian Open, and it will linger on throughout 2008.

Tennis is structured in such a way that no particular tournament will allow a player to be crowned “champion.” Rather, the title of “champion” has to be earned throughout various events that each player competes in throughout the year. Whereas team sports declare a champion after a playoff, the best player in tennis is sometimes decided by debate. Often, there is no clear winner.

These subjective decisions also apply to accomplishments in the sport. For example, what is the most impressive Grand Slam tournament to win? One person might say it’s the U.S. Open, because the surface is the most “neutral” of the four Slams (obviously, that is up for debate as well). But another observer may declare that Wimbledon or Roland Garros is the toughest to win, because grass and clay court specialists that lurk in each passing round making winning the tournament harder to accomplish.

Another argument might be this – what’s more impressive, being the absolute best player at one surface so that no other player is even remotely in the discussion (as is the case with Rafael Nadal on clay), or, being the most versatile player on all surfaces (Federer)? Like the first question, there is no clear answer, and is a big reason why websites like this one exist.

But there is one achievement in tennis that definitively says a player is the best – the year-end number one ranking. Being the year-end number one means that you were measured as the best player in that calendar year, due to the success you had on different surfaces, in different conditions, and at different venues. You can’t simply get hot for two weeks and be called number one. The cumulative nature of the ranking makes it the clearest indicator of who tennis’ “champion” is, and is the gold standard that his contemporaries are measured against.

Because attaining the year-end number one ranking is such an exhaustive process, due to the amount of effort, consistency, and winning that is required, I feel that players who have achieved it are often not given the credit they deserve. Many critics decry the ranking system as a false method of determining who the better player is. “Let the play on the court decide,” is a common argument.

My response: the bulk of rankings probably are inconsequential – after all, most tennis fans would agree that the difference between the No. 15 and the No. 25 ranked players in the world is minimal. But at the very top, the rnaking is accurate. You can’t piece together a couple good results to reach the peak of the mountain (although you can to get close to it, as Jo-Wilfried Tsonga proved). Because of all this, I contend that Federer’s record of consecutive weeks atop the rankings is more impressive than his number of Grand Slam victories (now and in the future).

Last year, Nadal was leading the ATP points race well into the season, due to his flawless play on clay as well as his early-season success on hard courts. The media went wild over this. Although Nadal hadn’t passed Federer as the Number One ranked player in the world, the thought of him doing so based on what could happen led to widespread speculation that Federer’s grasp on men’s tennis was diminishing. This never did happen. Federer went on to keep the No. 1 ranking for the fourth consecutive year.

Considering how big of a deal that was, think about how big of a deal it will be if McEnroe’s words ring true this year. As astounding as Federer’s success has been, it will be just as astonishing to see someone put an end to it. There is no guarantee that it will happen, but Djokovic’s defeat of Federer – in such a clinical matter – certainly leaves me wondering what’s going to happen now.

Final-ly?

2008-01-23T22:08:00.000-05:00

My last entry mostly talked about the women, so let's switch gears and get back on track with a review of the men -

The opening couple of days at the Australian Open were some of the more exciting I've witnessed at a Grand Slam in recent years. Early round matches featured a number of close results, including some memorable five-setters, and pitted together opponents that made me think these contests should be played in the second week.

Thankfully, the tournament's momentum didn't end after the majority of its participants packed their bags (96 players, of course, go home after the fourth day). Instead, the tennis just kept getting better. Kamakshi Tandon of TENNIS.com fame summed it up best; this article should be archived just so the astonishment of the weekend isn't forgotten years down the road.

The part of the weekend that I can relate to the most (as can most of you, probably) was the epic Hewitt/Baghdatis slugfest. Here's what happened in my situation: I already had plans on Saturday to attend the Syracuse/Villanova NCAA basketball game, so I needed some sleep before the noon tip-off. After Federer had already pummeled Diego Hartfield and Fabrice Santoro (losing six games combined between the two matches), I expected a somewhat similar result against Janko Tipsarevic in round three. Also, the most important match of the day was the Hewitt/Baghdatis match, which I had plugged as 'must-see' as soon as the third round draws were set. So I opted to sleep through Roger, and wake up for the night match.

I awoke around 6:30 a.m. EST, turn on the TV, and see...Venus Williams and Sania Mirza? Then I noticed I had a text message waiting for me on my phone. "Are you watching tennis," it said. I put two and two together and came up with the only scenario that made sense - Roger lost.

I fired up my computer, and went to my home page of ESPN.com. Low and behold, Federer was on the front page. My heart nearly sank - Federer is my favorite player to watch, but even if loses a match, I want to see it (I have Gasquet's '05 Monte Carlo win and Nadal's '06 Rome win saved on my computer). Thankfully, my crisis was averted when I read that he actually won, although it took 4.5 hours and five sets to do so (10-8 in the end).

But we're not done yet. I drove over to Syracuse, about 45 minutes away, just after the first set of the Hewitt match concluded. After getting some nourishment, walking around the campus, and doing some general sightseeing, I spot something totally unexpected in a nearby pub window - a tennis match! Remember, I’m in the heart of a basketball-mad campus here, so I didn't think I had any chance of catching the remainder of the match. Thankfully, I was able to. To see Baghdatis somehow claw his way from 1-5 down in the fourth set to force a tiebreaker, and subsequently win it (after looking as good as dead), might have been one of the most amazing things I've seen in sport. It was 11:30 a.m. in Syracuse, NY - and it was 3:30 a.m. in Melbourne, Australia. I spotted a friend of mine at the bar and said, with my arm around his shoulder and a beer in the other hand, "this is why tennis is the greatest sport there is." Completely serious, of course. Needless to say, I had constant text updates sent to me throughout the basketball game.

It's tough to top a five set match that featured the country's last and best hope for victory, which ended at 4:30 am local time. Because of this impossibly high standard set, the second week of the Open has actually been a bit of a lull. The fourth round matches on the men's side were largely uneventful, unless you count a Nikolay Davydenko upset as earth-shattering.

Actually, there was one match I should discuss- the fall of Richard Gasquet and the rise of Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. This match was only on in bits and pieces in the States, but the few minutes of coverage that I did see were an accurate representation of the entire match, as I discovered later. Tsonga pounded Gasquet with an aggressive strategy throughout the match, from the serve on down. The loss was an unfortunate one for Gasquet fans, as he had a track to the semifinals that wasn't too difficult, at least on paper. Chalk this one up as yet another missed opportunity for Richard.

The quarterfinals weren’t been much better, in terms of competitiveness. Djokovic and Nadal rolled their opponents, while Tsonga and Federer were tested more, but straight sets was still the end result. James Blake played gallantly against Roger, and probably should have taken at least one of the first two sets. What ultimately let him down was his serve - not enough free points were generated from it, and on the opposite end of the court, Federer served brilliantly, especially at the most pressure-packed moments. Nevertheless, this was a very successful Slam for Blake, who should be watched closely at Indian Wells and Miami.

So we're down to two matches - Nadal vs. Tsonga and Federer vs. Djokovic. Quite honestly, I'm expecting Nadal to beat Tsonga in straight sets. In the weaker half of the draw that has had its share of upsets (Murray, Gasquet and Roddick went down early), Nadal's run to the semis has been gone somewhat under the radar. Certainly, his draw has been kind - much more so than Tsonga, who created two of the said upsets. But just because Nadal’s highest ranked opponent has been Paul-Henri Mathieu, the 23rd seed, doesn't mean Nadal's level of play shouldn't be considered less than brilliant. He hasn't dropped a set, his forehand looks as quick as ever, and he's running down balls much like you'd see at Roland Garros. Rafa may be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the new Plexicushion surface, and I expect to see him continue this run to the final.

As for the top half - it's quite an accomplishment just to get to the semis in such a loaded side of the bracket. But if you were to pick who could navigate through this maze, Federer and Djokovic seem to be the safest bets, and they are the last two standing. I'm going five sets on this semifinal; Djokovic has been playing as well as Nadal has, but there has nothing to suggest that Federer's reign on top is ready to end. The U.S. Open final should still be fresh in both players' minds - which I think will benefit Roger the most. Novak played well that day, but dropping seven set points between the first two sets was disastrous. He won't drop that many this time around, if he's afforded them.

Ultimately, I’m going with Roger here because he's already shown me at this tournament that he can handle whatever is thrown at him – see the Tipsarevic and Blake matches. Djokovic is, of course, a better player than those two, but Federer is still in the zone that he's been in for two Aussie Opens, five Wimbledon’s, and four U.S. Opens. Roger knows his dominance at Slams has to come to an end soon, but I don't think he's sensing that it's impending - the media may be, but I don't believe he does.

In Federer’s mind, he’s playing with his own money – not house money. And when your own cash is on the line, you pay a little more attention. As for Roger’s opponents, they come into the match as such huge underdogs that right from the start, they have nothing to lose. This can be helpful in easing the pressure you feel, but it also can breed carelessness when you think to yourself, “What do I have to lose?” The mental game is just as important as the physical game, especially in a match-up of players with such illuminating skills on the court.

Bottom line: Djokovic is not a mentally soft player, but Federer is stronger, just like he is in nearly every other aspect of the game. Djokovic’s backhand will need to be watched – it’s very similar to David Nalbandian’s, who torched Roger in consecutive Masters Series events. That’s the only adjustment Roger will have to make, though, as he’ll usually attack an opponent’s backhand. And if one adjustment is all that’s required, I think a 12-time Grand Slam champion is up to the task…

If the results go the way I'm predicting, the final would be Federer and Nadal. Ever since Nadal established himself as the man on clay, and Federer the man on grass, I've always wondered what would happen if they played on a hard court at a Grand Slam. The hard court would be considered – by most, but not all – as a neutral surface (the particular hard court of Plexicushion definitely meets this quality, in my eyes). Hey, the upcoming Super Bowl is played on a neutral field, so why not the de facto Super Bowl of tennis?

Because of their #1 and #2 rankings - which have been affixed to them like tattoos since 2005 - such an occurrence could only come at a final. It finally could happen, and with both in their primes, many questions would be answered. I'm hoping to see it unfold as such.

2008

2008-01-15T17:45:00.000-05:00

Many of you may be wondering where I've been lurking for the past few weeks.

And many long time [G/R] readers might be wondering why a picture of Lindsay Davenport is adorning the top of this post.

More on the Davenport pic later. First thing's first - where the hell have I been?

Partially, I've been busy, but there's a more important reason for why this website has been growing moss for the past few weeks - I've been doing some other tennis-related activity that called for my attention. I can't divulge the details, but this year, I'll be taking on an expanded role with an outfit that I've been working with for some time. It's extremely exciting, flattering, and rewarding. Quite honestly, I'm not sure how much time I will have for [G/R] updates - they will certainly not be of the frequency you've been used to seeing - but I will be popping in, here and there, with my commentary.

While this may seem like the end of an era for [G/R], I promise you that it's more of a growth than a contraction. Two years ago (almost to the day) I started this website for a number of reasons. I love the sport of tennis, and wanted to a) talk about it, and b) give like-minded fans an online sanctuary to read about the sport they love. I hope I've done a good job of both. Much like what I'll be doing now, it has been very exciting, flattering, and rewarding.

But another reason why I dove into the world of blogging was to hopefully make a name for myself in the tennis industry. See, one of my biggest gripes since I graduated from college is that recent grads (and even more seasoned veterans) are bitter with their jobs, but are just complaining and doing nothing to change it. As for me, let's just say that I know I want to be doing something different, and I'll keep it at that. The thing I want to do is to be in tennis. But so do many other people. That's why I knew that it would require work - and a lot of it. This website was only part of a tennis blitzkrieg that I've been a part of for a while.

There's been ups, downs, and every other twist and turn. And I probably haven't seen anything yet. But it seems like things may finally be starting to turn in the direction I've wanted to head in, and I couldn't be happier. 2006 was a landmark for me, just to get this site going. 2007 brought unexpected riches in the form of tennis writing and travel. I hope 2008 brings even more. I'll let you know how it goes along the way.

Of course, many of you who see this update must be awaiting some words on the Australian Open - and here they are. The first round has concluded, so here are some thoughts on the year's first Grand Slam up to this point:

- Every January, I conduct an Australian Open tennis pool at my office, where my co-workers spend $5 and root for a player they would, most likely, confuse with a personal trainer if they spotted him at their local gym. I posted on this in each of the last two years, and each time, I copied a picture of the "200_ Roger Federer Calendar" that I have traditionally received as a Christmas gift. This year, I did not unwrap an imported calendar, and ironically, there was no Aussie Open pool either. The two aren't related, but I thought that was an interesting coincidence.

- The new blue courts: they look too bright for me, but I think that's more because I'm so used to seeing the forest green concrete. It's certainly not as eye-gouging as some of the European indoor courts, but the color scheme at U.S. Open is superior, in my opinion.

- Speaking of the blue courts, I've noticed a a slew of blue clothing as well, most likely in an attempt to "match" the new surface. Sometimes, the result isn't as appealing as you'd hope it would be. As usual, Nike did it best - at least when it comes to Roger Federer. Keeping the black motif from the U.S. Open, essentially for the entire body, looks great against the deep blue sea of Plexicushion below. The blue in Federer's attire is saved for the accessories (the headband, and part of the wristband), which is a nice touch. Plus, the all-black look worked in Flushing Meadows, and it can't hurt to keep the good karma going.

(In the day matches Federer plays, it looks like he's going with a blue/gray look, as seen in the fourth post here...not sure about that choice.)

- I recently wrote at length about Chris Guccione, the tall Aussie lefty who has had some fine results at Adelaide (finalist last year) and Sydney (finalist this year). He's a player who I enjoy watching partly because of his expected touch at net, and partly because he's a southpaw bomber. I wanted to see him do well at the biggest tournament in Australia, but he disappointed - big time - by going down in straight sets to Hyung-Taik Lee. The premise of my column was that while the pressure from the Aussie crowd is mostly off, it would be a great opportunity (and of course, a great story) for Chris to do well at the Open. He's still very young, but he now has a woeful 1-5 record in Melbourne. In previous years, he was drawn against highly ranked opponents, and was without the requisite experience. This year, those excuses weren't there. Andy Murray's loss was a shocker, but this one was a disappointment as well.

- Even though most seeded men advanced, there were still a few surprises in the first round. John Isner didn't take a set from Fabrice Santoro. Ernests Gulbis, who had a great run at the U.S. Open, likewise got shut out against Marat Safin. And Nicolas Kiefer didn't give Juan Carlos Ferrero a very competitive match. But despite some of these lopsided scores, there were other matches that provided great drama early on. Two of the best examples were Vince Spadea's comeback from two sets down to beat Radek Stepanek, and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga's mighty impressive four set win against No. 9 seed Andy Murray (after getting bageled 6-0 in set three). Even though viewers outside of Melbourne Park likely missed the majority of these contests, this was one of the most enjoyable opening rounds at a Grand Slam that I can recall.

- Sleep: it's tough to find at this time of the year. I like Steve Tignor's comments on the taxing requirements that the U.S. fans must endure during this fortnight:

"Love the Australian Open, always love the Aussie Open. The late nights, the bright courts, the blistering sun that you can almost will yourself to feel on a cold night in New York, the bleary-eyed exhaustion the next day—it’s like a nighttime winter vacation for American tennis fans. Something about the extra effort it takes to watch makes it that much more worthwhile. Anybody can flick on CBS in the middle of a September afternoon and watch the U.S. Open. To keep up with the Australian is to join an exclusive club of obsessives—very classy obsessives, of course. "

Well put, Steve. I've been burning the late night oils each night in this opening week (stayed up until 3 a.m. on day one; awoke at 5 a.m. on day two), so we'll see what I have left for the second week - hopefully plenty. No rest tonight, though - I'll be rising at 3:30 to watch...well, this deserves its own footnote:

- Lindsay Davenport vs. Maria Sharapova: This is a marquee second round match, so much so that I'm going to break tradition and watch the women before the tail end of the second week. I'm legitimately excited for this match, which I still cannot believe I'm saying about a round two tussle on the women's side.

But there's something more important for me going on here. I talked about how 2007 was an important year in regards to my exposure to tennis. During the year, I covered the Fed Cup in Vermont, as well as many women's matches at the U.S. Open. I can definitely say that after watching many women's matches more closely that I've turned around some of my harsher opinions of the women's game. I will say that it took me a while, and even now, there are some matches on the ladies' side that I simply don't enjoy. But I'm done with dismissing the product as inferior. I still prefer men's tennis to women's, but I'm watching much more of the women's game than I used to, which I'm happy about, especially as an aspiring tennis journalist.

[G/R] prides itself on being a haven for men's tennis, and that won't change. But I'm glad my overall opinions on the sport have. Hopefully, I haven't offended WTA fans who've stumbled upon this site before. I offer my sincere apologies if so.

I'm looking forward to a new year, more great tennis, and more immediately, a great match tonight at Rod Laver Arena.

Short balls

2007-12-12T14:01:00.000-05:00

I don't do shorter update posts that often (I'm thinking way back to a "breaking news" post I did when I found an online feed of AMS Hamburg in 2006), but it's a good time for one today because we're firmly entrenched in the tennis off-season, where there's no obvious discussion points. In my opinion, it's not really an off-season at all, since Davis Cup lasts into early December, and exhibition matches are prevalent all over the world. But whatever you want to call it, I'm enjoying this short break - and I'm sure the ATP pros are as well.

Anyways, some short notes:

- I'm still writing during this time of year, but rather fittingly, not about tennis. Well, not all of it anyways. I'm in the middle of writing a large piece on my five favorite sports - with the pros and cons of each discussed to great lengths - and it will be called "McGrogan's Hierarchy of Sporting Needs." I'm sure you can guess what No. 1 will be, but there's plenty of room for other sports as well, in my book. I didn't get into tennis until just recently, in fact.

- For both the Tennis Masters Cup and the Davis Cup, I didn't write a post specifically discussing the final results of each. This is because I thought that some of the other stories surrounding the participants (Djokovic's year end malaise; the similarities and differences of Blake & Roddick) were more interesting points to hit on then the eventual winner. We've discussed Federer to death here, and I thought the U.S. Davis Cup team was a runaway favorite in this match, which was proved correct. Just a point of clarification in case you were wondering where those articles are.

- I will be posting once more this year on [G/R]. It will be a year-end post, but it won't just hit on what happened on the tennis courts in 2007. Stay tuned.

- For my domestic readers in the U.S., start watching the Tennis Channel now, because they are showing a number of classic Australian Open matches. TC has acquired the rights to broadcast some of the 2008 tournament, and with that comes the voluminous archives from Tennis Australia.

- I'm very curious to see what type of shirt Federer sports at the Australian Open. Look at the 2005, 2006, and 2007 tops - they are all somewhat "loud", and far from the classic look that Roger has donned from the U.S. Open and forward. There's also the consideration that a new Nike deal should be in the works (please). It all adds up to an unveiling that I'm looking forward to, because I've liked most of his past Melbourne selections.

- Lastly, I'm going to encourage all of you to read Tennis.com from now on…I'm sure many of you do, but I want to reiterate my stance on this wonderful site. Bar none, Tennis.com has the most comprehensive and thought-provoking tennis coverage on the web. It's updated constantly by their cadre of seasoned writers whom I've had the great pleasure of meeting and working with. It's really worth your time - I didn't start visiting until the beginning of this year, and since then, I've been hooked.

That's about it for now.

Tiger Roddick and Phil Blake

2007-12-01T12:36:00.000-05:00

I don’t think that Mikhail Youzhny and Dmitry Tursunov are identical players, but I think they are quite similar. Both Russians, who have hovered around the top 20 the world, have a solid grasp on all aspects of the game, are consistent to the point of boredom, and are without a glaring weakness.

Because of this parallel (if you agree with my assessment), I was curious to see how Andy Roddick and James Blake played against these two comparable teammates during Friday’s opening rubbers in the Davis Cup final. After all, if Roddick and Blake are facing “the same player”, then the strategies and tactics of each American would be much more pronounced when comparing the matches side by side.

Now, astute tennis fans don’t need to watch a full match of Roddick’s or Blake’s to discern their differences and highlight their abilities. However, the similarities of their opponents made their matches an enjoyable case study to watch. Both are power players, but while Roddick asserts his strength with the serve, Blake does so with the ground strokes – i.e. he goes for winners all the time.

As expected, these habits manifested themselves on Friday. Both Americans won, but each took a different route to get there. Roddick’s match was a clean, clinical victory –the first two sets featured just one break of serve, and he quickly closed the match out in the third. He beat Tursunov 6-4, 6-4, 6-2, like it was scripted from a cue card.

Blake’s win, on the other hand, was a much more turbulent affair. James looked he was ready win his match against Youzhny in straight sets, but in classic Blake fashion, it didn’t turn out to be that easy. The last three sets of this match went to tiebreakers – the final one happened only because Blake was broken when serving for the match. But James did emerge victorious in the end.

[Two side notes from these matches: 1) If Youzhny won the fourth set tiebreaker, I don’t think Blake wins in the fifth. 2) Roddick’s injury that hampered him in the Tennis Masters Cup seemed like it was not even an issue.]

I haven’t read transcripts from the Davis Cup press conferences, but I’m positive that Blake and Roddick have each fielded many questions like this: “how are you and Andy/James different?”

It has the makings of a canned answer, for sure. But I got thinking about something different when I was watching their matches today. Andy Roddick is Tiger Woods, and James Blake is Phil Mickelson. I loathe discussing golf here at [G/R], but it’s true – these American tennis players have much in common with their American golf counterparts.

Let’s start with how each sport starts off – with a swing. Roddick’s serve and Tiger’s drive have become recognizable trademarks since they’ve turned pro. Tiger’s drive is a whiplash that sends the ball far down the fairway, and while Roddick’s serve doesn’t travel as great of a distance, it’s hit with just as much force.

This isn’t to say that Mickelson’s drive doesn’t pack a punch. It’s no slouch, but the most important point to address about Phil’s drive is that his swing can be somewhat erratic. Blake doesn’t have to worry often about hitting his second shot in a bad spot, but his serve has had its hiccups, as was shown on Friday.

One thing that comes to mind when you think about either Blake or Mickelson is that they both have a penchant for “going for their shots”. Whether it’s pin hunting or painting the lines, there’s no shortage of dramatics when these two play. On the contrary, Woods and Roddick seem to build their performances to a crescendo. There’s exclamation points when they play, but not at the frequency of Blake or Mickelson. Rather, Woods and Roddick are steadier players that are less prone to streaks. They don’t put you on a rollercoaster ride, but on cruise control due their incredible consistency.

Pressure is another trait that each pair handles differently. For what seemed like an eternity, Mickelson held the title of “best player never to win a major”. And until this year’s U.S. Open, Blake had an ignominious 0-9 record in matches that went five sets. Clearly, these two players needed a bit more seasoning to reach the higher peaks than did Roddick and Woods, who have each won major tournaments early in their careers. Roddick’s 2003 U.S. Open victory and Woods’ 1997 Masters title are fair comparisons, although you can certainly argue that Tiger’s accomplishment was more impressive because of his younger age and by how badly he dominated his competitors that year.

Lastly, I think about emotion. This was captured in plain view during Friday’s matches, and is what first triggered my thoughts of these golf-tennis comparisons. Both Tiger Woods and Andy Roddick are emotional guys, typified by their sudden outbursts after sinking a timely clutch putt, or when capturing the set after striking a winner. In fact, most people would probably say that they are the more “emotional” of the pairs. But that’s debatable, especially when you see Blake pumping himself up after nearly every big point (“one more!”), and looking to the skies for inspiration. As for Phil, he definitely plays to the crowd more than Woods – there is a reason he has such a boisterous following – and likes to get them engaged throughout his round, and not just at the end.

One more point I need to make before I get skewered – I’m not comparing these players in terms of their victories. Blake doesn’t have nearly the amount of hardware that Mickelson has earned in recent years, and Roddick isn’t ever going to hold double-digit major titles. After all, there’s only one Roger Federer, and one Tiger Woods.

All I want for Christmas

2007-11-25T21:07:00.000-05:00

In the United States, we’ve just finished celebrating two major holidays – Thanksgiving, and Black Friday. For my international readers who are unfamiliar, Thanksgiving is a time when American families get together for a meal, in order to give thanks for the things that are special to them in their lives. It’s always held on a Thursday in late November, and has a history that dates back to the times of the Pilgrims and Indians.

Oh – what’s Black Friday?

Well, “Black Friday” isn’t an actual holiday in the U.S., but it has grown into a de facto one over the last few decades. The day after Thanksgiving is widely considered to be the busiest shopping day of the year, as stores open their doors earlier than usual (5 a.m. is quite common), offering great sales to shoppers eager to start their Christmas shopping.

In the spirit of Black Friday, I was thinking about what I want for Christmas (in part because I was recently asked this question). I have some ideas about presents that I hope to unwrap, but there’s one thing I want that won’t fit into a box with a bow on top. But I’m going to ask for it anyway.

I want to see Pete Sampras play next year.

A big ask? Yeah, especially after Sampras had repeatedly stated that he isn’t coming back. But after Pete finally got the best of Roger Federer in the third of their three exhibition matches, I’d like him to reconsider.

Pete, I’m not asking you to play the entire 2008 calendar – in fact, I just want to see you play the grass court season.

We’ve talked about the misnomer that is the “season” of grass court tournaments here at [G/R] before, but consider how much more intriguing the “season” would become if you played? The grass is your domain, and I’m confident that you could still put up winning results on the lawns if you gave it a chance. Returning straight to Wimbledon – which you’ve said that you miss – would be an onerous task. But what if you played in two warm-up tournaments beforehand? It would serve as valuable conditioning, practice, and would serve to pinpoint precisely what you would need to work on before returning to the All England Club.

I don’t care if you decide to play in Halle or London two weeks before Wimbledon, or whether you choose s’-Hertogenbosch or Nottingham the week prior, but I hope you consider playing the entire “season”. Building confidence (sorry if that’s an insult to ask) with each match is what I think would make your return to Wimbledon a truly fascinating story, as opposed to a glorified wild card.

Pete, I know the fans have grilled you in the past for not showing your emotions (not I). And I also know that you didn’t particularly care what the fans thought, as you played tennis your way. But how would you like to make most every tennis fans’ dreams come true? We’d certainly all be behind you.

You can add to your already phenomenal resume. You can prove some things to others, and yourself, that you’ve always wondered. Hey, maybe you can even force Roger to win 16 Grand Slams in order to hold the all-time record for majors won.

Sound crazy? Your victory over Federer in Macau impressed me, exhibition or not. Even if you think Roger let you have that last one, it’s evident that your game still has flashes of brilliance.

And at a Grand Slam tournament, all you need are seven brilliant performances in a row.

P.S. For my stocking stuffer, I want one final return to the U.S. Open as well.

You couldn't have seen him coming

2007-11-13T13:39:00.000-05:00

Novak Djokovic and Richard Gasquet have both played in matches this year that showed off their own brands of elegant tennis. Gasquet's trademark one-handed backhand has become the de facto symbol for his finesse play, while Djokovic's textbook shots from both the forehand and backhand side characterize his very successful approach to the game. The two met on Tuesday in the Tennis Masters Cup, in a critical match (both were 0-1 in round robin play heading in) that had the potential to be a memorable contest.

Unfortunately, we didn't see any of the elegance that each player used to get them to Shanghai, today in Shanghai.

In a match that was more a display of Djokovic's fatigue than it was Gasquet's execution, Richard won in straight sets, 6-4, 6-2, all but eliminating Djokovic from the year's final tournament. Gasquet had a number of highlight reel shots, but a majority of the points ended as a result of Djokovic being unable to deliver on his side of the court. Djokovic has played in a few lopsided matches this year, but rarely has he been on the receiving end. Today was one of those anomalies.

Novak's play in Shanghai may have been uninspiring, but his play in 2007 has been nothing short of amazing. Coming into the year, the tennis world consisted of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and everyone else. Twelve months later, Djokovic has made significant inroads on this duopoly by not only separating himself from the pack as the clear No. 3 in the world, but by taking down these two giants on big stages. Djokovic defeated Nadal in Key Biscayne in the spring, and once again in the Montreal semifinals in August. In the very next match he played at the Rogers Masters, Novak then upset Federer in a classic three-set final.

The tennis pundits (myself included) talked about the group of so-called "young guns" ad nausea in 2006. I expected one or a few of them to make leaps this year. I didn't expect to see a long jump worthy of an Olympic medal, which is what Djokovic accomplished this year.

Djokovic's accolades this year are what many players would dream of achieving in an entire career. He won two Masters Series shields (Miami and Canada), reached the finals of another (Indian Wells), and went to the semifinals or better in three of the four Grand Slams (SF French Open, SF Wimbledon, F U.S. Open). Djokovic has earned his rest - which he'll need to come back next year with the same vigor - and has earned his spot in the sport's elite.

2007 was the third straight year of the main course that is Federer/Nadal, but Djokovic added a tantalizing third option to the meal. At times, he was even the centerpiece.

Is Nalbandian back?

2007-11-01T22:36:00.000-04:00

After watching David Nalbandian defeat Roger Federer for the second consecutive Masters Series tournament, a question immediately popped into my head:

What is bigger – Nalbandian’s improvement in his tennis, or his mental edge over Federer?

If you asked 100 tennis fans this question, I think you’d hear arguments for both sides. Concerning Nalbandian’s play on the court, he’s shown a number of signs lately that suggest that he could be back to contending for Grand Slam titles. His unforced error count is way down. His backhand is as precise and potent as ever, packing tremendous pop with incredible deception. Most importantly, David has not wilted under the pressure of his opponents. Victories against Federer (twice), Nadal, and Djokovic are proof enough of this important attribute.

Of course, this “new Nalbandian” has only been on display at the Madrid and Paris Masters tournaments, and not for the duration of 2007. He could very well be on a hot streak, or simply have caught lightning in a bottle. We’ve seen countless instances of this on tour before – Guillermo Canas, who did the same back-to-back Masters beating of Federer back in the spring, is a good example. It’s possible that Nalbandian could join that list, based on his up-and-down career numbers.

We won’t know the answer to this for a while, especially because Nalbandian’s year is over after Bercy. The ATP announced that even with a win this week, Nalbandian can’t get the amount of points needed to qualify for Shanghai. But even though many fans would prefer to see Nalbandian at the Tennis Masters Cup as opposed to Fernando Gonzalez (who some say peaked long ago) or the currently unknown eighth seed (who some say isn’t playing as well as David), the fact that this is the end of the line leaves much for fans to consider heading into 2008. Nalbandian might be the biggest wild card on tour heading into next year, and I’m sure no one – Federer included – will want to see him in their quarter of the draw at the Australian Open.

My answer to the original question would tend to be skewed towards the latter – that Nalbandian has the huge edge in the mental battle between the two at the moment. When Roger dropped the first set today, I didn’t think much of his chances in the match, even though against nearly anyone else on tour, I would still be very confident in Federer’s ability to comeback and win. And when Nalbandian broke Federer to serve for the match at 6-4, 5-4, I didn’t think for a second that Roger could come and break back. I stopped and thought about that, and I realized that’s probably one of the few times I’ve ever said that about Federer before. But it’s a direct result of how good Nalbandian is playing, and also, how much of a struggle Roger is having against him – on and off the court.

Federer doesn’t put on the puzzled/frustrated visage often, but he’s doing so when he plays Nalbandian. Its happened in Paris and in Madrid, for one reason of another. But let’s keep things in perspective here – both of these tournaments were not “critical” for Federer, as he had essentially sewn up the year-end #1 after the U.S. Open. They also aren’t Grand Slams, which is where Federer prides himself on performing at his best, all the time. And, after playing in Basel last week (which he won), Paris makes three consecutive weeks of playing for a player who rarely plays consecutive weeks to begin with. So, while the two straight losses to Nalbandian may be troubling to Roger, I don’t think they are of large concern in the grand scheme of things – unless they meet each other early in Melbourne.

The missed Swiss

2007-10-31T23:07:00.000-04:00

While one Swiss tennis player is making inroads on the sport’s all-time records, another Swiss is just trying to become a mainstay in the top 30. Surely you know that Roger Federer is the first person I’m talking about. But I’ll forgive you if you don’t know who the second player is. It’s Stanislas Wawrinka, and while he might not pop into your head as quickly as his compatriot does, Stan’s trying to change that with his results on the court.

Wawrinka started 2007 ranked No. 30 in the world after having a breakthrough season the year before. For years, Wawrinka was only known by either complete tennis diehards or fans of the Swiss Davis Cup team, but in 2006, he started to gain some attention within the mainstream tennis world. He won his first (and only) career title in Umag, Croatia, beating Novak Djokovic in the final after the Serb had to retire due to injury. It probably wasn’t the way that Wawrinka envisioned winning his first tournament, but nevertheless, a Swiss won a title on tour – and for once it wasn’t Roger Federer.

Stan followed up Umag with third round finishes at both the Cincinnati Masters as well as the U.S. Open – extremely encouraging results for someone whose only tournament victories (Challengers included) were on clay. During the indoor season, Wawrinka even made it to the semifinals of the Basel tournament, to the delight of his home fans. If he had beaten Fernando Gonzalez, it would have set up a showdown with Federer, but there were still many positives to take away from the event. After reaching No. 29 in the world for a short time, Wawrinka ended 2006 ranked No. 30, and with renewed confidence in his game heading into this year.

Tennis, as we all know, is a game that can change in an instant. For Wawrinka, his fortunes took a similar turn – for the worst. Stan started 2007 losing 11 of his first 14 matches, even dropping five matches in a row at one point. A finals appearance in Stuttgart (with no shame in losing to Rafael Nadal on dirt) was a welcome highlight after his discouraging start, but Stan then lost three of his next four matches, including a first round loss at Umag. Suddenly, Wawrinka was heading into the final months of the season outside of the top 50.

Strangely, the faster hard courts and indoor surfaces became the healing salve for Wawrinka’s game, starting in New Haven where he reached the quarterfinals. The following week at the U.S. Open, he reached the fourth round – his best result at a Grand Slam to date – before losing in five sets to Juan Ignacio Chela. Wawrinka’s improved play continued to show in Vienna earlier in October, where he reached his second final of the year – ironically losing to Djokovic, who got his revenge for Umag the year before.

This week in Paris, Wawrinka is continuing his comeback trail, as his ranking is nearly back to where it was when the year started. After losing to Nicolas Kiefer two weeks earlier at the Madrid Masters, Wawrinka defeated him this time around in straight sets, and did the same to Juan Ignacio Chela. Stan faces Rafael Nadal in the third round, and while this match might be the end of the road for Stan, he can take solace that he’ll play Rafa on a much faster surface than his preferred clay. But no matter what the result, it’s evident that Wawrinka is staying persistent in his quest to succeed on tour, reminding us that there are other quality products from Switzerland than just watches, chocolate, and Roger Federer.

Three other AMS Paris thoughts:

- Federer/Nalbandian II came together in an eerily similar fashion to Federer/Canas II earlier in the year. Canas upset Federer in Indian Wells, and the two had a rematch within two weeks in the very next Masters Series event (Miami). I don’t think Federer will let the same mistake happen twice, but Nalbandian has looked great so far in Bercy, winning all four of his sets 6-4 over good competition (Nicolas Almagro and Carlos Moya).

- Fabrice Santoro’s win over Novak Djokovic made me take a double take; it still amazes me how the Frenchman can get so much out of his game. He has deceptive speed, even at age 34. It was enough to take James Blake to a fifth set at the U.S. Open, and I think Andy Murray will feel some frustration as well when they play in the third round.

- Look for Marcos Baghdatis to emerge from the top-right quarter of the draw. He plays the defending champion Davydenko in the third round, but Baghdatis does his best on quicker surfaces as has looked much more comfortable of late, after an early exit from Flushing Meadows.

Before Roger came to town

2007-10-25T13:37:00.000-04:00

For many reasons, tennis fans are in the midst of a golden age in the sport. Roger Federer is on the verge of eclipsing some of the sport's most prestigious records, Rafael Nadal - a fantastic player in his own right - has established himself as a formidable rival to the Swiss goliath, and there is a slew of young dynamos prime to make for even more intriguing stories on the ATP Tour (Djokovic, Murray, Gasquet, etc.). It's a good time to be a fan of the game, and as I've said many times before: enjoy this era while it's around, because it won't last forever.

But as much as I tout the spectacle that is today's tennis landscape, I'm not intending to tell you that this is the only era of good feelings. A look back in the tennis annals reveals that there have been a number of stages where the sport was being played at its most compelling level. Sure, there have been times in tennis history that you could characterize the game as "in a lull" or "in transition", and you wouldn't hear much in the way of resistance. But it's important to remember that tennis is not only Federer, Nadal, et al, rather, the totality of the sport is much deeper than that.

I was most recently reminded of this last night, after watching a 90 minute documentary about Andre Agassi on the Tennis Channel. Agassi: Between the Lines is a chronicle of Andre's storied career that will engage the most ardent supporter of the game, all the way down to the casual fan. The piece features a collection of footage that spans Agassi's livelihood on the court - including the memorable (1999 French Open final), the important (1991 French Open final), and even the obscure (1998 Las Vegas Challenger). The biography is a well-produced and thorough account of all things Agassi, and I'd highly recommend a viewing (though it's likely only available in the U.S.). Watching this triggered back countless memories of Agassi, but also, of men's tennis in the 1990s, reminding me that there was indeed a reason why I fell in love with this game, before Roger came to town.

In a time where the sports media is enamored with the "now" and "tomorrow" - think about how much of an episode of SportsCenter is dominated by prognosticators - the amount of time devoted to sports history lags behind. There are plenty of sports analysts, but rarely do you see dedicated sports historians. To each their own, I suppose - but there's something to be said about remembering how the game got to where it is today, in addition to the game itself today. There's more than just Federer and Nadal - there's Agassi and Sampras, McEnroe and Borg, Connors, Lendl, Budge, Laver, Rosewall, and many, many others. And while some may call today's tennis as the sport's zenith, what is not up for debate is that the sport has been defined by a frequent eras of great play. It's worth your while, and you only need to look back to discover this.

P.S. For my thoughts on the Madrid Masters, please see my most recent Monday Net Post on TENNIS.com.

Looking Ahead: Andy Murray (and some Madrid)

2007-10-17T13:50:00.000-04:00

The Masters Series broadcasts on The Tennis Channel offer more than just great tennis - they give viewers an entire tournament experience. There's something to be said about watching the opening rounds of an event, slowly building towards the marquee matches with each passing day of action. As a fan of the sport, I get a lot more enjoyment in this fashion than I do when only the semifinals and the finals of a tournament are shown. Don't get me wrong - it's still a treat to have this weekend luxury, since televised tennis of any sort is a rarity - but the whole meal is better, so I've been looking forward to the week-long coverage from AMS Madrid for the past few weeks.

During the first two days of play, I've watched a lot of Andy Murray. In his first round match against Radek Stepanek - where both TTC announcers predicted a Stepanek win - the unseeded Scot cruised by his veteran opponent, 6-4, 6-1. Then on Tuesday, he won with similar ease against Juan Ignacio Chela, 6-1, 6-3. Is the Murray of top-10 yore already back after a prolonged absence from the tour this summer?

We might know very shortly, because in Andy's third round match, he will face a much greater challenge in the form of either Rafael Nadal or Marcos Baghdatis. Both Nadal and Baghdatis should make Murray work much harder than Stepanek or Chela did, but Murray will pose a great threat to his opponent, regardless of who it turns out to be. Why? Because there are two aspects of Murray's game that have really shone after watching him so far:

1. Improved Strength - Not long ago, when I saw Murray on the court, I thought of a frail kid masquerading as a professional tennis player. But the coaching of Brad Gilbert must have included plenty of strength conditioning, because Murray looks more filled out and quite simply, stronger. This will help him twofold: in the "micro" sense when he's competing in tougher individual points, and in the "macro" sense when he's immersed in drawn-out five set marathons. Murray has folded on a few of these occasions in the past, but I suspect that will improve going forward.

2. Effective Serving - When I watched Murray's serve in his first two matches, I couldn't get another player's serve out of my head: Rafael Nadal's. Not the actual service motion, mind you - but take a look at Nadal's serve and then Murray's - both place the ball precisely and use similar degrees of spin and pace to make the shot most effective. Going wide is a tendency for each player, and doing so has usually bred success. They can both hit for power on occasion, but the end result of their serves is usually the same - a good way to establish the rest of the point, where they flourish on the baseline.

I'm really looking forward to seeing if Murray can continue his high level of play in Madrid, especially if he gets to play the hometown favorite Nadal.

While we're talking about Murray, let's do a "Looking Ahead" on him:

1. Describe Murray using the [G/R] method.

[Growing/Resolute]

2. What is the most encouraging part of Murray's game?

I have really grown to admire the confidence of Murray at such a young age (which is why I chose to describe him as resolute). On the court, he's taken it to some of the best players in the world (Roger Federer in 2007 Cincinnati Masters, Andy Roddick in the 2007 SAP Open semifinals); off the court, he's told the United Kingdom that he would prefer winning the U.S. Open to Wimbledon. He's still got some rough edges in both regards - qualities that I used to see as annoying - but I choose to think of them now as part of the growing process, which Murray will benefit from.

3. What is the biggest concern about Murray's game?

There isn't much that worries me about the 20-year old Murray, aside from an injury that sidelined him for a good portion of 2007. Brad Gilbert prides himself on molding his students into lean, mean, tennis machines (we reviewed his book here at [G/R] many moons ago), and I see Murray following the same path, which should alleviate some of these health concerns.

One tendency about Murray's game that I would like to see adjusted: he always seems to rely on a slow-moving, heavy spin forehand that goes cross-court - some more variety in his forehand would be something I would like to see incorporated into Andy's tennis.

4. Have we seen Murray's best?

Definitely not. Murray's best performance at a Grand Slam is the fourth round ('06 Wimbledon, '06 U.S. Open, '07 Australian), and I'm quite confident he'll best one of those results next year. A post from earlier this year describes some of my thoughts on what Murray can achieve.

5. What are Murray's goals for 2008?

Novak Djokovic may have blown by Andy Murray after Miami, but there was a time not long ago when the two were neck-and-neck. I'd like to see Andy resume this "young gun" rivalry with his Serbian counterpart. You know Djokovic is going to play well next year, so if Murray can keep up with him, trophies will follow.

Looking Ahead: Andy Roddick

2007-10-09T22:03:00.000-04:00

The subject of today's "Looking Ahead" most certainly could have been David Ferrer, who prevented Richard Gasquet from winning consecutive titles in Tokyo by rolling over the Frenchman in the final, 6-1, 6-2. But you already know my thoughts about the resurgent Spaniard:

- In a 1/12/07 post: "Loyal readers my recall that I touted Ferrer many moons ago, claiming that 'big things were in store.'"

- In a 1/16/07 post: "Finally, the "big things" I predicted from Ferrer could be on the horizon, and I don't see it stopping right now."

- In a 4/1/07 post: "After Ferrer reached the semifinals in Miami against Roger Federer last year, I predicted that there were “big things to come” for the Spaniard. Turns out that I needed to wait until 2007 to realize that potential."

While the "big things" from Ferrer haven't come in the form of Grand Slam hardware or Masters Series shields, he had one of the most consistent seasons on tour this year, and will likely be rewarded for his results with a spot in the Tennis Masters Cup. Ferrer had a solid start to 2007, but has really taken off in the last month, reaching the semifinals of the U.S. Open and winning Tokyo last week. David is a tremendously consistent player, almost Davydenko-like, but he has so much more firepower and - at least from what I can tell - desire. His best years are still ahead of him, and just as I had to wait for 2007 to see the "big things", 2008 could be even bigger. No matter what happens, he'll always sport that nickname when spoken of here at [G/R].

Now, onto someone whom I was meaning to write about after his fine tennis in the United States' Davis Cup semifinal against Sweden. I'll speak of Andy Roddick's play in the team tournament once the final draws closer, but in the meantime, this analysis will focus more on his ATP Tour play, which is the subject of much debate:

1. Describe Roddick using the [G/R] method.

[Gigantic/Rattled]

2. What is the most encouraging part of Roddick's game?

I've never been a huge fan of Roddick's, but after I saw how well he played against Roger Federer in person at this year's U.S. Open quarterfinals - and more importantly, how he handled himself afterwards - I developed a whole new appreciation for this perplexed American. He can't break through against Roger, but that hasn't stopped Roddick from trying everything he can to get another chance. He simply doesn't give up.

Back in January, I remember reading the transcript of Andy's Australian Open press conference (where he was dominated by Federer), and wondering if that was the final nail in the coffin for a beaten and rattled player. It was not, as Andy continued to work to give himself more opportunities throughout the year. Even though he didn't win a Slam or a MS shield this year, there wasn't a tournament that I counted out Roddick, or doubted his ability to win any particular match. Heading into the aforementioned match with Federer at the U.S. Open, despite Andy's poor record against the Swiss, I was still somewhat wary of Roger's chances in New York. That should say something about Roddick's immense and forceful brand of tennis.

3. What is the biggest concern about Roddick's game?

The backhand. I don't like the shot at all - it looks forced, clunky, and has a motion that doesn't enable Roddick to quickly transition into more effective parts of his game. To win another major, Andy needs to make his backhand as effective as his other shots. At the moment, that's simply not the case, and his weaker side is a huge liability that many players have taken advantage of - often without repercussion.

With Andy's backhand such an empty threat, there is tremendous pressure on his other shots. But Roddick, while not as erratic as many gunslingers, still has his off days with his serve and forehand. When that happens, he usually loses. Andy needs a safety cushion on these occasions, but right now his backhand is instead a last resort.

4. Have we seen Roddick's best?

I have a hard time believing that Roddick will not win another Grand Slam title in his career. He's a huge threat at Melbourne, Wimbledon, and Flushing Meadows, and that isn't going to change for some time. The window for Roddick to be mentioned in the same breath as the American greats, Agassi and Sampras, may have closed with the emergence of Roger Federer, but that doesn't mean that multiple Grand Slams are still out of the question. I'll be surprised when Federer doesn't win one of the fast court Slams, but it won't surprise me if it's Roddick who is the one who unseats him. It has to happen sometime...right?

Also, I think that Roddick's annual "conceding" of the French Open not a mortal sin, like some have made it out to be. There's just too much work that would be required to compete against a gauntlet of clay experts who hone their skills on the dirt all year, and Roddick has enough work to do in the other Slams as it is.

5. What are Roddick's goals for 2008?

2007 was a much-maligned year for Roddick, mainly because he scrapped together only two tournament victories (at smaller events), and because he completely collapsed at Wimbledon against Richard Gasquet. It's tough to fault him for his performances against Federer, but when he wasn't playing against the world No. 1, Roddick didn't take seize the opportunity as often as he would have liked. If this continues in 2008, it will be another step back for Andy, and I think a significant one at that.

When it comes down to it, Andy just needs to break through and reemerge. Quarterfinals, semifinals, and finals appearances are great (they certainly pay well), but it's not what Roddick's fans want or what he wants. Andy needs to remind the tennis world that he's better than the pack of players after Federer-Nadal-Djokovic, and the only way he can do that is to win titles. It's sometimes puzzling to see Roddick struggle to win in spite of holding such a potent weapon that he can use on every point on his racket - his first serve, but it's evident that Roddick might be a bit puzzled as well. He needs to put the pieces together before it's too late.

Looking Ahead: Richard Gasquet

2007-10-02T17:18:00.000-04:00

Tennis is one of the few sports that elects to have its defining events played in the middle of its season, instead of at the end. The Tennis Masters Cup is without question a tournament worth watching, but its significance pales in comparison to a Grand Slam. There's still something missing in spite of all of the pageantry. For this reason, among others, there are many varying opinions on the importance of the last few weeks of the tennis season, which consists of a stretch of indoor tournaments that follow the U.S. Open.

I'm still on the fence myself as to what I think about it. It would be better for the sport to have its grandest tournament serve as its conclusion (with the next question being "and that event would be?"), but I do think that the schedule works well for the "Grand Slam template" which tennis has been built upon. One thing that I do enjoy about this time of year is that you can analyze players most objectively. Since they have had the chance to play on all the major surfaces, you can review their past in its totality. There are still tournaments being played, so the "present" is still a quality that can be studied. And of course, you can forecast the future, since the new Grand Slam season is only a few months away.

Looking ahead is my favorite option of the three, since I've already written fields of text about what the ATP's best have done in the past, and the current tournaments don't have a really competitive field until AMS Madrid. But player's achievements now and in the past do serve as solid evidence for thoughts about their future. And that's what [G/R] will be talking about today and in some future posts.

The futures of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have become much like bedtime stories because they've been discussed so much and the ending is always the same - immortality. I'm going to instead look at some players who have had a more unclear 2007, since their future is much more debatable. Richard Gasquet, who won the Kingfisher Airlines Tennis Open in Mumbai, India this past week, sounds like a fine case study.

In my most recent Monday Net Post, I wrote this about Gasquet:

"One other note about Gasquet's is that with this week's victory, the Frenchman has now won an event on all four major surfaces (grass, clay, hard court, and carpet). For fans of Richard, it may be best to view his accomplishments in the scope of a career - where he has shown ability on all surfaces and at many different tournaments - instead of a single year, where every prestigious accolade seems to be followed by a bewildering dry spell."

Keeping in mind Richard's still young career, I pose the five questions that you'll see on each "Looking Ahead" post:

1. Describe Gasquet using the [G/R] method.

[Gifted/Random]

2. What is the most encouraging part of Gasquet's game?

Gasquet's tennis has translated to all courts - he's now won a title on all of the major surfaces, which is a rarity even amongst the top tier of ATP pros. Because of this versatility, Gasquet should be considered a threat on every surface, and therefore, at every Grand Slam tournament.

Richard's run to the Wimbledon semifinals this year, along with his two titles in Nottingham ('05 and '06) certainly suggest that a quicker surface suits his game best. This is augmented further by the fact that Gasquet's best results on clay came years ago (think '05 Monte Carlo and Hamburg) - but he has sporadically conquered the slower dirt, winning Gstaad last year and reaching the finals of a strong Estoril tournament back in April.

3. What is the biggest concern about Gasquet's game?

This question was firmly in the back of my mind when I wrote the above paragraph for the MNP, because for fans of the Frenchman (and I am one of them), Gasquet's play has been some of the most erratic on tour over the past few years. While Richard has, at various times, done well throughout the year, his consistency has dipped since his 2005 rookie campaign. This is a major problem for Gasquet in regards to two important measuring sticks - world ranking, and Grand Slams. Gasquet's world ranking will of course be tabulated based on a full year's worth of results, and with up-and-down play being the frequent cat call about Richard, a year-end top 10 ranking seems like a very tall order. After Wimbledon, Gasquet reached the top 10 for the first time in his career, but just as quickly, he was out.

More importantly, Gasquet's erratic play stalls a lot of potential success at Grand Slams, where you have to be consistent, or you'll be sent home. Wimbledon '07 was the breakthrough performance for Gasquet at a slam - but only months later in Flushing Meadows, the version of Gasquet that has been lambasted in tennis circles resurfaced after giving Donald Young a free pass to the third round.

4. Have we seen Gasquet's best?

In spite of the continuously mind-boggling achievements of Roger Federer, and the age-defying play of Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, I believe that tennis is still a young man's game. That's why, even at Richard's tender age of 21, this question is worth asking. To the query, you may respond "of course not", but if you say that, you're telling me that Gasquet will reach the finals of a Grand Slam tournament. It that a definite certainty?

Tough to say. If Gasquet improves both physically and mentally, which he has the time to do, he can become a much stronger player and should go deep into the second week at a number of Slams, especially because he can win on all surfaces. Gasquet's choice to work with Yannick Noah was a wise one - the last Frenchman to win Roland Garros should infuse his student with more determination, wisdom, and belief; all qualities that Gasquet can build upon. Presently, I think Gasquet would have a hard time reaching the pinnacle of a tournament like the French Open or Wimbledon. But I think that in a few years, reminiscent of how Roger Federer took his time to finally win a Slam, Gasquet can potentially do the same. And I think it will be at Roland Garros, not Wimbledon - although neither would surprise me.

5. What are Gasquet's goals for 2008?

Richard needs to start off 2008 much better than he has in previous years. This year's fourth round appearance at the Australian Open was encouraging because Gasquet had previously been ousted in the first round in 2003, 2004, and 2006. Entering the clay season on a high note - a time of the year where Gasquet has been underachieving - should be of primary importance.

I don't think you'll see Gasquet holding a Grand Slam trophy at the end of a fortnight in 2008. But I do think that a Masters Series shield is something that is realistic, and honestly, should be achieved. It's time for Gasquet to remind the tennis world that he is still in the discussion with Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray in terms of the best young talent on the ATP Tour; recently, Gasquet has become somewhat of an afterthought.

Germany escapes, but thrives

2007-09-22T11:37:00.000-04:00

I've watched a lot of tennis this year, with matches ranging from the sublime to the substandard. The good matches were memorable for many different reasons, and have been analyzed many times over. The bad ones often turned out to be a sharp contrast in playing abilities - sometimes, that's just how it is. But in all the tennis I've witnessed, I rarely see poor decision makng and execution, which is a testament to the high level of tennis on the ATP Tour. That is, until I watched Mikhail Youzhny in today's Davis Cup doubles rubber between Germany and Russia.

After two upsets on the opening day (Tommy Haas lost to Igor Andreev, and Nikolay Davydenko lost to Philipp Kohlschreiber), the teams headed into today's contest tied at one rubber each in this best-of-five format. Obviously, today's doubles match would give one country a huge advantage heading into tomorrow's reverse singles, so it was critically important that each side play well.

The Russians trotted out Mikhail Youzhny and Dmitry Tursunov, two players who seem to linger around the top 20 in the world, but rarely elevate their games to the necessary level to enter the upper echelons of tennis (i.e., they are not consistent enough). Their adversaries for Deutschland were Alexandre Waske and Philipp Petzschner. Waske's name turns up every so often on tour, but it's a rarity when he makes any sort of noise (as for Petzschner, this was the first I'd seen of him). But Waske did have one noteworthy stat under his belt - a 6-1 record in Davis Cup doubles competition. Playing in Russia and on clay, Waske would need to summon all of his experience to assist his partner Petzschner (who had never before played in Davis Cup), and to try and outlast the two big hitters across the net.

After splitting the first two sets, the stalemate continued into a third set tiebreaker, which Germany prevailed in. Now really facing the pressure, Russia needed to make sure the fourth set didn't get away from them. And this is what I think Youzhny was thinking too much about, as he promptly laid an egg at this important juncture.

Waske and Petzchner exhibited better play at net and seemed to improve as the points progressed in length. To counter this, Youzhny often went for outright winners all over the court, hoping to shorten the points. He did succeed from time to time with smoking backhands that imprinted the clay in dazzling fashion. But looking at the set as a whole, his decision making ultimately cost Russia the chance to win this match.

Nowhere was this more evident than when Mikhail returned serve. Youzhny's backhand returns were not safe slices, but always of the top spin variety. Each attempted return looked like he was trying to crack a winner, and more times than I could count, his shots ended up in the net. Youzhny looked baffled (yet kept trying the same thing), Turnsuov looked perturbed, and Russian coach Shamil Tarpischev looked stupified. There was no way Russia could win the match at this rate.

It's not like the Russians didn't have their chances. Russia was given countless opportunities to take the set because of the serving of Waske. Nursing an injured elbow, Waske's serves (by my watch) barely clocked over 100 mph, with many only hitting double digits on the radar gun. Waske himself even admitted his inabilities while serving after the match:

“Our physio tried everything to release the pressure on whatever is broken here, I don’t know what it is. Tons of pain killers in me. You saw how I served … a little girl’s serve but they had trouble returning it because the speed changes between my serve and his (Petzschner) fast serve was probably what bugged them.”

In spite of all of this, Russia couldn't take advantage of a badly hobbled Waske, primarily due to Youzhny's stubborness on the return of serve. Waske, who should have been broken every service game by these fine players, pulled an escape act that would have made Houdini proud.

Youzhny did fine from an offensive perspective, even saving two match points on his own serve near the end of the match. But the costly defensive lapses from Mikhail is was what I will take out of this match. Down two rubbers to one, another lapse will prevent Russia from defending their Davis Cup crown.

Real teams

2007-09-20T19:38:00.000-04:00

I've been watching a lot more Davis Cup this year than I have in the past. I'm not exactly sure why; I still believe that singular (read: no teams) competition is more captivating then battling in groups.

However, there is one reason for this change that comes to mind - tennis players are so deprived of team competition that when they do compete together, the teamwork and company is actually genuine. Because of this, it's very refreshing to watch. Steve Tignor references this in his fantastic Davis Cup preview post, but I'm going to elaborate on it further here. (Also, Steve's assessments are spot on - so much so that no picks of my own are necessary.)

I'm a rabid tennis fan, but I do watch all sports. Hockey is neck-and-neck with tennis on my hierarchy, for various reasons. One of these reasons is that the "teams" that form in hockey seem so real that the players would simply die for each other on the ice. Not just a Canadian for his fellow Canuck, but I've even seen former Soviets stick up for his American mate like they were long-lost friends. Watch the NHL (there's plenty of room!) if you don't believe me.

Other sports teams aren't so...real, at least in my opinion. The NBA and the NFL are the best examples I can think of. These two pillars of American sport are littered with prima donnas and selfish athletes who do not care about the end goal of winning for the team. Rather, they care about themselves, their money, and their status. I'm not going to say that the NHL doesn't have some of these bad apples as well, but this epidemic is most found in the football and basketball ranks.

In Davis Cup, it seems that he players adopt the team concept much more than in other sports; I would go so far as to say they even embrace it. That may not have always been true (Connors/McEnroe led U.S. teams), but in this year's Davis Cup, the players that have chosen to participate seem to really enjoy playing, and most importantly, supporting each other.

"Fake" teams that are put together in sports are almost unwatchable for me. There are plenty of them out there - but Davis Cup doesn't have those unfortunate combinations. I look forward to another weekend of play for this very reason.

Ed sees

2007-09-16T13:41:00.000-04:00

Happy Sunday everyone. With a tennis hangover and two relatively weak draws in Bucharest and Beijing, I can't say with a straight face that I was too excited about the China Open or the BCR Open Romania. However, I was considering putting up a post yesterday called "Ed says", where I write a few scattered thoughts about each tournament, but I just didn't have it in me. I may do this next week (and every Saturday thereafter), but I'm still undecided about the format as a whole. As always, stay tuned.

For today's post, I've decided that Fernando Gonzalez was the most deserving recepient of the cover photo, as he went through a much more difficult field than Bucharest champion Gilles Simon had to. Also, Gonzalez's victory is one of the only worthy accomplishments since his run to the finals at the Australian Open back in January, which seems like eons ago. Plus, the garish yellow Adidas shirt is ghastly, but the contrast with the black background makes for a neat picture.

As I wasn't able to catch any tennis on television (and likely won't until the Madrid and Paris Masters Series tournaments), I thought that today might be a good day to show off some of the videos that I took at the U.S. Open. If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm going to milk this tournament for all I can, including some [G/R] related content. But I think you'll enjoy some of the clips I have to show you.

Before I made my pilgrimage to Flushing Meadows, I got a new digital camera, which was a must considering the access and free reigns I had at the Open. My old HP camera had poor lag time, horrific battery life, and grainy video recording. By the way, it's going on eBay soon - bid high!

My new Canon SD1000 is a dramatic improvement - think switching out Vince Spadea for James Blake on your fantasy team. The best aspect of the camera is the video quality, which allows for YouTube clips that look like they were taken in the 21st century, as opposed to the advent of camcorders in the early '80s.

Let's start the tour:

- This was the only time I got to see Gasquet at the Open this year; turns out it was my only chance as he withdrew from his second round match against Donald Young. But my streak of seeing Richard at the U.S. Open continues at three years, which is good.

- The first match I was assigned to cover was John Isner's first round tussle. I saw a lot of this:

- One of the best matches that I saw at the tournament was a first rounder between Arnaud Clement and Ivo Karlovic. Ivo's monstrous frame and serve intrigued me, but it was the Frenchman's tenacious game that was the most memorable part of this five set classic.

- The Grand Slam career of Tim Henman has come to a close, so I wanted to make sure I caught some of his final serve-and-volleys. Tursunov wins this point, but Henman won the match to the delight of the New York crowd.

- My first ever Federer match was an experience I won't soon forget. Here's one of the many reasons why:

- And let's not forget the forehand:

- Much like Gasquet impressed me after seeing him at the 2005 U.S. Open, Juan Martin del Potro did the same this year. Just don't expect www.delpotroandracquet.com to go live anytime soon.

- In what many people said was the best match of the tournament, Louis Armstrong Stadium was filled to capacity to see Djokovic/Stepanek. My offices were right downstairs, so I made my way to one of the few empty seats to see this excellent final set of tennis.

- He won't be around for much longer, so I was overjoyed when James Blake and Fabrice Santoro won their first round matches, setting up a night show at Arthur Ashe Stadium:

- One of the prettiest shots I saw was the backhand of Nicolas Almagro, here playing against eventual semifinalist Nikolay Davydenko:

- But Almagro went down to the Russian, quite literally in fact:

- Here's a nice back-and-forth view of the Grandstand, which is my favourite court to watch a match at the U.S. Open. This match contested Ivan Ljubicic and Juan Ignacio Chela.

- Federer/Lopez. Feliciano looked untouchable in the first set, but Roger eventually wore him down in four sets.

- Seeing Nadal live was also one of my goals at the Open, and despite some injuries, he still had the moves that made Rafa who he is:

- Nice Rafa backhand return against David Ferrer:

- Want to know how it feels to watch a match at the absolute top of Arthur Ashe Stadium? Check this out:

Davis Cup semifinals this week: Germany at Russia, United States at Sweden. I'll have some thoughts in a few days.

Curious

2007-09-12T16:59:00.001-04:00

A few weeks ago, I wrote about "openings" - windows of opportunity that need to be seized by those looking to reach their goals. These portals to achievement don't come around often, so when you see them, you have to be ready to take advantage of their presence.

Novak Djokovic clearly didn't do so.

The first two sets of the men's final this past Sunday were awash with chances for Djokovic storm to an early one - or even two - set lead against Roger Federer. If that happened, what happens next is up for debate, but it's tough for me to see even Roger coming back down two sets the way he way playing. Federer has looked "mortal" more times this year than I can remember - the Canas matches, the Volandri loss, and the third set of the semifinal vs. Davydenko serving as examples - and he still wasn't out of that funk in the beginning of the U.S. Open final. Djokovic, should he have capitalized on this, would most likely have been raising the trophy at the end. He could have proven that he belonged in the same breath as Federer and Nadal, making the 2008 season very interesting indeed.

But that - somehow - did not happen. Wasting seven set points (five in the first set alone), Djokovic gift-wrapped Federer his fourth straight U.S. Open crown, shifting the discussion in the tennis world to, "when does Roger break Sampras' record?" Let the hype and forecasting begin.

The Serbian star isn't finished after a loss like this - far from in fact. Djokovic is still very young, even by tennis standards. He now has experience in a Grand Slam final, something of which he never had been through before. He can, and should, build on these experiences.

But unlike most Grand Slam final rookies, Djokovic should have won the match. Oftentimes, the pressure of the final is simply too much for a newbie to handle - they either get blown off the court, or have some moments of excellence coupled with many more moments of failure. Djokovic is a different case study. This was a Grand Slam tournament - and I'm positive that he will not forget this - that got away from him. He will undoubtedly have his chances again, but this may be harder for Djokovic to get over than some people are saying. As each set point slipped away, I'm certain that Djokovic had thoughts of Montreal in his head, because that's exactly what Federer was experiencing when he lost. The next time Djokovic gets to set point at the finals of a Slam, 9/9/07 will surely start replaying itself in his mind. I'm curious to see if he can handle it.

As for Federer, there's nothing that I haven't said before that doesn't once again apply here. He did take advantage of the openings given to him, winning the title and giving him three seasons of three Grand Slam titles (2004, 2006, 2007).

What I want to do here is make sure that Federer is given the respect he deserves. He'll never admit to it, and probably isn't irked too much about it, but Federer has to be wondering "what more can I do" to win the Sports Illustrated "Sportsman of the Year" award.

To all my non-American readers, Sports Illustrated is the preeminent sports magazine in the U.S., and at the end of each year, SI awards one athlete (or team) the "Sportsman of the Year". As you can imagine, this causes great debate with fans, who declare that only their man/woman deserves the honour. To date, Roger Federer has not won the award, even though he has had extremely impressive seasons the last three years:

- 2004 (70-5, 3 Grand Slam Titles, 11 Overall Titles): Boston Red Sox
- 2005 (80-4, 2 Grand Slam Titles, 11 Overall Titles): Tom Brady

- 2006 (90-5, 3 Grand Slam Titles, 12 Overall Titles): Dwayne Wade

The main question this time is not if Federer has the numbers to win (he does with three Grand Slam titles), but who his competition will be. This is who I see Roger having to "pass" to win this year's award:

- Peyton Manning (won first Super Bowl)
- Florida Gators NCAA Basketball team (won second consecutive NCAA Championship)

The more I think about it, the more likely I can see Joakim Noah, Corey Brewer, and Al Horford adorning the cover of a December issue of SI. But it shouldn't be that way. Just as I'm not going to defend Roger Federer's case on the fact that he has been playing great for four years, I'm not going to accept that because the Gators won in 2006 and 2007, that their title defense (practically unheard of in college sports with early declarations for the pros) should make them the winners.

Now is the time when I talk about how tennis gets a bad rap in this competition. Consider that the Gators play only a few months of the year, while Federer plays for practically the entire year. Florida has a team of players (which I think is a cop out in this competition, personally) - Federer plays only by himself, and personally earns all his accolades. When you look at SI's history of tennis players who have won this award (Billie Jean King in 1972 and Chris Evert in 1976), it's obvious that the cards are stacked against Roger. Even Steffi Graf didn't win in 1988 when she won all four Grand Slam titles and gold at the Olympics! (Orel Herschiser won instead.)

But in spite of the bias, Federer's stats will need to do a lot of the talking as well. If SI execs are looking for another reason to snub Roger of the cover and year-end award, they will talk of the fact that he has more losses (already) than he has in each of the last three seasons, and he's lost important Masters Series events to players of far less caliber (Canas, Volandri). However, what needs to be considered is that Federer is still dominating the sport - undisputed - and still won three Grand Slams in spite of all this. The perplexing Indian Wells/Miami experiences were followed up later in the year with wins at Cincinnati and Flushing Meadows. He finally solved Nadal on clay at Hamburg after having a coaching squabble. And his Wimbledon victory (in a classic against Nadal) came after opting to skip Halle. Those who said that Roger "hasn't been tested in a Grand Slam" were proven wrong.

Federer may not have as many wins or titles this year as he has in the past. But his dominance in his sport is so strong that he still has earned the right to be called Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year. I'm curious to see what happens.

P.S. If Alex Rodriguez takes the New York Yankees to the World Series and wins, no amount of discussion will sway SI from going that route.

Worth twelve thousand words

2007-09-10T21:23:00.000-04:00

I'll have some thoughts on the men's final in the next few days (the ATP tournaments this week are light in terms of big names and intrigue, so this works out well), however at the moment I'm in dire need of a good night's sleep. But I will pay homage to Roger's twelve Grand Slam tournament titles in this short post with the above picture. Taken in the hallways of Arthur Ashe stadium after his quarterfinal win over Andy Roddick, Federer gave one of his biggest fans the best birthday gift he's ever received.

U.S. Open Diary - Day 13

2007-09-09T01:23:00.000-04:00

(Bet you didn't expect that picture. But I'm putting Justine Henin's flawless backhand up here on display for two reasons. One, to temper down the cat calls from the USOpen.org team, who has skewered me for my exclusive allegiance to men's tennis (as opposed to the women's game) since they discovered that I had a blog. As today was my last day, I bid farewell to my fellow G8 credentialites - they were a great team of people to work with and I wish them all the best. Second, this was the only live match that I saw today, and from any vantage point in Arthur Ashe - not just my courtside seat - you could tell that Justine wasn't just going to just win her final against Svetlana Kuznetsova, but she was going to dominate it. Oh, and I guess this picture also serves as an homage to my many hours of WTA play that I've watched this summer. Between writing for TENNIS.com, covering the Fed Cup in Vermont, and attending the U.S. Open, I've been broadening my tennis horizons. The men's game is still a better product though.)

A late-week audible made today my last official day at the 2007 US Open. I'm not planning on getting too nostalgic here, because I've already diaried everything in my previous entries. But it's still interesting to think back upon the experience as a whole; not just a specific match or instance at Flushing Meadows. There seems like no better time to do so than right now.

When I first received an offer to work at the US Open as a writer, I didn't expect that I would be writing a match report on a Tim Henman classic, a post-match analysis on a Roger Federer victory, or a tome about the year's most memorable matches at Grand Slams. I expected a bit of grunt work, and if I got to write, I assumed that the pieces would be about the lower-end matches that parade the grounds during the fortnight. To my delight, this thought was eliminated from my mind within the first day or two of the tournament.

Starting with a John Isner match that I watched and ending with a Roger Federer victory that I celebrated, I've had incredible access these past two weeks to anything and everything tennis. I've seen more matches than I ever thought possible - some great, some not even close to great. With that luxury, I've seen players that I've always wanted to watch. I specifically remember compiling a list of players who I wanted to see live, and the two at the top of that list were Fabrice Santoro and James Blake. Coincidentally, the met in round two under the lights at Arthur Ashe Stadium. Was it a coincidence, or did someone know I was coming to New York?

With the freedom and resources given to me as a member of the media, I've also gotten to explore the world of tennis far beyond the court. I've sat in on press conferences as captivating as the transcripts I usually read online (Roger Federer) and as gloomy as what I would have expected (Andy Roddick, after getting beaten by Roger Federer). I've walked around the player's lounge, passing a different Grand Slam champion at every corner. Sure, there were plenty of obscure names as well, but in my world, no tennis information is too obscure.

I've also taken advantage of my situation to do some things that I have always wanted to do on a personal level. I got to walk around the grounds at my own pace after two years of accompanying others and making sure that we had enough time to do what we wanted. I got to finally work with the United States Tennis Association (where there were a number of great folks), expanding my ever-growing resume of tennis experience. Last but certainly not least, I got to ask Roger a question (that I had thought of weeks before) at his press conference - and then take a picture with him that I will display proudly. Federer is one of the big reasons why I started following tennis so seriously, and it was truly an honour to see him in person off the court. As I expected, he was as gracious as many have claimed. Pictures are worth much more than a thousand words in this case.

If there had to be one important thing that came out of this entire experience, it is that my love for the sport of tennis is as high as it has ever been. The dream final of Federer/Nadal didn't occur like I wanted it to, but that's ok. I still would have been fine with Federer/Ferrer, or even Blake/Ferrer. (Davydenko/Ferrer might be pushing it.) No matter what the pairing, I would still watch, because I truly believe the sport of tennis is the best athletic test in the world. The athletes are a symbol of strength, finesse, dedication, and cordiality. If I was talented enough to be a tennis player, that's what I would want to do with my life.

However, I cannot achieve that amazing goal. But I can do the next best thing - write about the players who do have the privilege of playing the game for a living. So I came to Flushing seeking that chance, ready for anything.

After over 180 hours of working at this tournament, my dedication to tennis was going to be tested. When tennis is on television, you get breaks - like it or not - and you are eager for more when those breaks stretch out over time. For me, I experienced tennis 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Even when I got home from a long day, I still thought about the sport. I wrote down my thoughts in posts for my website, and got a few meager hours of sleep, awaking early because my day revolved exclusively around this game. If I could compare this experience to something, it would be like playing an extended fifth set at a non-U.S. Open venue. The games go on and on - there are no breaks (a.k.a. tiebreak) - and it's up to you how you want to handle it. Do you wilt under the pressure? Do you embrace the test and keep going? Do you love the game so much that all you want to do is keep playing until you reach that goal of yours?

I do. When I came to the 2005 U.S. Open, it was an eye-opening experience for me about the sport. It was one of my favorite sporting events that I'd ever attended in person, and I wanted more. This year, I got all I could handle, but I loved it. Doing what you love to do makes "work" a misnomer - in reality, it's just life. And my life is tennis.

U.S. Open Diary - Day 12

2007-09-08T01:52:00.000-04:00

After eleven days of 11+ hours of work, day twelve of the U.S. Open featured my first break of the tournament. Not having to come in until 11 A.M. afforded a much needed extra hour of sleep, and leaving at 6 p.m. was...incredibly weird. The 7 train was actually crowded, Ditmars Boulevard was still flooded with residents, and I got home from Manhattan (where I dined on rabbit this evening with my hosts) at 1:15 - which is early for me.

Still, today's writing didn't cease in volume; in fact, I may have written more today than many other days:

- Junior Boys' and Girls' daily wrap-up.
- "They Said It - Memorable Quotes from the 2007 US Open".

The quotes are pretty decent - and its been even more of a treat to actually hear them in person.

But that's all I've got today. Last day tomorrow; there will be a much larger update 24 hours from now.

U.S. Open Diary - Day 11

2007-09-07T01:54:00.001-04:00

So...much...David Ferrer and Juan Ignacio Chela...

Today (and tonight) was another fine example of the necessity to purchase week one tickets to the U.S. Open. If you strike out with competitive and enticing matches - which is exactly what happened throughout the day - you could be left standing with a ticket in your hand and a question in your mind: Why me?

The Moya/Djokovic evening match was heavily hyped but light on substance. It turned out that the best match of the day was David Ferrer vs. Juan Ignacio Chela, which took place at about 1 in the afternoon. I was assigned the match report and the post-match analysis for this quarterfinal (links above), so I needed to watch this contest with great focus. So as to not get lethargic, I changed by viewing point often:

1st Set: Player Viewing Lounge

In the bowels of Louis Armstrong Stadium, there is a hallway that has three or four rooms for players whose matches are upcoming on Armstrong or Grandstandc courts. As there were so few matches on schedule, these rooms were vacant, so I plopped down on the couch and turned on the tube. The couch was so comfortable (and I have had no sleep in weeks) that I nearly dozed off. After the first set, I knew a change in surroundings was needed to keep me awake.

2nd Set: USOpen.org Command Central

Only a few feet down the hall is where the magic happens. With my laptop in front of me and televisions placed throughout the room, you couldn't escape the gripping drama of Ferrer/Chela. I watched a few games until a fellow writer on our team asked me, "Why aren't you at Ashe?" I responded that I'd been to Ashe so often that I didn't mind the break, but then it dawned on me - I hadn't been to the Ashe that I knew before this year.

3rd Set: Arthur Ashe Stadium

During the 2005 and 2006 U.S. Open, I came to Flushing Meadows as a fan, purchasing an Arthur Ashe ticket to give me access to the grandiose stadium. This year, the only time I'd been inside Ashe was when I monitored the media seats; I'd never even seen the view that I remembered from the top level. And why would I, considering the alternative? But I wanted to see the view from above to jostle back some memories, so I watched a few games of the match from, quite literally, the highest seat in the arena. It was just as I recalled (an average experience), so I had no choice but to vacate.

3rd Set: Media Center

The Media Center at Ashe is a huge place, but the work stations can be quite intimate with the cubicle-like walls and a television that can only be heard via headphone. You're in your own world when listening to a match at the desk, but considering my work requirements on this match, it was just what I needed to finish my research.

Two final things about today (birthday gifts, if you will):

- I don't have to go into the USTABJKNTC until 11 A.M. tomorrow, thanks to a gracious gesture from my boss.

- Special thanks to Andrew Friedman and Asad Raza from TENNIS.com (they each post under different names) for buying me some beers to celebrate my 24th. It was a pleasure listening to such articulate banter.

U.S. Open Diary - Day 10

2007-09-06T02:44:00.000-04:00

Today was the first day that I could actually feel this tournament coming to a close. It wasn't simply the fact that quarterfinals were beginning that triggered this feeling, but a few observations at the tennis center signaled that the 2007 U.S. Open was waning.

For the first time all tournament, there were no matches scheduled on Louis Armstrong Stadium. I'm not sure why, as there were still some doubles and juniors matches being played, but the USTA opted to keep these contests on the Grandstand and outer courts instead. I also noticed that the grounds were fairly empty, as everyone was packed into Ashe Stadium for the scant few pro matches on schedule. Usually, it's a race through hordes of people to get from my offices inside Louis Armstrong over to the media center in Ashe - today, it was a leisurely walk. Finally, the overcast skies - the first hint of any inclement weather all week - felt very different than the constant heat permeating in this cauldron of tennis. Overall, the day felt different than any other that I had been here.

The matches during the day played out like yesterday's - pleasant, but dull. The only men's match was Davydenko/Haas, which turned into a break-a-thon in the third set (there were five straight breaks of serve) before Nikolay finally put Haas out of his misery, winning in straights. But even the women's matches were a bore, as Svetlana Kuzentsova and Anna Chakvetadze cruised without breaking a sweat in their quarterfinal contests. The only thing I took out of these matches was some information to use on my Player of the Day write-up on Chakvetadze; I hardly think it was worth it.

But this day - and I knew this coming in - boiled down to one match, and one match only. Andy Roddick vs. Roger Federer, at night in a sold-out Arthur Ashe Stadium. I had fun writing the pre-match analysis (Day 10) on this fifteenth installment of the rivalry that never was, and I looked forward to attending the match courtside even more.

My courtside seat at Ashe Stadium has become such a regular part of my day that I often don't stop to appreciate it. After you see one match courtside at Ashe, the novelty slowly starts to wear off after subsequent viewings. Tonight, I felt like I was getting the most out of my viewing spot for one of the first times since I've been at the Open. A marquee matchup - and tonight's was the first one that I saw - brings out the best in the players, and the best in the fan experience.

Andy Roddick played his heart out. Bludgeoning the ball and hitting a cannon serve in with such frequency, it's unbelievable how he couldn't take one of the first two sets from Roger Federer. But this match came down to one thing: Roger is a simply a better player than Andy. That's why he's 14-1 against a player who would have won multiple Grand Slams if not for the presence of Federer, and that's why he was so comfortable even in the face of tremendous pressure tonight from Roddick. Federer kept playing his game, hitting his backhand flawlessly and keeping pace with Andy's powerful ground strokes. Roger didn't press, instead waiting for his few chances, which paid off. In the best tennis match I have ever seen live, Roger won 7-6, 7-6, 6-2.

After Federer's post-match press conference, I got a great birthday gift - a picture with the man himself! It will be posted sometime when I get home.

U.S. Open Diary - Day 9

2007-09-05T02:24:00.001-04:00

If you needed any more proof that the best time to come to the U.S. Open is during the first week, you just needed to look at today's day schedule. The only three men's matches for the day were Moya/Gulbis, Chela/Wawrinka, and Djokovic/Monaco - hardly captivating stuff. Also consider that this is still very early in the second week, and the matches only get more infrequent from here on out. To any readers who haven't yet been to Flushing Meadows, I would urge you to go during the first or second rounds of the opening week, which is usually Monday-Friday. You'll get a much better experience for your money.

With this lackluster schedule in mind, I needed to play my cards well today. Djokovic and Monaco were playing too late in the day for my taste (I have responsibilities at night as well), and Chela/Wawrinka was just too ghastly to consider. I quickly decided that I wanted to cover the Gulbis/Moya match, mainly becuase I had never seen Gulbis play before.

Today's match revealed plenty to me about the baby-faced Latvian. He goes for everything - think James Blake's forehand and Rafael Nadal's backhand - just without any consistency. Gulbis is only 19, so he'll make some necessary adjustments after this experience, but it was still a hell of a tournament for him. Absolutely pummeling on Tommy Robredo (losing only six games in their third round match) is no small achievement, and falling to a Grand Slam champion is nothing to bemoan either. Ernests (goes to New York) was also a good sport at the post-match press conference, where Bud Collins skewered him with questions about the state of Latvian tennis. I, however, took notes and composed my match review, after speaking to Moya as well.

Today I also had the chance to finally meet the esteemed L. Jon Werthiem of Sports Illustrated fame. He's a great guy and it was a pleasure to finally chat with him in person after numerous emails back and forth. His archive link is on the right-hand side of this blog - where it has been since [G/R]'s inception.

The night session featured another untimely exit for Nadal (this match wrapped up only minutes ago), but not before a Djokovic match that went long, as well as Henin/Serena. Nadal/Ferrer didn't even start until 10:20, finally wrapping up at 1:50 AM. Imagine if Djokovic/Monaco went five sets, or if Henin/Williams went three? After seeing the night scheduling up close these past weeks, I don't know how the USTA doesn't consider starting the morning session at 10:00 AM instead of 11:00 AM.

Rafa's third straight US Open disappointment will rekindle "he can't play on hard court" discussions, but that's laughable after winning Indian Wells earlier this year. However, discussions about his abilities at Flushing Meadows are fair game from my point of view. Rafa has never really been able to come to life in the New York spotlight, or display his stylish/physical game that he's built his name on to the eager crowds. Does he truly embrace the U.S. Open as a whole? It's a question worth asking.

One thing I neglected to mention yesterday was that I bought a $7 milkshake at the grounds with my meal allocation. Why is the dollar amount so important? Well, fans of Quentin Tarantino's opus "Pulp Fiction" may recall a famous scene at Jack Rabbit Slims (a restaurant) which featured John Travolta and Uma Thurman. It goes like this:

Vincent and Mia study the menu in a booth made out of a red '59 Edsel. BUDDY HOLLY (their waiter), comes over, sporting a big button on his chest that says: "Hi I'm Buddy, pleasing you please me."

BUDDY
Hi I'm Buddy, what can I get'cha?

VINCENT
I'll have the Douglas Sirk steak.

BUDDY
How d'ya want it, burnt to a crisp,
or bloody as hell?

VINCENT
Bloody as hell. And to drink, a
vanilla coke.

BUDDY
How 'bout you, Peggy Sue?

MIA
I'll have the Durwood Kirby burger
-- bloody -- and a five-dollar
shake.

BUDDY
How d'ya want that shake, Martin
and Lewis, or Amos and Andy?

MIA
Martin and Lewis.

VINCENT
Did you just order a five-dollar
shake?

MIA
Sure did.

VINCENT
A shake? Milk and ice cream?

MIA
Uh-huh.

VINCENT
It costs five dollars?

BUDDY
Yep.

VINCENT
You don't put bourbon in it or
anything?

BUDDY
Nope.

VINCENT
Just checking.

Then, shortly after:

VINCENT
Can I have a sip of that? I'd like
to know what a five-dollar shake
tastes like.

MIA
Be my guest.

...

VINCENT
Goddamn! That's a pretty f*****'
good milk shake.

MIA
Told ya.

VINCENT
I don't know if it's worth five
dollars, but it's pretty f*****'
good.

Ben & Jerry's ice cream was used in my fine chocolate shake. I don't know if it was worth seven dollars, but it was pretty f*****' good.

Tonight's chocolate offering was far less dramatic - a pack of Raisinets wolfed down at 2 A.M. on my walk home.

U.S. Open Diary - Day 8

2007-09-04T00:59:00.001-04:00

Although devoid of much tennis analysis, yesterday's diary entry was nonetheless important for me in a therapeutic and symbolic way. Today marked the beginning of a new week, and after feeling the 90+ hours of work at times last week, I looked forward to today with the same vigor that I did last Monday. Thankfully, I was rewarded with great tennis and a memorable day in Flushing Meadows.

Our morning meeting at the dining hall was just like any other, with zombified media members sipping coffee like it was beer at a frat party. My fellow USOpen.org writers took the back row of tables with the match schedule being read aloud. Options included watching Svetlana Kuznetsova, Andy Roddick, and Agnes Szavay, among others. But instead of taking any of these highly ranked singles players, I opted to cover an 11 a.m. women's doubles match between Sania Mirza/Bethanie Mattek and Lisa Raymond/Samantha Stosur.

You read that right. One of the many things that I have taken out of this summer is the entertainment of the women's doubles game. After seeing Raymond and Venus Williams play Nadia Petrova and Elena Vesnina at the Fed Cup, I was converted. I feel that the tennis in women's doubles is superior to the singles game, mainly because doubles doesn't afford the luxury of a wide-open court, which drags on many singles rallies. After you get past the top tier of the WTA Tour, the remainder of players' matches turn into a never-ending game of pong. Just my thoughts...but that's what site this is all about.

So anyways, I headed over to Grandstand court to get a good seat for the match. There isn't a bad one in the stadium, and if you're there by 10:50, you should still have no problem scoring a decent viewing area. I usually prefer behind the baseline, but I opted for a seat at mid-court this time. It worked out well for doubles, as many of the points were played at net. The #2 ranked team of Stosur and Raymond were upset by the M&M's, as I detailed in one of my favorite match reports of the week.

After a steak burrito that cost about $1 per bite, I went back to the office to compose a pre-match analysis of the Federer/Lopez evening match, which I would of course be viewing later. There was one glaring omission in this piece, looking back on it now - Lopez's huge serve.

Feliciano took the first set against Roger tonight in 25 minutes, after bombarding Federer with serves that hit as high as 134 MPH on the radar gun. In a way, his service motion actually looks like John McEnroe's, with a bit of a corkscrew effect. He played like Johnny Mac did in the first set, that's for sure. But Roger played like...Roger Federer...in the third and fourth sets, after snagging the second set with a late break. When I saw Roger live for the first time last week, I saw a pretty standard victory. Tonight, I saw the shots that made him famous - a killer serve, backhands with uncanny accuracy, and of course, his huge forehand. At least I didn't forget to mention that on the analysis.

On the way out of the USTABJKNTC, I spent my remaining meal allocation on a Ben & Jerry's chocolate milkshake, as I had had my eye on one all week. I got home a little before 12:30 (extremely early for me), reflecting back on a day of good tennis and good times.

U.S. Open Diary - Day 7

2007-09-03T02:00:00.000-04:00

I've been here a week, but it feels like a month.

I know the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center like I know the Utica North-South Arterial (not 100%, but pretty damn good).

I hate the N and W trains because of their infrequent stops at Queensboro Plaza at 1 a.m. But the 7 train? We're cool.

I've seen the top six men's players in the world play.

I get up at 8 a.m. every morning, and usually come back before 2 a.m at night.

I got to talk to one of my idols, Roger Federer.

I sleep on an air mattress that collapses into a cocoon by morning.

I've never enjoyed working as much as I do in the mornings and afternoons.

I've never been more tired than I am during this first week.

I'm one of the luckiest people alive.

I needed a break from a lengthy post tonight.

I'm looking forward to tomorrow.

P.S. There was another reason for this short post - I had to finish my Monday Net Post for TENNIS.com on short notice. Here's a sample of this week's U.S. Open centered post:

By the Letter

Some of you have been commenting that you want to know what I've been doing at the U.S. Open. This week's "By the Letter" is a collection of thoughts from a week in Flushing Meadows:

T…oughest seat: A media seat at Arthur Ashe stadium. Take it from me, a tennis writer turned seat marshal, whose mission each night is to deny access to the courtside viewing area unless you own a prized media credential.
E…astern European of the week: It's actually not Novak Djokovic, or any Serbian for that matter. Latvian Ernests Gulbis absolutely pummelled eighth-seeded Tommy Robredo 6-1, 6-3, 6-2 on the Grandstand court late Sunday night. The baby-faced 19-year old has just one ATP Tour win this year (against Tim Henman at Roland Garros), but he's already quadrupled that total this week by defeating Potito Starace, Michael Berrer, and Robredo. I really hope to catch his fourth round contest with Carlos Moya.

N…ike’s missed opportunity: Hordes of fans at the Open have been wearing these madras-inspired shorts, which feature a Statue of Liberty-inspired crest on one side. Regardless of what side of the reversable shorts you choose to display, how come there are no players wearing these – especially some of Nike’s young Americans (Levine, Isner, Young, etc.)?

N…icest backhand: One of the matches I was assigned to cover was the Nicolas Almagro/Nikolay Davydenko third-rounder. Almagro got whipped pretty good in this match, but before succumbing to injury, he showed off a lethal backhand that flew on the hard courts at Louis Armstrong Stadium. Almagro is best known for his results on clay; if he could be more consistent, he could emerge as an all-court threat.

I…ndefensible decision: Richard Gasquet’s withdrawal from the US Open was a huge disappointment for me, especially because I run a website that bears his name (by the way, check out my nightly US Open diary). But even I, one of Richard’s biggest fans, can’t defend his decision.It seems that if you can hit balls in practice and gave a few press conferences, you're well enough to give your second round match against Donald Young a go. After Gasquet’s tremendous run at Wimbledon, his summer has been nothing short of a disaster.

S…ight to behold: There were a number of players that I was interesting in seeing play live, but none more than Fabrice Santoro. Thankfully, both the magician and James Blake won their first round matches, setting up an evening clash on Ashe that was a feast for the eyes of tennis lovers. Santoro won’t be around much longer, and I urge you to catch one of his last remaining shows.

W…eather report: There hasn’t been even a hint of poor weather in Flushing for the first week of the tournament, which is great news for everyone with an interest in the U.S. Open. With ideal conditions, fans have come out in droves, and every morning when I walk across the boardwalk to enter the tennis center, I hear the soothing sounds of Leif Shiras reminding patrons that “there are no tickets available.” Coming off of recent weather-plagued Grand Slams, the entire tennis world needed this ray of sunshine.

O…ft forgotten: The “young guns” of men’s tennis is a list that includes Monfils, Murray, Gasquet, Djokovic, Berdych, and others. After the American invasion of the first week of the Open, Isner and Young will be mentioned as well. But one name who shouldn’t be left out is Juan Martin del Potro. I caught his match against Jurgen Melzer, and saw the great potential that many speak of. Remember, the young Argentine is only 18, so in spite of getting beaten soundly by Djokovic, chalk this up as a successful Slam for JMDP.

R…oger sighting: I finally got to see the tennis god himself play in his second round match against Paul Capdeville. After the match, I went to his sparsely-attended press conference, and was ready with my question that I had planned for weeks leading up to the Open. After a brief exchange, Roger and I are now great pals. Just kidding – but he conducts himself as elegantly after the match as he does during it.

L…oudest fans: The J-Block makes a living of making their presence known at Blake’s matches. You might think they are cute on TV, but seeing them in person reveals more. Coming from someone who prefers a civil environment – even in sport – Steve Tignor’s earlier observations of “The Block” made me chuckle.

D…elicious snack: After seven days of complimentary food, I’ve gotten an idea of what the hits and misses are here. For lunch, I would suggest the chicken Caesar wrap, which is tasty and filling. As a plus, it’s available both at the food court as well as the stadium food shops. The high-priced pasta dishes (around $8-$10 a bowl) are also worth the cost, at least when you compare them to the other dinner options on site. If you can afford desert, invest in a strawberry and Nutella filled crepe, which is the best choice from the crepe stand.

U.S. Open Diary - Day 6

2007-09-02T02:51:00.001-04:00

Have you ever heard of the song "Grace is Gone" by the Dave Matthews Band? It has a introduction that is both poignant and emotionless:

Neon shines through smokey eyes tonight

It's 2 A.M., I'm drunk again
And it's heavy on my mind

I listened to this on my walk back to my friend's apartment tonight, because I was that guy. Ditmars Boulevard is a quaint street, lined with tiny homes and urban shops, but there are some strings of colour that illuminate the night sky, even at 2:30 A.M.

By the way, I wasn't drinking, but I could have used a pilsner after sitting through a 2.5 hour match between Nicole Vaidasova and Shahar Peer. There were some nice shots, the crowd was into it, and it was a close match. But if I can't into a women's match with all these factors in play - sitting courtside at Ashe Stadium, mind you - I never will. And honestly, I'm fine with that. There's so much of the men's game that I am still learning. I'd rather watch a Zagreb qualifier as opposed to Henin/Serena ten times out of ten.

The other night match was James Blake vs. Stefan Koubek, which got out after 1 A.M. The tennis on display was marginal at best - Blake played terribly in the first three sets, and was extremely lucky to come out ahead two sets to one. Koubek's game was sporatic, but what interested me most about him was the fact that he is a Rafael Nadal clone. First there's the look (built figure with sleeveless shirt). He's also a lefty, and his motions mirror those of Nadal's. Although the follow throughs aren't as glaring, watch Koubek move around the court sometime, and when he hits a jumping two-hander for a wild winner, tell me that isn't Rafa if he was eight years older and from Eastern Europe. I was blown away tonight, but not by the tennis.

A couple other notes from today:

- I had the most front row seats you could get for a match at Louis Armstong between Nicolas Almagro and Nikolay Davydenko. If they showed any portion of this on TV after the Sharapova upset, you definitely had to have seen me. The match was straight sets for Davydenko, but it was really entertaining to watch these two in rallies. Almagro just kills the ball, and his one-handed backhand is a thing of beauty, right up there with Gasquet's. I wrote the match report on USOpen.org, and I also got a nice souvenir from the match - a ball used in the game after I flagged a ball boy down after match point.

- So happy that Roger came through against John Isner. After the first set, the grounds were buzzing with anticipation that David might slay Goliath. Well actually, the other way around (per Isner's height). In any event, it didn't matter because Federer played flawless tennis in the second and third sets, not committing an unforced error during that time. Post match analysis here. Roger will play Feliciano Lopez next, hopefully at night so the tuxedo shorts can come out again (this is the first time I prefer another colour to blue on Roger).

- GREAT food today. I didn't get lunch until around 3, but the burger and fries that I wolfed down satisfied me until late at night. When I had a break in the evening, I got a crepe filled with strawberries and Nutella. If you're paying real cash for it, it will set you back $8.50, but it's worth it.

- Metrocard (subway ticket in New York) ran out for the week; have to get a new one.

- Lastly, check out this line from the above Blake article:

By late in the third set, the ushers gave up on trying to keep order, and spectators walked through the aisles looking for good seats even during play.

I was more or less one of those ushers (in the media seats, which were overrun by a stampede of fans holding courtside down passes).

U.S. Open Diary - Day 5

2007-09-01T00:45:00.000-04:00

After last night's 1:30 AM arrival back to Astoria, I needed an easier day in order to recharge myself. I'm not complaining whatsoever about the length of the Santoro/Blake match - that's what made it great - but I am wishing that I didn't have to get up only hours later and head straight back to the tennis centre. A number of personalities from USOpen.org were hurting after last night, but it could have been a lot worse. Blake's match went five sets, but it didn't surpass the four hour mark. If today's Djokovic/Stepanek match was the night feature, then the discussion of "do I even bother to take the train home" (4:44 in length) then becomes relevant.

Thankfully, that wasn't the case tonight. I ended up working the night shift, which had its pros and cons. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to meet up with the TENNIS Mag clan in Manhattan, which would have been a nice time and a much needed break. However, I did get to finally see Rafael Nadal play, so I can cross his name off my list of "need to see".

For all the talk of Nadal looking weaker and less mobile at this year's Open, I thought he played with a fair amount of spring in his step tonight. Maybe that's because I was watching him up close for the first time, but I saw plenty of Nadal defensive gets and lunging cuts that reminded me of the Rafa we know on clay.

The spin that Nadal puts on the ball is a sight to behold, and it's a wonder that his arms don't fall off with all that torque he uses. It also makes me wonder if we'll see Nadal ten years from now. I stand by my words earlier this year when I said that someday, Rafa would be the one to unseat Roger Federer as the #1 player in the world. But how long his reign lasts is another question entirely. You know how everyone says "see Roger while you can", or, "see Santoro while you can"? I would put Nadal in there as well, because the physical game he plays skyrockets his potential for injury.

Speaking of injuries, Nadal's opponent, Janko Tipsarevic, had to retire after applying something to his ribs when the trainer came out. You could tell the end was near for the Serbian when he tried to hit a winner on every ball that Nadal put back at him. It actually worked for a couple of games, but on the first changeover, Janko shook Rafa's hand, and I quickly headed for the exit to catch the 7 train.

The best match that I saw today wasn't even the Djokovic/Stepanek five set duel. But now that I mention it, I'll use this time to tell you about how quick my access is to these prominent matches. While walking around Louis Armstrong's concourse (our offices are right down there), I simply jumped in a moving line and ended up watching the entire fifth set. Just like that, I entered the match of the day on TV. Life is good. It was a riveting match based on the length of time required (Novak prevailed), but I will say that the tennis wasn't picture perfect either.

Instead, my favorite piece of tennis that I took in was an 11:00 contest between Juan Martin del Potro and Jurgen Melzer on the sometimes desolate Court 13. I desperately wanted to see a match on either the Grandstand or an outer court today, and I got my wish by immediately jumping on this pairing when it was offered in our morning meeting. Arthur Ashe Stadium and Louis Armstrong get the best players, but the atmosphere is nowhere near as enjoyable as it is on the smaller and more remote courts. Steve Tignor wrote a great piece about the Grandstand - my favourite court in Flushing Meadows - check it out.

With no one in front of me (my seat was directly behind the baseline) I was looking forward to see the highly touted Argentine's game up close, and I wasn't disappointed. del Potro has phenomenal ground strokes, infused with plenty of spin and power. He also has a presence about him that suggests that he won't wilt under pressure, which so many youngsters haven't been able to do. Juan Martin is only 18, so I wouldn't panic if he hasn't won a Masters Series title in the next year or two. But keep him in the back of your mind, because soon enough, he'll be a name that sneaks deep into major tournament.

As for the match itself, del Potro basically owned the Austrian Melzer. The 31st seed had his moments, but they were far too infrequent to have any chance of upending Juan Martin. Melzer was a seeded player in name only today, as his opponent won this match in a landslide. Check out my report here. And despite the lopsided score, this was a very enjoyable match to take in. I look forward to seeing JMPD play another time.

Other than that, today was pretty light. I covered a completely one-sided match featuring Ana Ivanovic, and asked her some questions for the article in her post-match press conference. Many people say she looks great - and she does in person - but I think Jelena Jankovic has her beat. Also, I stopped in to see Robby Ginepri field some questions, and asked him what he thought about fellow Georgian (at least in college) John Isner's chances against Roger tomorrow. The answer was as expected - he has a chance if he serves well; I think I have to agree.

By the way, that match is actually on in the daytime instead of at night. I couldn't for the life of me figure out why, but then someone mentioned that since CBS is showing the tournament tomorrow, that they had first dibs on whatever match they found most appealing. Thus, the night session on Saturday consists of - are you ready for this - Nicole Vaidisova vs. Shahar Peer, followed by Blake/Koubek. Sorry for all you court side ticket holders for tomorrow.

What else...oh, I bought the New York Post for the subway ride in, and found a story on Federer that deals with a fashion icon (I forget the name) being a great adorer of Roger's, primarily because of his style. At the end of the article, there's a quote from Federer, and it's the answer to the question I personally asked him. I immediately tore out the page, smiled, and moved on.

Had the sushi with wasabi for lunch today. It was OK, but I'm thinking about a burger and fries for tomorrow though.

Lastly, go to this link, and click on the Day 5 (for Elena Dementieva). If you've ever wanted to know what I sound like, here's your chance.

U.S. Open Diary - Day 4

2007-08-31T01:55:00.000-04:00

Real quick update tonight folks - I just got back from the Blake/Santoro five-setter, which was the first time at this year's Open that a match has gone into the next day. For five sets, the match didn't take all that long to complete (it was under four hours), but then again, I haven't gotten home from work at 1:30 AM before either. No matter - the match was fantastic and was the best one of the tournament so far. Every minute of sleep lost for watching another Fabrice two-handed forehand is worth it to me.

The day got off to a very rocky start. Coming into Thursday, I almost thought this was inevitable considering how amazing Wednesday ended. I mean, the only thing that could top me asking Roger some questions was for him to ask me to play him in table tennis. Although there is a Nintendo Wii (with the tennis game) up in the player's lounge - which I have access to...

Back to reality. I was hoping to cover the Gasquet/Young match, but someone else had already committed to it. It wasn't a big deal though - I was assigned the Svetlana Kuznetsova/Camille Pin match at 11 AM, and when that was over, I'd head over to Louis Armstrong and watch Richard in peace and with no work obligations.

Anyone care to take a guess how many things are wrong with that last paragraph? The answer is three:

- The Kuznetsova match did not end in short order. The fourth-ranked Russian won the first set easily, but choked in the second - which featured five breaks of serve - thereby extending the match into a deciding set. The inability for either player to play assertive tennis on the court (see the break-a-thon) got me so riled up that I had to leave Arthur Ashe Stadium. I guess it somehow helped Kuznetsova, as she won the final set 6-0. Anything I can do for you, Svettie. Match report is here for those interested.

- When I was watching the last few games of the women's match unfold, I got a text message from a text-happy friend of mine. All it said was two words, but they were like daggers being plunged into my heart at the time: "Gasquet withdrew." No way I thought; I hadn't even yet heard about this - and I was at the media center of the tournament! But it was true, Richard actually did pull out, with a fever and sore throat.

When I met up with Pete Bodo later in the day, we both agreed that Richard's concession seemed to be a weak move. I just shook my head in disbelief; Pete opted to describe Gasquet's decision as akin to a part of the female anatomy. Either way, I'm disappointed. I'm sure there was reason to do so, but as Pete said, "he was playing Donald Young." And for those of you who don't know, Young has just two career ATP victories to his name. Could Richard have beaten him whilst feverish? We'll never know.

- Last incorrect thing about that paragraph: "no work obligations." I knew I was getting another assignment on the day, but I didn't expect it to involve the Andy Roddick/Jose Acasuso match. It was another duel on Ashe court, where I've built a small home over the last four days. I opted to stay inside and cover the action for my post-match analysis, due to the heat and the fact that everyone else from the media team was hanging out downstairs.

What looked to be a good match (Jose won the first set) turned into a dud, as Acasuso - you guessed it - retired! A knee injury forced him out after Roddick took the second and third sets, and just like that, my lackluster day of assignments was complete. I'm hoping for better matches tomorrow.

A few more things:

- I'm going to try the sushi for lunch tomorrow.

- I'm praying that I'll get the night off to celebrate Andrew Friedman's Breaking Back with the TENNIS Magazine crew.

- I want to see a match on Grandstand. I usually always go there when I come to the Open, but this year I've been on Armstrong all the time instead.

- I finally got to see Santoro in person, and it was - like when I saw Roger last night - everything I expected and more. James also played great tennis - he could have wilted away on a number of occasions, especially in the fifth, where he's never won before. But Blake kept the errors to a minimum and stayed extremely composed despite a boisterous atmosphere. Great to see both guys.

That's all I've got. And that "quick post" disclaimer? As longtime [G/R] readers know, my posts are never really quick, so if you're still reading - thanks.

U.S. Open Diary - Day 3

2007-08-30T01:11:00.001-04:00

Oh, what a night. Roger Federer, Shade Adept, played tonight in all black, which was a sharp change from his usual U.S. Open blue. After Roger's match against Chilean Paul Capdeville(Jano, are you reading this?), I asked Roger about this during the press conference:

Ed McGrogan: Was there any hesitancy to change color since you've worn blue here ever since you won in '04?

Roger Federer: Yeah, I kind of saw the pictures and I realized they were all always blue. Got to change that. I'm just kidding.

We had the idea of maybe doing something blue at the day, black at the night. I really liked the idea. I thought it really looks cool. In New York you can do such a thing. Nowhere else in the world. I really thought it looked good. I hope the fans enjoyed it too.

Yes - this exchange actually happened. I still can't believe it. In fact, I can't believe I finally saw him play. Watching Federer is truly an experience - everything people say about seeing him live is completely true. I urge you all to make every effort to watch him play tennis, especially while he's still in dominating form.

My favorite part of watching Roger play live was seeing his forehand. It's always been his patented shot, but until you view it up close, there's no way you can fully appreciate it. His wrist and arm speed is unparalled; it's a quick snap that shoots the ball out like a projectile. Roger's foot speed, which I also took notice of, helps the shot's effectiveness even more, as he's generally always in the right position to hit. Capdeville was overwhelmed by the Swiss master, but he did keep the match competitive, in spite of it being over in just over 90 minutes. Overall, watching Roger was everything I hoped for and much more.

And my personal thoughts on the black? I was skeptical before he came out tonight, but the black really does work well in the evening session. It may even look better than the blue ensemble he wore on Monday. Also, I want the black tuxedo shorts.

Roger plays John Isner on Saturday in a very interesting match - I think there is some reason to be concerned if you're a Federer fan. In Isner's press conference, which I also sat in on, he acknowledged that he has "nothing to lose", and in his two matches on a big court, he's played very well. But he's never played against a player anywhere close to Federer's skill. This match is tentatively scheduled for Saturday, which I'm a big fan of - on Friday night, I might actually get a reprise from "work", instead hanging with the TENNIS Magazine/.com crew.

Tomorrow's matches feature two golden affairs: Gasquet/Young (I really hope that I get to cover this one) and Blake/Santoro. Very, very excited. I've always wanted to see Fabrice play, and now I'll get to at Ashe Stadium, against another player I've wanted to see in Blake. The days just keep getting better.

The other match that I covered during the day was the Henman/Tursunov contest. I wrote so much about it that I refuse to write any more in this space. You can read the match report here, and a separate post match analysis here.

Also, the food was much better today. I had the now-classic chicken caesar wrap for dinner, and some chicken wings for lunch. They weren't upstate New York wings, but for being mass produced at a media center, they were actually tasty and hot enough to satisfy me.

I'm still wide awake after my Roger sighting, but I'm gonna try to get to bed. Talk to you tommorrow.

U.S. Open Diary - Day 2

2007-08-29T00:25:00.001-04:00

I seem to have this knack of being assigned the longest matches of the day. Yesterday, I watched John Isner and Jarrko Nieminen go to three tiebreakers in their first three sets of their 3.5 hour tussle. Today I sat in on an even longer battle, this one contesting Arnaud Clement against Ivo Karlovic.

At the morning assignments, I jumped at the chance to cover this match for a few reasons. First, none of the other matches on slate were very appealing - I actually thought this was a pretty luckluster day on the men's side. Second, this match featured "somewhat" obscure men's players, which is my specialty. And third, I'd never before seen Clement play live. I've seen some of his other Frenchmen on tour, most notably Gasquet and Sebastien Grosjean, but I hadn't see Arnaud up to this point. After seeing him play for four hours today, I'm a fan, and continue to be impressed with the caliber of the French players on the ATP Tour. They all seem to have this certain aura about them that captures my attention - and it is true that they exhibit a more graceful and elegant game. It seems to go well with the stylish Lacoste gear they all sport.

You can see the Clement/Karlovic match report here, but I'll add this about what I saw: Arnaud had one of the best return of serves I've ever seen. He didn't strike winners like Andre Agassi would, but he tamed an absolute monster in Karlovic - an extremely daunting task. And those 140+ mph serves are that fast...trust me.

What else...did I mention it was hot out? I was outdoors for five minutes at 10:45 in the morning, and I was already feeling the burn. Thankfully, I brought suntan lotion today (I made a huge mistake by not bringing it yesterday). It got so bad that I actually had to leave during the third set to get some food and drink, as I was running on fumes in the fuel tank; it turned out to be a smart move because the match continued on for two more hours.

Speaking of food, this was a bone of contention I had today. Monday's food was enjoyable - a chicken caesar wrap for lunch and sausage for dinner. Today's meals were barely adequate - a ham/salami sandwich for lunch, and a roast beef sandwich for dinner. Now, I thought that I was getting a plate of shaved beef for my supper - and at $9.50, how can you not? Wrong. A small sandwich that vwas lacking in the blue cheese dressing that I was promised left me quite disappointed. Even the slice of pizza I had on the work home in Astoria was sub par. Hopefully things improve tomorrow.

Despite the poor food, the tennis was much better today. I wrote one more match report (on the Anna Chakvetadze first rounder), and then headed to Ashe to see Maria Sharapova and Andy Roddick. The night duels were a vast improvement over Monday's Williams matches, even though they were both straight set wins. This was in part due to the crowd being much more involved due to the better competitive play. Well - not in the Sharapova match - as her opponent just barely escaped losing 6-0, 6-0. But Justin Gimelstob did himself proud in his final match by playing great tennis against a far superior Andy Roddick. He almost won the first set, actually.

It's great to actually be a part of the renowned Flushing Meadows tennis environment in late August evenings. It should be even better tomorrow, as I will finally get to see my tennis hero, Mr. Roger Federer. FULL report coming next.

One lame thing I saw in Arthur Ashe Stadium - groups of business people who wore matching green company hats along with dress shirts and ties...why?

U.S. Open Diary - Day 1

2007-08-28T01:25:00.001-04:00

It was a hectic first day in Queens. For those of you who don't know, I have two tasks at this year's U.S. Open. In the mornings and afternoons, I'll be writing match reports and other pieces for http://www.usopen.org/, the official website of the tournament. At night, I change hats and become a glorified usher (media seat marshal) at Arthur Ashe Stadium, where I patrol a small section of seats reserved for credentialed members of the press. After that, I hop on the 7 train towards Manhattan, get off at Queensboro Plaza, and take the N or W train north to Astoria. And here I am after doing all of that today.

This morning, I received two writing assignments - compose a pre-match analysis on Serena Williams' first round match (which can be seen here), and write a match report on the John Isner/Jarkko Nieminen tussle. I finished the Serena piece in about an hour, but then I had some time to kill, as I was still waiting for the Marcos Baghdatis/Max Mirnyi match to complete before Isner went out on Louis Armstrong. So after decimating a chicken caesar wrap from the media dining hall, I did what I always do at the Open - see Richard Gasquet!

This is my third consecutive U.S. Open, and I've seen Gasquet each time I've come down to New York. I didn't have the chance to watch his entire match, but I'm hoping to get that chance in the next two rounds (before he faces Federer in round four). He's wearing a red Lacoste shirt - a fine colour choice - but these damn black accents really ruin the shirt. It's the same style I've been criticizing Andy Roddick for wearing, and now Richard had to take the plunge...stick with the solid colour (or simple stripe, like last year's Gasquet top).

Anyways, Richard killed Sergio Roitman, easily advancing in straight sets. Roger was playing at the Open when I was there, but I had to stay near Louis Armstrong like a hawk, as the Isner match was drawing close. I'll have to catch Roger at night - thankfully he averted the upset of the tournament by winning against Scoville Jenkins.

As for me, I headed into Louis Armstrong to finally cover a match - the Baghdatis match took nearly four hours - so I was very eager to start watching. Isner's serve was all it was cracked up to be, as he pelted Jarrko with a flurry of aces throughout this four-setter. There wasn't a break of serve until the final set, and luckily for the American fans, Isner was the beneficiary. He also saved four break points in the fourth set, and just played a real good game overall. The crowd helped John, as he acquired many new fans with some good shot making and timely releases of emotion on court Monday.

The match took about three hours to complete, so when I headed back to the media center, I had to turn around a quick story, and then rush over to Arthur Ashe. Turns out that someone else (due to a miscommunication) was also covering the match! She already had the story prepped, so I looked it over and went my merry way.

At Ashe, I sat through two Williams sisters matches - not my cup of tea, but still a nice way to start my experience in Flushing. The night matches will only get better (for my personal taste, and in terms of quality of tennis), so I can't wait to get back out there.

Other highlights of the day included:

- Seeing a large contingency of the TENNIS.com crew.

- Buying this pair of Nike shorts that I have always wanted.

- Not having to pay for food.

Anyways, I need to get some sleep...talk to you tomorrow.

Opening statements

2007-08-25T23:49:00.000-04:00

If you want to be successful in life, you need to look for your openings – i.e., the opportunities that can be the gateways to reaching your goals. This analogy is very appropriate, and sometimes literal, for athletes – as an ice hockey player looks to shoot at an unguarded corner of the net – but it applies to nearly all aspects of life as well.

For business entrepreneurs, an opening may be that specific group of clients you need to target, or that perfect business partner that can help get your idea in motion. For an aspiring lawyer, an opening may be talking to the right people at your law school, or performing like a seasoned professional at an interview.

My opening starts next week. Appropriately enough, it’s called the U.S. Open.

Starting on Monday, I will be at Flushing Meadows four fourteen straight days, working towards my goal of a career in tennis. From morning until night, I will be doing everything from writing match reports for USOpen.org, to ushering non-credentialed people out of courtside seats at Arthur Ashe Stadium. It’s all very exciting, and I want to document it in such a way that I can look back on it many years down the road. That’s where [G/R] comes in.

When I went to the United Kingdom three years ago, I saved nearly everything that I acquired, because I wanted to make a scrapbook when I got home. That very book sits on my desk next to me, and is something I treasure immensely thanks to the memories it reminds me of. It includes plenty of pictures, but also more obscure items such as boarding passes, foreign currency, and an opened bag of chips (crisps).

I’ll be taking loads of pictures and video during these next two weeks with a new digital camera I recently bought. It’s a luxury I somehow did without when I went to the U.K., as I used seven or eight disposable film cameras. Crazy, huh? This time, I want to do a little more besides camerawork. Each night when I return to the apartment of my gracious hosts in Queens, I’ll have a short diary entry here at [G/R]. The post might talk about the matches I watched, the people I saw, or even just the food I ate. Whatever it is, I encourage you to stop by and see what happened at the U.S. Open – as it happened.

A number of people have been asking me about my predictions for the Open. Since I won’t be around too often during the tournament, this seems like a fine time to speak on these matters. (Here’s the draw if you haven’t seen it.)

- The first semifinalist should be Roger Federer, for obvious reasons. The three-time defending champion has handled Andy Roddick every time they’ve played, and even when it was close (2006 Tennis Masters Cup), Federer still emerged victorious. You only need to look at the 2006 U.S. Open final and the 2007 Australian Open semifinal to know my feelings on how this inevitable quarterfinal will play out.

Also, I’m glad I didn’t put a side bet on Richard Gasquet to win the Open…he’s in this loaded quarter of the draw as well.

- James Blake should best his U.S. Open quarterfinal appearances this year, as he’s my pick for the second semifinalist. There are many reasons why I think it will be James’ time to shine. Consider the seeded players in this quarter: the top seed is Nikolay Davydenko, who Blake easily dispatched of in Cincinnati (he’s also 6-0 against him). Andy Murray is still injured. Nicolas Almagro and Fillipo Volandri do their best work on clay. We haven’t heard from Guillermo Canas since Indian Wells and Miami. Tommy Haas always goes far in Grand Slams, but not that far. The only opponent for James that I’d be worried about is Marcos Baghdatis, but if they meet, Marcos will fall just like last year – amidst a heavily partisan crowd.

- Today at the Pilot Pen tournament on ESPN, Patrick McEnroe, Chris Fowler and Pam Shriver did some forecasting for the Open, with many of them picking Lleyton Hewitt to either emerge from this half of the draw, or at worst, be a very viable dark horse. I’m still not sold on Hewitt making a big splash. Sure, he won in Vegas this year, but that’s his only title since June 2006. In addition, he hasn’t reached the semis of a major since 2005. Lleyton might make it to week two, but not to the end of week two.

Instead, I like Novak Djokovic to take down this quarter. The analysts had a good point about the Serbian – this is the first time in a Grand Slam that he’s really expected to go deep. Many like Djokovic over Nadal in this half of the draw. Considering what we saw in Montreal, it’s tough to disagree.

- Speaking of Nadal, he’s in the final quarter of the draw. I’m picking him to emerge from it, but the possible third round match against Dmitry Tursunov has me worried. Remember, he lost to Mikhail Youzhny – a Russian with a similar game to Tursunov’s – here at the Open last year. Once again, it was a quiet summer for Nadal on hard courts, so there is some trepidation in penciling Rafa to play Novak in the semis. Week one for Rafa is loaded with possible landmines in Tursunov, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, and Janko Tipsarevic. But I think if Nadal can get into week two, he’ll take care of business en route to the final four.

The rebuttal

2007-08-24T01:13:00.000-04:00

[Editors Note: This article goes along with my post about the tennis wagering in Vegas, but from a differing point of view – my opponent’s. Read on for more details. Also, I was at the U.S. Open qualifiers yesterday to pick up my media credentials – I’ll have a post on Saturday before I leave for New York that talks about the Open, what’s in store for [G/R], and some other info I’m sure.]

As I sit on the Amtrak 285 from the Big Apple back to my hometown in central New York, I find myself reminiscing about the past five days of pure and utter enjoyment in the City of Sin. Many people have said that leaving Las Vegas with any money is a victory in itself. So, I guess when all three of my friends and I leave Vegas with more money in our wallets than we came with, it is probably congruent to a double bagel victory in tennis. This of course, leads me to my reason to writing this post: to discuss our tennis betting.

Although I have not read Ed’s initial post, I have a good idea of what he discussed and if it were possible, I would put money down that most of my guesses would be correct. First off, I’m sure Ed gave a slightly crude description of who I am. Based on previous posts and his most recent post, you probably know me as a friend of Ed, a collegiate tennis player, and a fantasy sports participant (for I know Ed discussed the fact that this draft may be the substitute for our fantasy football draft). Granted, all three of those descriptions are correct, but allow me to elaborate.

My name is Derrick, writing under the nickname Squeak. I am currently attending Cornell Law School and recently graduated from Hobart College. I played soccer with Ed all during middle and high school, and started playing tennis freshman year of high school. I continued onward to play Division III collegiate tennis at Hobart. The easiest way to describe my tennis ability is to say that I am an athlete-turned-tennis player. Without any formal training, I have continually relied upon my generic athletic ability and mind game to get me through matches. I have never lost (and will never lose) to Ed. He hates it. I love it.

I also graduated from Hobart with degrees in mathematics and physics, and worked at Hobart for an extra year in the math department as basically the head department tutor. From this, you can probably easily discern that math is a passion for me and the mathematical odds that this draft gives only makes it that much more exciting.

Moving back to the draft discussion, dubbed the Chipotle Challenge Cup, I’m sure Ed already described the lack of available day-to-day AMS Cincinnati gambling, so it was necessary for us to move to an alternate plan. In fact, the casinos were so against the day-to-day gambling that one employee of a casino, the Luxor I believe, stated to Ed that “if it isn’t a major, we don’t have it.” Great. You can bet on three thousand different horse races, but not a few tennis matches. Pretty standard I guess…

Anyway, our alternate plan came in the form of a U.S. Open futures draft. At first we determined we would pick four players, with both sexes represented in at least one pick, and upon drafting the players, we could split up the $50 in gambling to whatever players we saw fit. Upon further reflection, Ed asked to up the number of players to five. I obviously gave him a hard time at first because it is Ed and his inability to make a decision is almost as entertaining as anything on the planet. But, I eventually relented and allowed the one player increase.

I’m also 100% sure that Ed mentioned that this draft took place at the MGM Grand Buffet, for if he didn’t he was clearly derelict in his duties. My preparations for the draft were nothing earth-shattering, but they require mentioning. Prior to even looking at the odds each player had, I made a list of who I felt had a decent chance of winning the tournament. From this list, I would look at the odds and make my picks. On the men’s side, my list solely encompassed the top four men: Roger, Rafa, Djokovic, and Roddick. In my mind, no other man has even a slim chance of winning the Open. You may disagree, but look no further than the winners of the majors from the last four years and my argument has already been made. I did have Guilermo Canas at the bottom of my list as the sleeper of all sleepers, solely for his two wins against Roger this year. However, I had little urge to pick him unless I was severely hurting on the men’s side.

As for the women, this may surprise some people, but my list of players who I feel have a good shot at winning was also only four players long, with Justine Henin, Serena Williams, Maria Sharapova, and Venus Williams being the only players to make the cut. While the women’s side has been more open than the men’s side, I do not feel as though the players outside of the aforementioned four will take down the title. However, unlike the men’s side where I feel that one of the big four will win the tournament, I am by no stretch of the imagination under the same impression on the women’s side, so I did make a list of players with an outside shot of winning. These players included Amelie Mauresmo, Ana Ivanovic, Jelena Jankovic, Svetlana Kuznetsova, and Anna Chakvetadze.

From this initial list, I considered my draft strategy. It was very simple: my goal was to be able to win money some money (between $10 and $20) if I was to get one correct player. This would be done by picking players on my list who had decent odds, but were on my initial list. From this logic, I knew that I did not want to draft Roger Federer. You may be asking yourself such questions as “what is wrong with this guy” and “how is he the friend of one Ed McGrogan,” both being very legitimate questions. My answer is straightforward: with his odds coming in at -260, picking Roger was not a worthwhile option. I did not come to Vegas to nickel and dime anyone, including the casinos. I came to win; I came to win big. Roger was not going to allow me to win big. There was no way I would be able to gain enough scratch with a Roger pick and yet still have a shot at winning on the women’s side of the draw. On the women’s side, there was no absolute favorite and definitely none with negative odds, so I felt I would let the draft go its course and make game time decisions.

After two generous portions of delicious MGM Grand Buffet food, I tossed my Excalibur $1 chip to determine who would pick first. Ed won the toss and made arguably the easiest pick of a young Ed McGrogan’s life. Why you ask? I will give you a three thousand word answer in the form of three pictures:

His Halloween Costume from 2004:

His 2007 Utica Boilermaker Running Attire:

His Alias at the MGM Poker Room (notice the last name on the list):

It came as no shock that Ed choose Roger. I was happy for it. In fact, had I received the first pick of the draft, I had no idea who I would have taken. I still don’t. It might have been Justine. Maybe Rafa. Maybe Pete Sampras. We may never know.

Anyway, after the initial shock of Ed’s tough pick, it was on me for two. I had long made the decision ahead of time to shore up the men’s side of the draw as early as possible, partially because I am dead set that only four players will win on the men’s side and partially due to the fact that I did not want Ed to get a corner on the men’s market. I opted to go with Rafael Nadal at about 4 to 1 and Djokovic at around 8 to 1 as they are the only two players who have demonstrated they can beat Roger. Nadal has a winning record against the Wizard and Djokovic is coming off a huge win against Roger in Montreal. I also did the quick math in my head, and knew I could put down approximately $20 between the two of them and if one took it down, I would receive approximately $60. The odds seemed good as I was still left with $30 for 3 more players.

In his next two picks, Eddie McG went with Justine Henin and Ana Ivanovic. Justine Henin is obviously a very good pick. She happens to be my favorite women’s tennis player, having what I believe to be the best and most fluid backhand on the WTA. I was slightly disappointed to not be able to select her, as I thought Ed would back away from the women’s favorite having gotten very bad odds on Roger, but he did not. This, however, did present an interesting problem, one I did not state at the time of the draft. At first, I thought Ed would put some good money on Roger in an attempt to at least take home some good scratch if he were to win, but with Justine at the time being +160 (8/5 odds), this was impossible. It became clear to me that the Roger pick was more of a conservative “don’t let Derrick have the clear men’s favorite pick,” and he would attempt to make up the money difference on the women’s side. His Ivanovic pick only goes to strengthen this argument. Coming in at 15 to 1, he could make a very lucrative profit on Ana without spending too much of his allotment. While I have recently become an Ivanovic fan, mostly because of her much improved game and in part because she is definitely a sight for sore eyes, I do not believe she has the chance to take down the U.S. Open. Still yet to hit her twentieth birthday, I believe she is still in the improving stages and while she has recently stepped up to the challenge to win Los Angeles, I question whether her game is fine-tuned enough to stay strong for the fortnight of tennis and, more importantly, whether her mind is strong enough to battle against the American-friendly crowd when playing either of the Williams’ sisters. If I recall correctly, she has never made it past the round of 32 of the U.S. Open. To be honest, I hope she proves me wrong; and if she does, I will act like a gentleman, call her up and ask her to dinner in order to make up for my skewed logic…

Now halfway through the draft, we were clearly famished (it had been a whole five minutes or so), and took a slight break to chow down on some delicious delicacies of the MGM. Upon return to the table, I quickly choose Andy Roddick to, in my mind, finish off the picks on the men’s side (this would turn out to not be true; more on this later). Roddick, coming in at 10 to 1, is a great pick in my opinion. His one major victory came on the blue hard courts of the Flushing Meadows Tennis Center and with the American crowd behind him, I see good things in the near future. Recently he has had some issues getting out of the early rounds, but I believe he had resolved them and is looking ahead to a big run. My next pick was also pretty easy, that being the Russian Bombshell, one Maria Sharapova. At 5 to 1, it was hard to turn her down. I’m also positive Ed would have picked her next.

With two picks left, I had almost already written down the Williams sisters and/or Jelena Jankovic in my ledger as Ed’s final decisions. What came out of his mouth next should have sent shockwaves through Las Vegas: “I’m gonna do a little James Blake because I like the odds.” WHAT? WHO? HUH? James Blake? Really? Come on.

Alright, my little tantrum is over. I know exactly why Ed choose James. Despite being a VERY complicated man in general, Ed is very easy to understand on some levels. Basically, he goes on streaks. If he likes something, he tends to stick with it until the next big thing comes along or until the previous thing fizzles out. Having known this about Ed and knowing he read James’ book on the plane ride across the continental United States, this shouldn’t have surprised me. But, I would bet my entire Vegas winnings (a tidy sum) that he included two other reasons in his article. First, he wanted a long shot in the men’s tournament because of the odds. The players after the first four are not bad players at all, but unfortunately they are coming into tennis at a time when there is pure domination at the top. Ed’s second reason was most likely that he wanted an American to take it down; this is probably the reason he did not choose this site’s namesake, one Richard Gasquet, although I’m sure he has a side wager on him regardless of the draft. As for my take on this pick, James will not win the open. Even more so than Ivanovic, Blake’s game is not tidy enough to take it down. I hope he does—it will make for some great tennis and great New York crowds. But he won’t.

Ed’s last pick of Jelena Jankovic was pretty standard. He was looking for a woman who would give him some good odds, but was a force that could be reckoned with. Jelena is an amazing player, there is little doubt about that. At times, she looks Roger Federe-esque, making very good shots while making it look easy. But, she has the ability to go games at a time where it looks like she has completely lost her mental game. You need to look no further than her match against Tatiana Golovin in the Rogers Cup. While she eventually did leave the victor, the last five games of the first set were atrocious. Against a better player, she will not get away with that. Jelena will win a major in the near future. The 2007 U.S. Open will not be one of them.

So, with Ed picked out, I was left with the always scintillating last pick of the draft and, as per my draft strategy, this player would be of the female persuasion. Ed’s Jankovic pick left Serena Williams on the board. While I am personally not a fan, it is hard to ignore her qualifications. At the buffet table, I started talking out loud explaining my contemplations. I wanted to make Ed think that I was determining how much of a stretch pick I wanted to make, but actually all I was thinking about was Vegas and the Mirage that we would frequent later that night (Rounders reference anyone?). Actually that is not true, I was thinking heavily about the mathematical odds and whether I would actually be able to afford Serena at 3 to 1. I came to the conclusion I could. With $20 going to Rafa and Djokovic, approximately $10 to Maria and $5 to Andy, I could afford to give Serena almost $15 and be able to make out with approximately a $10 profit if I was only to pick one player correctly. In my mind, that was worth having one of the favorites on the women’s side.

With the draft over, we gorged on some of the MGM desserts and went back to our gambling ways. Thursday afternoon, we traveled down to the Wynn where we placed many of our bets. The few days prior were spent at times thinking about my wagers, and mostly thinking about Ed’s wagers. He hinted to me that very little money would be spent on Roger and that around $20 were to be placed on Justine. With the 8/5 odds and Rogers incredibly negative odds, Ed would barely come out on top and in fact, based on my calculations, would have made a grand total of $9 if both won. Based on this, and the fact that if Ana, Jelena, or James won I will easily have lost the bet since my players did not have the incredible odds they did, I decided to keep with my attempt at getting a $60 return on my money. However, luck was not on my side. At the Wynn, Justine Henin had moved up to 2 to 1 odds and Rafa had taken a dive at 7 to 2 – a 90 point swing. I was hoping to work it such that if Justine or Roger won and I had the opposite winner, I would come out on top. Unfortunately, there is some discrepancy now, and a Rafa and Henin victory will not allow for me to take over Ed, but we would both come out on top. But, luck was on my side elsewhere as Djokovic was at 12 to 1, despite winning in Montreal.

My picks and wagers are below:

R Nadal: $12 straight bet, possibility of winning $42 to pay $54
N Djokovic: $7 straight bet, possibility of winning $84 to pay $91
A Roddick: $6 straight bet, possibility of winning $60 to pay $66
M Sharapova: $10 straight bet, possibility of winning $50 to pay $60
S Williams: $15 straight bet, possibility of winning $42 to pay $57

Overall, I’m very happy with my draft, gambling, and the Vegas vacation as a whole. I finished in the black at every type of table game, including Texas Hold ‘Em (the Cadillac of poker), Let It Ride, Pai Gow Plus, and Blackjack. I hope to continue this trend in the sports betting arena. My high school and college gambling buddies—some of which who have gone on to bigger and better things, some who have gone nowhere, and some who continue to this day to be degenerate gamblers alongside me (including Ed)—used to have a great saying. As the dealer in blackjack, upon dealing an Ace to a player, they would make the sarcastic statement “good luck with that Ace.” To continue this wonderful tradition, I say to you Ed, good luck with those Aces (read: Henin and Roger F).

-Squeak

Breaking everyone except Federer

2007-08-21T23:20:00.000-04:00

There has been a lot of James Blake mentioned at [G/R] lately, but for good reason. His impressive summer on the tennis court culminated with a berth in the finals of AMS Cincinnati. Unfortunately for Blake, he met his undoing in Roger Federer, and became the name in the record books who will be associated with the maestro’s 50th career victory.

Federer took advantage of a weakened field, as most of the top seeds fell extremely early in Ohio. But most importantly, Roger took care of the required business at hand: winning tennis matches. I named Roger as my “hero” of the week in my Monday Net Post at TENNIS.com, and here’s why:

Federer didn't have to contend with the big guns like Nadal, Djokovic, or Roddick this week, but he did face stern tests from Nicolas Almagro and Lleyton Hewitt, requiring three sets to defeat each player. He also gutted out a third-round victory over Marcos Baghdatis in tough weather conditions - it was an ugly match from both men, but an important one for Federer nonetheless.

Federer again had no trouble quelling Blake in the final, despite James coming into the match with heavy momentum (he annihilated Nikolay Davydenko the round prior) and strong crowd support. Just as he’s done many times before (the 2006 Tennis Masters Cup final is the best example), Roger rendered James’ game utterly useless against him, and it was another performance for Blake that was encouraging and discouraging at the same time.

Speaking of Blake/Federer, I found this excerpt from December 2006 rather interesting to read when I was thumbing through the site’s archives:

With that in mind, here are three tour pros who I think have the best chance to upend Roger Federer in 2007 (besides Gasquet and Nadal, both of whom I feel can beat Roger again):

1. James Blake

I’m putting James up here ahead of Andy Roddick, despite both having a poor record against the Swiss (Blake is 0-6, Roddick is 1-12) for a couple of reasons. First, I feel like Andy has already had his chances against Roger, in his prime no less. A lot of people are anticipating the Jimmy Connors marriage to usher in a new Roddick – I will wait to see if the results are true before I pass judgment, and by that I mean besides just the summer/fall hardcourt season. To me, Andy is still not the force and aggressive player that he once was, and that is what will be necessary to upend Roger. What I can say is that James Blake is just entering his prime, and even though he has been waxed by Roger recently (most notably in the finals of Shanghai), 2006 was a great year for James, as it proved that his run at the end of 2005 was no fluke. James hits the ball hard every shot, and seems to zero in on the lines all the time. Speaking of time, I get the sense that James believes that it is his time to shine, and make a bigger statement on the ATP Tour than he already has. I honestly believe that Blake is winning a major this year, and he may even upend Roger in the process.

It seems that the same strategy that Roger has used against Andy Roddick is being employed – to great effect – on Blake. James’ power game is neutralized by Federer’s much more well-rounded game, and in particular, his defense. This is a tremendously underappreciated aspect of how Federer plays. Countless bunches of points have been won simply because Federer’s defense forces his opponents to eventually make errors. It may not succeed every time, but enough points have been stolen by the Swiss because of this element of his tennis. When I watch Federer play against Blake or Roddick, the unforced errors form the Americans are usually always at a high – it’s a direct correlation in my opinion.

As for the last line about Blake taking a major this year? Obviously, the Open is where he would do it if it were to happen. It seems unlikely that he could take out Roger, with a 0-7 lifetime record against him, but in a U.S. Open final – where everyone would be pulling for Blake – you really never know. I wouldn’t put a rematch out of the question, as long as they are on opposing sides of the draw.

One more note about Blake – in regards to his book. I finished it last week, so I wanted to do a small review:

Breaking Back is a story worth immersing yourself in even if just a casual reader; for tennis fans, it should be required reading. The crux of the work – James’ life-altering 2004 – is what the book is most remembered for, and deservedly so. His experiences are captured with painstaking detail, building a clear picture of these trying times for readers. The introduction and main body of the book, which focus on this portion of Blake’s life, are presented and captured vividly.

I do have one point of contention with the book – that being the final chapters. Many people who follow James remember the 2005 New Haven and 2005 U.S. Open tournaments as the absolute apex for Blake, after so much hardship in his life. But it appears to me that these parts of the story are rushed through, especially the U.S. Open. The Agassi match is broken down in very detailed fashion, but I thought that same thoroughness was missed in other key matches. The same goes for Blake’s tennis career post-2005. I understand that the focal point of the book is not the tennis, but the man, yet I wish that the resurgence of James – on the court – was discussed further.

Short of that comment, I am pleased with the read. I largely just heard of James’ perils in passing during tennis commentary, so it was worthwhile to read about what actually happened. After reading this, I feel even stronger about one thing – tennis itself. I’ve always had this feeling that tennis is much more than just a sport; it’s a way of life. Blake’s passion for the game embodies this feeling. Amidst this summer of discontent in sports (NBA refs, Michael Vick, etc.), it was gratifying to see that some athletes really do care about their sport, and what they put into the game is often given back to them. Along with his family and friends, tennis clearly helped James through his time of need. It’s helped me through tough times as well. If for no other reason that this personal connection, I strongly recommend Breaking Back, as I’m sure some of you feel the same way.

AMS Vegas

2007-08-17T22:14:00.000-04:00

I’m waiting for my flight back to New York to take off from Las Vegas, so I’ll make this quick:

- Looking back, it’s a good thing that casinos weren’t offering individual match bets for Cincinnati this week. So many highly ranked players were upset early on that the bracket resembles a mass gravesite more than anything else. Some of the early round exits included Andy Murray (who got slaughtered by Marcos Baghdatis 6-1, 6-2), Novak Djokovic (who, after his triumph in Canada, promptly fell to Carlos Moya in his first match), and Richard Gasquet (who retired with blister problems). In fact, on the left side of the draw, the only seeded player to advance to the third round was Roger Federer.

My intentions coming into this week in Vegas was to amass a fortune by focusing on some of the unheralded matches going on in Cincinnati – think first-rounders such as Moya/Nalbandian and Ginepri/Bjorkman. However, I know for a fact that I would have bet a fair amount on Gasquet, and surely mixed in some of the other top seeds as well. So, it turned out to be a blessing in disguise. I ended up winning $500 on the trip, but those profits would likely have been dimished if I bet on this week’s contests.

- I did get to catch some tennis in Vegas, as the casinos started showing the ESPN2 feeds on Wednesday and Thursday. Yesterday, I plopped down in a chair watching Federer/Baghdatis on a projection screen in a lounge inside a casino (I was the only one watching it, of course). Unfortunately, the quality of the match seemed to typify how the tournament was going for many of the ATP’s best this week – a struggle. Roger looked extremely mortal, spraying shots long and wide with great frequency. From my vantage point, it didn’t appear that Federer was picking up the ball with his normal honing abilites. Baghdatis looked equally as lost at times; he was simply atrocious at the net, simply giving away points to Roger at opportune times. To add to this problems, Marcos was also to convert on numerous break point chances during the first, and choked on his chance to serve out the set at 6-5. In set two, Federer also had a chance to serve out the match, but failed after getting behind 0-40. He made amends by serving out the match when he got his second chance, but overall, this was a rather ugly match to watch.

- I just finished James Blake’s autobiography, Breaking Back, which chronicles his tumultuous 2004. This year included a neck injury caused by running into a net post, the death of his beloved father, and a prolonged battle with zoster, which paralyzed half of his face. The book is a very worthwhile read on many levels – the majority of the text focuses on dealing with these hardships, but there are also a number of “inside” looks at the sport we all love. Break Point it isn’t (and it never tried to be), but it’s a much better read than that book anyways (that’s Vince Spadea’s bio, by the way).

After I completed the 250 page read, I coincedentally caught James’ match in Cincinnati with Juan Carlos Ferrero. I watched the Blake that I read about in the book – the powerful and reenergized 2005 version – after James routed Ferrero in the third round. The former Grand Slam champion was nearly shut out in the first set, and Blake ended it not long after in straights. This solid performance – which was against a resurgent Ferrero, of late – couldn’t come at a better time for James, since Cincinnati is the last big test before Flushing Meadows, the focal point of Blake’s year. With so many big names out of the Cincy draw, and with Roger Federer not yet back into sniping mode on hard courts, this could be the week that Blake gathers his first major tournament victory of his career. He’s reached the finals of Indian Wells and the Masters Cup, but actually getting a Masters Series shield would do even more for Blake, who has been halted in the quarterfinals of the previous two U.S. Opens.

Where the sand turns to gold

2007-08-15T13:17:00.000-04:00

Hundreds of miles and three time zones away from my home state of New York, I’m finally in Las Vegas, where the sand turns to gold. Forget the chance of riches – just getting out here is an achievement for me, being that the furthest I’ve ever been out west beforehand in the U.S. was Cleveland, Ohio.

Our plane actually touched down in Nevada on Monday, so I’ve gotten the chance to be acquainted with the lay of the land for the past two days. When it comes down to it, you really just end up seeing one thing here – light. The neon signage of the casinos that fills the night sky is primarily what I’m talking about, but in the daytime, I’m referring to the omnipresent sun. Afternoon temperatures are boiling at over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, so tourists scamper to the air-conditioned casinos as quickly as possible. Even at night, you can’t avoid the sweltering heat. So, even if you’re outside of the lights, you can never really escape it.

Las Vegas is an experience, that’s for sure. If you like to gamble, I would come here at all costs. It’s a paradise for those that crave poker, table games, and of course, slots. If you’re not one for putting your money on the line, I could go either way on whether Vegas is a worthwhile vacation spot for you. There is plenty to do, but honestly, you could go to New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, or other metropolitan cities and find much of the same. And you’d avoid the heat-stroke inducing weather.

As gambling is the primary reason that I’m here, my weeklong vacation has been a joy so far. I’m keeping my final tally disclosed until the end of the week – I don’t want to jinx it (or embarrass myself at the moment). One of the main things that I was looking forward towas betting on Cincinnati Masters matches. However, I quickly found out that to bet on Monday’s Marc Gicquel/Sam Querrey match, I’d need to be in Europe, or somewhere where tennis is far more appreciated. I was shocked to find out that the only tennis action going on in Vegas were futures bets for the U.S. Open, and nothing for this week’s matches in Cincy. My plans of daily betting and watching tennis were shattered, until I had an idea that only a long day at the poker table could inspire.

I am in Vegas with three friends of mine; two of which play fantasy football. Traditionally, a league of about seven of us always holds a live draft sometime in August, where we pick our teams for the upcoming season. This year, for the first time ever, it’s becoming incredibly problematic to find the time for this. With friends of mine getting married, having legitimate careers, and being located hundreds of miles away, the fantasy football draft might be just that – a fantasy. But I kept the draft in mind (the best part of the fantasy season), and thought that it might be a fun idea to draft U.S. Open futures bets; this way, my friend and I who intended to bet in Cincinnati could still get our fix in, and still duel for the Chipotle Challenge Cup (see last post).

The idea sounded a bit desperate at first, but I knew it was only a matter of time before excitement kicked in. Sure enough, in between heaping dinner plates at the MGM Grand Buffet, “Squeak” and I made our selections. Before I go into the picks, here are the rules we established:

- Each person picks five players.
- Each person has to pick at least one person from the ATP, and one from the WTA.
- $50 must be spent on wagers, and it can be spent in whatever fashion you decide.

The betting sheets for each casino have about 15-20 players listed for both the men and women. There’s also a “field” wager, in which you can bet on anyone from the remainder of the field winning. These generally paid around 15-1 odds. We flipped a coin to see who would pick first, and I won the toss.

One thing that I thought about heading into this draft was that unlike traditional fantasy drafts, “sexy” and “sleeper” picks don’t do as much for you in this format – after all, you only are paid if the player wins the U.S. Open. A dark horse advancing to the finals means the same as a qualifier getting smoked in the first round. Of course, these longer odds picks are really the only way that we can actually come out of this winning money, because we’re essentially giving away three of the five bets (because there is only one winner per side). Still, I didn’t want to discount the fact that the favourites are the favourites for a very good reason. Even if they have shorter odds, these picks are the likeliest of selections to mitigate your losses on the long shots. With that in mind, I wanted to diversify my pool: some sure things (at least in my opinion) mixed in with a few reaches.

So the first pick was mine, and I took Federer. His odds are -260, meaning that if you bet $260, you would win $100 (plus the original $260 you put in). I know that I’m not going to clean up in the wallet if Roger wins, but there isn’t anyone on either side of the draw that would inspire such confidence in becoming U.S. Open champion this year than Federer. He’s the only player with “minus” betting for the men or women, which outlines his dominance. Put simply, if I had to bet my life on someone winning the Open, who else would I put my money on?

Because I can’t win much on Roger, I probably won’t put much money on him - maybe just $5. But I definitely wanted the pick because he is the closest thing to a lock that there is from this list of players. He’s playing much better since the Tony Roche split, he played well in Canada after a long break, and he’s won the U.S. Open the last three years. Roger has won Wimbledon five straight times, all while wearing the customary white clothing. The last three U.S. Opens, Roger has donned blue in New York. He’ll do it again this year, although the design may be one of the weakest that I’ve ever seen from Nike. I anticipate the correlation of colour choice and victories to continue.

My competitor was up next, and with the two picks (we use a “snake” approach, for those of you who play fantasy sports) he took Nadal and Djokovic. Nadal was at +400 (4 to 1), and Djokovic was getting around 8-1 (+800) to win, so these aren’t bad picks from a financial perspective. I just don’t think betting against Federer is a smart idea. Squeak will have a post for you soon as well, which will explain his thought process behind his selections. For now, I was eager to try out the women’s side of the draw, which I feel is more wide open, and possibly lucrative.

For my next two picks, I chose Ana Ivanovic at 15 to 1, and settled on the women’s favourite, Justine Henin, at +160. Ivanovic, a winner last week on tour, has had a splendid year and is getting odds to win that could mean a big payday for some if she can breakthrough at this year’s Open. The Serbian duo of Ivanovic and Jelena Jankovic (more on her later) has been one of the more dominant themes of the women’s tour this year, and to me, it seems like it’s only a matter of time before one of them cashes in at a major, as they’ve been close before. Hopefully I will as well, as I’m thinking about putting a tenner on Ana.

Henin was selected for the same reasons as Federer, but as she is a “plus”, there is still money to be made on her. I could see putting down $20 on her, which at +160, would be a payout of $52 (my original $20 plus $32 of winnings). Henin, who in my mind is the favourite on the women’s side (nowhere near as clear as Roger, but I still think decidedly so) could win back my $50 (with $2 for a tip) if she can keep her focus in check and keep imposing her dominant backhand on her competition.

After some snacking on Mongolian beef, lobster & ricotta ravioli, and various other buffet goods, Derrick opted to go with Andy Roddick (to hold all of the non-Roger men’s favourites) and Maria Sharapova. Roddick was at 10-1 on some boards, and Maria came in at +500. They are both decent picks for the money; I was definitely considering Sharapova.

My final two picks were next. I wanted to have one real long shot on the men’s side, because after the big four, the remainder of the men pays out extremely well. The next highest “favourite” on the list was Andy Murray at 25 to 1, and not too far after that, the odds become even longer for some very established players. I saw Fernando Gonzalez at 30 to 1, Lleyton Hewitt at 40 to 1, and Tomas Berdych at 75 to 1. I thought about Berdych, but ultimately decided that if an upset of grand proportions could occur at the U.S. Open, it would be for an American. He’s had a dismal year so far, but if anyone could be inspired by the crowds in Flushing Meadows, it’s James Blake, who I will bet $5 on at 30 to 1. By the way, I urge you all to get James’ book, titled Breaking Back, which is co-authored by Andrew Friedman, a very nice fellow that I’ve met before. The story is a very inspiring read, and you’ll fly through it if you’re any kind of tennis fan. Kudos to both of you.

With Jelena Jankovic still on the board at 10 to 1, I leaned towards her as the smartest pick left. The Williams sisters were available, but neither was paying what I felt their true odds were to win (Venus at 8 to 1, Serena at around 3 to 1). Plus, I already had my womne’s favourite, Henin, in my stable. Therefore, I opted to have both of the Serb sensations, and took Jankovic with my final selection. I’m hoping that the women’s field plays out as it usually does – a crapshoot – and one of these two emerges victorious.

Squeak took Serena as his final pick after some deliberation (he thought about Anna Chakvetadze at 20 to 1, which I think would have been a fine choice as well), and then we were off to the desert section of the grandiose buffet. It was a fine meal and a fine draft. And I bet we were the only people to ever do it in the history of Las Vegas.

P.S. I’m of course putting some money on Richard Gasquet, outside of this competition. He’s at 40 to 1 on some boards…hmm, what’s fifteen times forty…

Welcome to the club

2007-08-14T14:51:00.000-04:00

*Editor's note: There have been a few technical and tennis-related issues in Las Vegas - nothing bad, so don't worry. A full report will come tomorrow. For now, this post focuses on Montreal and the performance of Novak Djokovic, which I haven't had a chance to write on yet:

Novak Djokovic’s win in Montreal this past weekend confirmed many things. The first thing it confirmed was that he is undeniably the world’s third best player. Even if the rankings imply that Andy Roddick or Nikolay Davydenko are within shouting distance of Djokovic, that should be taken with a grain of salt. Just as Roger Federer is the world’s number one by a country mile, with the same applying to Rafael Nadal as second-in-command, Novak is clearly the third best player in the world by a similarly wide margin, further distancing himself from his competition with each passing tournament.

The victory also confirmed what many of us already suspected - that Djokovic’s stellar play earlier in the year at Indian Wells and Miami was no fluke. Hard courts are Djokovic’s preferred surface by his own admission, but to pick up right where he left off back in the spring is what impresses me the most. Not many players can afford to take the extended post-Wimbledon breaks and resume their dominance. Federer is the classic example, and now you can throw Djokovic into that conversation as well.

To fully appreciate Novak’s game, his overall play throughout the year needs to be viewed – not just this past week when he ousted the top three seeds in succession in Canada. After Djokovic’s triumph in Miami, he continued to play elite-level tennis in the biggest tournaments of the year. He was a semifinalist at both Roland Garros and Wimbledon, a fact often overlooked due to the similar dual-surface achievements of Federer and Nadal. Djokovic hasn’t made the ultimate breakthrough just yet – winning a Grand Slam – but it only appears to be a matter of time based on the kind of year he’s having.

The steely nature of Djokovic – one of his best qualities as a tennis player – was often on display this week. A pair of 7-2 victories in the first and third set tiebreakers against Federer proved that no moment was too pressure-packed for the Serbian to handle. Djokovic goes for his shots with an uncanny frequency, and has the confidence that they all will fall in. His semifinal against Nadal may have showed this even more so than his final against Roger.

From the start of the Nadal match, the pair of European stars exchanged groundstrokes that led to some highlight-reel replays. But Djokovic’s most important trait was his belief – he didn’t just play with Nadal, but played above him. Rafa, who has become the epitome of willing oneself to victory, couldn’t match the intensity that Djokovic had on the day. It’s one of the few times I’ve really seen Nadal, for lack of a better word, tuned out. After two sets, the Spaniard packed his bag and headed for the locker room without much spark. It was a very unfamiliar sight to see.

Djokovic’s win over Federer was the first of his career, and they will certainly battle again on big stages. But Novak’s match against Nadal was more intriguing to me, because I sense that there is another great rivalry waiting to bloom. Djokovic has won the last two matches on hard courts [Ed. note - thank you "More Axe" for pointing this out in the comments.] against Nadal, after Rafa took their first few contests. While Federer and Nadal has become this generation’s Sampras/Agassi or Borg/McEnroe, Nadal/Djokovic has the potential to be the rivalry built for the longer haul. After all, Federer just turned 26, while both Novak and Rafa have just entered their 20’s.

In addition, Federer and Nadal will be almost always pitted against each other in a final, as they have been ranked #1 and #2 since I can remember. That’s not the case for Djokovic and Nadal, who can still be paired on the same side of Masters Series and/or Grand Slam draws, leading to more meetings between the two.

There is a tier system in men’s tennis, and whether you view Rafael Nadal in the same company as Roger Federer (I think you should, to a certain degree), it’s now my belief that the most upper echelon of players now has three card-carrying members, and the newest one of these is Novak Djokovic.

Happy days

2007-08-11T17:06:00.000-04:00

It’s been a happy time for many people that I know recently. For the past few days, I’ve been taking part in various wedding-related activities for one of my best friends, John, and his new bride, Kristen. The wedding was yesterday, and the rehearsal was the day before, so I’ve had to catch up on a lot of tennis material sans the television. More on that in a bit – but in the meantime, here’s a newlywed shot (of two fellow graduates from THE State University of New York College at Geneseo):

I’m also pretty happy, because that wedding officially kicked off “The August and September to Remember”, a self-titled orgy of vacation/tennis that will conclude with the U.S. Open. It’s just like the U.S. Open Series, except that my west coast swing starts on Monday when I depart for Las Vegas. I posted here earlier that a friend of mine, who will go by the handle of “Squeak”, is competing against me in a battle of tennis wagering. (It wasn’t us that made those $7 million wagers on the Davydenko match in Sopot – I swear.)

Anyways, we finally set some ground rules. The bankroll will be $100 a man, and basically, you can do what you want from there. There aren’t limits to the number of matches we bet on per day, or a cap on the size of the bet. From Monday to Thursday, we’ll be handicapping various matches in Cincinnati, and whoever has the most money (or any remaining) by the end of it wins the first annual Chipotle Challenge Cup. The reason for that name is because the winner, in addition to hopefully having won some money, will also be getting a complementary meal from Chipotle, a Mexican eatery found in major U.S. cities. Check back in next week where you can expect numerous posts regarding this idiocy.

There’s one more person who has been very happy. Unfortunately, I don’t know him, but I can sure tell that he’s been beaming of late. It’s Frank Dancevic, the Canadian who advanced to the quarterfinals of Montreal, his “home” event. I use quotes because Dancevic is not from Quebec, rather, he’s from Niagara Falls – a ways away from the host province – and which is extremely close to the United States. But that didn’t deter the French-Canadian crowd from praising Dancevic for his tremendous efforts during the week. He beat Juan Martin del Potro in the opening round, and then Wayne Odesnik in round two. After the Odesnik match, I had a sense that something special was going on.

Even with this inspiring and patriotic run in the background, I couldn’t have predicted Dancevic’s impressive win over Fernando Verdasco in round three. But Dancevic made it so, becoming the first Canadian since 1989 to reach the quarterfinals of the Canadian Open. Then, he takes the first set off of Rafael Nadal; ultimately losing a very competitive match in the end. I’m very happy (again) for Dancevic. There’s a special connection that I have to Canada, and it’s really endearing for me to see a player in the lower ranks of the ATP Tour having an otherworldly performance at his nation’s most prestigious tournament.

This is also an appealing story for me after reading some history on Dancevic and his experiences on tour. There has been much written in the Canadian press this week, but this article is the one you should read. The piece gives you an interesting look at the sometimes unglamorous life of Canada’s number one tennis professional. However, after this summer, a more lucrative future appears to be on the horizon for Frank.

My list of “must see players” at the U.S. Open has previously included Fabrice Santoro, James Blake, and Marcos Baghdatis. After Dancevic’s play at Indianapolis and Montreal, he’s made his way onto this list.

Don't forget

2007-08-08T00:25:00.001-04:00

Andy Murray has finally returned to the ATP tour. He’s been injured since Hamburg, and since then, it’s been a week-by-week injury report, with last-minute withdrawals being commonplace. The great British hope and former top-10 talent will be back in time for his self-proclaimed “favourite Grand Slam”, the U.S. Open – and not a moment too soon, being that it’s later this month.

Murray’s comeback may have actually overshadowed something else of note – and it doesn’t even have to do with him. There’s another player coming back on the courts this week after a long hiatus of his own. Think Hamburg was a while ago? Now think back to Marseille, back in early February – that was the last time we saw Mario Ancic playing.

The towering Croat has largely been forgotten by many, with most of the “injured list” talk centering on Murray. Ancic’s ranking – which was at number nine when he became afflicted with mononucleosis – has now plummeted to number 38, which is well off the mainstream tennis radar. In addition, the more “trendy” (and I do use that term loosely) Murray contrasts with Ancic, who despite being only 23, is already a well-established, quasi-veteran on tour.

Mario played his return match on Tuesday night against Frederic Niemeyer, a Canadian who was granted a wild card exemption into Montreal. Amazingly, there wasn’t a hint of rust in Ancic’s game, as he got through the hometown favorite with ease, 6-4, 6-2. Forget the fact that Niemeyer isn’t a top 15 player – or even Frank Dancevic – Ancic won 92% of his first serve points, and 81% of his second serve points. These are truly astounding numbers no matter who the opponent is, and especially for someone who’s barely played at all this year.

Ancic built up his ranking from the top 20 to top 10 since the beginning of 2006 with extremely consistent results throughout the year, especially at Masters Series events. However, he’s never won one. Accomplishing that feat in Canada may be a tall order – but later in the year at Madrid or Paris? I could see that, especially considering that all of Ancic’s seven titles have come on grass or carpet tournaments.

One last note about Ancic – his best performance at the U.S Open has been a round two berth in 2005. From 2002-2004, he was a first round casualty each year. Ancic would best be served to continue what he was doing before his prolonged absence, as his game and ranking prospered. Just scrap the poor play at Flushing Meadows.

Isn't it strange

2007-08-05T22:23:00.000-04:00

I thought for sure that I was going to wait until Montreal to start posting again, but that was before I saw the John Isner show unfold in Washington, D.C. While he didn’t win the title (Andy Roddick won his third Legg Mason crown by a 6-4, 7-6 score), this was truly one of the most impressive tennis performances that I’ve seen this year.

For those of you that don’t know Isner or weren’t following this week, here’s the scoop: Isner is a recent graduate from the University of Georgia, where he achieved collegiate fame by playing a large (6 foot 9 inch) role in leading the Bulldogs to a NCAA team title. He’s been playing Futures and Challengers events recently, and had success in them this year – winning one of each. He played in his first ATP Tour level match a few weeks ago in Newport, losing to Dick Norman 6-7, 3-6.

This past week, Isner received a wild card into the Legg Mason tournament. Quickly, he made the tournament director look like a very smart man by beating Tim Henman in three sets. In this match, Isner used his cannon serve (which exceeded 140 mph at times) to keep him within striking distance, and ultimately finished the veteran off in a third set tiebreaker. Isner then went on to win four more matches against some stiff competition (including Benjamin Becker, Tommy Haas, and Gael Monfils) using essentially the same formula. Check out these numbers for the proof:

- Isner won each of his first five matches in a third set tiebreaker.
- At one point, Isner had a streak of 43 service game without even facing a break point.

These are mind-blowing service statistics, which begs the question – how did he not do well on the grass of Newport?

Isner may have felt the pressure during that maiden voyage onto the ATP Tour, but he didn’t appear to feel any of it this week. Nowhere was this more evident than during his semifinal against Gael Monfils, which entertained the Washington crowd well into the night. Monfils wasn’t at all intimidated by Inser’s serving assaults – in fact, the Frenchman gave it right back to him, firing darts of his own. Monfils’ actually hit four straight aces during his first service game

From then on, the match became a test to see who would blink first. This would only occur in the tiebreakers, since there were – as you might expect – no breaks of serve in the first two sets. Monfils won the first set’s decisive thirteenth game, and Isner took the second set’s overtime. In the third set, Monfils, sliding on the hard courts like he was on Parisian clay, managed to break Isner at 5-5, giving him the chance to serve out the match. The ecstatic Monfils erupted to the crowd in joy, but may have gotten caught up in the moment, as his service thereafter was a shadow of what it once was. Double-faulting twice, Isner got the break back, and in the third set tiebreaker, Isner used the momentum to his advantage to seal the match.

There is more to Isner’s game than just the serve. He volleys very well, and his two-handed backhand has impressive precision and pace. In the final set’s tiebreaker, a clean, down-the-line winner caught Monfils off-guard and brought the crowd to its feet.

Isner’s fairytale run ended on Sunday, when Andy Roddick simply outclassed him to notch yet another title on his resume. But without question, this week was all about John Isner, who will remember this for the rest of his life. If you missed Isner, you can see him in Cincinnati, where he was quickly offered a wild card into the Masters Series event. He’ll be a first-round opponent that no one will want to see.



To print this page, select "Print" from your browser's File menu.

Why is Grandstand So Grand?
By Ed McGrogan
*Friday, August 29, 2008*