Bleacher Report - Articles by Rob York

Novak Djokovic: 2010 Starts Now

Rob York — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:01:53 -0500

How will Novak Djokovic look back on 2009?

As things stand now, it would seem a letdown from the prior year, when he captured his first major title at the 2008 Australian Open, then threw in a couple of Master’s Shields and the year ending Master’s Cup for good measure.

In contrast with last year—and even with 2007, when he was clearly on the rise—Djokovic’s 2009 campaign bore the marks of a highly gifted young man unsure of where he belonged in the world of tennis. The Serbian, who turned 22 in May, has endured varying degrees of disappointment at this year’s majors.

His title defense in Melbourne was derailed when he withdrew due to heat exhaustion. A heartbreaking loss to Rafael Nadal in Madrid contributed to a flat third-round exit from Paris. While regaining his form at Wimbledon, he was surprised by the resurgence of Tommy Haas. Even when his play (and fun-loving demeanor ) had returned, it wasn’t quite enough against Roger Federer in New York.

What’s more, the solid play of fellow 22-year-old Andy Murray and the stunning rise of now 21-year-old Juan Martin del Potro made it clear that the Serb was no longer the best of the young guns in tennis.

But as Djokovic’s winning ways began being spoken of in past tense, the fall indoor season shows that he has not stopped believing in his own talent. While he is not quite the cerebral tactician that Murray is, and while he may not have a single shot as brutally effective as del Potro’s forehand, Djokovic is still arguably a better athlete than either. And this year he’s doing what some of us advised him last year: Take advantage of the fall, when your competition has been beaten down by the rigors of the tour.

The Serbian has now won three of his last four events: Beating up-and-comer Marin Cilic in Beijing, stunning hometown favorite Roger Federer in Basel, and now winning his first Master’s Shield of the year in Paris. If not for one torrid third-set tiebreak against Nikolay Davydenko in Shanghai, Nole might have made it four-for-four.

To have upset the world No. 1 in Basel’s final was impressive, but Paris may prove his loudest statement yet. After improving to 5-0 against Robin Soderling in the quarters, he handed world No. 2 Rafael Nadal a one-sided 6-2, 6-3 beating in the semis. The Spaniard still seems to be laboring in search of his best play, and the speed of Paris’ indoor courts definitely favors Djokovic’s game.

That said, there was more than a favorable surface separating the two this weekend: At one stretch, the Serbian won seven games in a row against Nadal.

In the finals, he faced a native son for the second straight week, this time world No. 16 Gael Monfils, for whom “Mercurial” would be a fitting middle name.

But Djokovic, to borrow parlance from American team sports, remains perfect on the road, having proven more consistent than Monfils in the third set finale. After falling short in four Master’s Series finals this year, Djokovic’s satisfaction with this win was palpable.

Having produced a scintillating series of results this fall, the Serb can now travel down two paths: one is David’s way, the other is Marat’s.

In 2004, Marat Safin won both the Madrid and Paris Master’s shields, a feat duplicated by David Nalbandian in 2007. Both men had known sporadic results in the year leading up to those victories, which had the unintended benefit of leaving them fit when their competitors were breaking down at the end of the season, and both had games that translated well to the indoor courts.

Safin is rarely spoken of as a good example in terms of capitalizing on one’s opportunities, but at the Australian Open in 2005 he took that momentum and put it to use, winning his second major title.

In Nalbandian’s case, the 2008 AO was a disaster, as he folded early and meekly in the third round.

Djokovic will probably conform to neither pattern exactly; he’s a very different player than both the Russian and Argentine, and has a very different temperament. If he’s looking for examples, though, Safin’s would certainly be the better route. 2009 may not have been the best year of the young Serbian’s career, but if he wins a major in 2010—and anything short of that will be a disappointmen—this year will be remembered as the time young Djokovic retooled and renewed his play.

For Djokovic, the 2010 season has already begun.

The Greatest Competitors in Men's Tennis History

Rob York — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:46:24 -0500

Talent is the beginning, not the end. There are so many other traits that a tennis player must have to be a champion. Fitness is crucial, as is willingness to prioritize the game above other interests. But nothing stretches talent and maximizes it quite like mental strength. When most modern tennis fans think of mental toughness and competitive fire, they think of either Jimmy Connors or Rafael Nadal (pictured), it probably comes as no surprise that both of them make my list of the top five. The only question is where, and whether anyone tops them.

Begin Slideshow

How Andre Agassi Should Respond to His Critics

Rob York — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:40:29 -0500

What Martina Navratilova said: "Shocking. Not as much shock that he did it as shock he lied about it and didn't own up to it. He's up there with Roger Clemens, as far as I'm concerned. He owned up to it, but it doesn't help now."

"Andre lied and got away with it. You can't correct that now. Do you take away a title he wouldn't have won if he had been suspended? He beat some people when he should have been suspended."

How Agassi should respond: Apparently, when you win enough majors, you feel you have the right to pass judgment on anyone who has won less. Sadly, Martina, your memory isn’t as good as your Grand Slam record: I didn’t win any titles while I was using meth, and only won a total of 12 matches in 13 tour events.

But I have to credit you for your analogies: The Clemens comparison is really, really original and not knee-jerk at all. Really. It’s appropriate, too, as long as you forget the fact that Clemens is said to have taken a drug that actually helps performance, as opposed to one that ravages people physically.

And the fact that Clemens never admitted to using it. And the fact that Clemens hasn’t done a fraction of the things off-court that I have to help his sport.

Other than those things, though, it’s right on.

What Rafael Nadal said: "To me it seems terrible. Why is he saying this now that he has retired? It's a way of damaging the sport that makes no sense. I believe our sport is clean and I am the first one that wants that. Cheaters must be punished and if Agassi was a cheater during his career he should have been punished."

How Agassi should respond: Yeah, I should have been punished, but that’s on the ATP and not me. In the long run, what I’ve said here will help the sport because I’ve revealed the laxity and the double-standard that once existed in the game’s policing of substance abuse.

I understand that in your position, Rafa; you want the game you love to be a clean one. Your reaction, though, is similar to a press secretary for an embattled politician who’s blaming the media for reporting where his boss does his fund-raising.

What Roger Federer said: "It was a shock when I heard the news. I am disappointed and I hope there are no more such cases in future. ...Our sport must stay clean."

How Agassi should respond: Though similar to Rafa’s statement at first glance, there’s not much that’s judgmental or puritanical here. Frankly, there’s nothing for me to disagree with; as a former meth user, I feel as strongly as anyone that there shouldn’t be any cases in which players use it, much less get away with it.

What Andy Roddick said: "Andre is and always will be my idol. I will judge him on how he has treated me and how he has changed the world for better. To be fair, when Andre wrote the reported letter, he was well outside the top 100 and widely viewed as on the way out."

How Agassi should respond: Even if he isn’t the most cerebral guy on tour, he’s definitely one of the wisest.

What Andy Murray said: "I loved Andre, met him numerous times, and he was unbelievably nice to me. I practised with him a lot. I guess it's something he has to deal with himself. He's entitled to say whatever he wants, and I wish him the best."

How Agassi should respond: Andy, you’re not just really thoughtful on the court.

What Boris Becker said: "He is only doing harm to tennis. I am asking myself 'why is he making this confession?' "You could forget about it if he had had too many beers or smoked a joint. But we are talking about one of the worst drugs: crystal meth is a synthetic stimulant and one of the most dangerous drugs.

"I feel disappointed as an athlete. He has won many Grand Slams, some of them against me. If he won those because he was on speed it's simply unfair,"

How Agassi should respond: Actually, Boris, all the news reports were pretty clear that I only took meth for a year, and when you look at that year it obviously didn’t help my success. And while you’re apparently bewildered as to why I’m making this confession, it pretty clear you haven’t given it much in the way of deep thought. I’d encourage you to do so, but wouldn’t want to give you a migraine.

I do have to wonder where does a guy who fathers a child out of wedlock in a stairwell get the ‘nads to condemn another guy’s personal life, though.

What John Inverdale said: “You say it wasn't easy being so 'candid; and 'brutally honest.' It will hopefully be extremely easy for all of us to leave your book where it belongs. Lying unwanted on the shelf.”

How Agassi should respond: John Inver-who?

In the Zone with Pete Sampras, Part Two

Rob York — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:54:53 -0500

After Pete Sampras spent most of 1995 chasing Andre Agassi in the rankings, then defeated him in the final of the US Open, Tennis magazine wrote that Sampras “never again needs to prove how good he is.”

If only that were true. Up to his retirement, Sampras never had to stop proving himself.

To begin with, he fell short in the first three slams of 1996 and had to win the last to maintain his No. 1 ranking. He also struggled in the first half of 1998, and went into Wimbledon playing like the world’s “10th-best” player, according to nemesis Richard Krajicek.

And going into the 1999 Wimbledon tournament, he was once again at risk of being overshadowed by Agassi, who had just capped a career Grand Slam by winning Roland Garros: Sampras had won only one title for the year, and it had come just two weeks prior at Queen’s Club.

Not that it mattered: Pete Sampras believed in Pete Sampras in each of the previous occasions and was vindicated. Going into Wimbledon 1999, it was only matter of time before he brought everyone else around.

His first convert would be Agassi: Following his recovery from the career low of 1997 (which, we recently learned, was a lot lower than we’d suspected), Double-A was not only in the shape of his life but was now more confident than ever.

The serve was never his go-to shot, but he had long used it to set up his peerless ballstriking and allow him to work his opponents’ legs over.

Following his Paris triumph, Agassi was so confident in his fitness and movement that he began using his first serve as a weapon, assured that he could win plenty of second serves with his quick feet and hands.

As the game’s best pure hitter and returner began serving with authority, he plowed through the Wimbledon draw, losing only two sets along the way, and crushing No. 2 seed Patrick Rafter in the semis.

His game was good enough to stay with anyone, including the best grass-court player of his generation on the Centre Court lawns.

For about six games, anyway. Serving at 3-3 in the seventh game, Sampras found himself down 0-40 against his greatest rival, with one more lost point putting him down a break on the surface least forgiving of service games that slip away.

Still, Pete Sampras believed in Pete Sampras: Agassi may have been the best returner in the game, but Sampras had the best serve, and the server controls where the point’s first shot is going.

He didn’t have to hit aces: First serves that land on lines or in corners while traveling in the neighborhood of 120 mph are usually enough to ensure the ball won’t be coming back.

With four overhead swings of his Wilson, The Pistol erased Agassi’s break-point chances and gave himself a game point. In takes no stretch of the imagination to see those serves caused Double-A’s missed return on the game’s last point.

From then on, Sampras not only believed, but knew: What his serve started, his running forehand (particularly against Agassi’s wide serve in the deuce court) carried the rest of the way.

The sudden uptake in pace deprived Double-A of adequate time to set up, and soon Sampras was up a break and every shot in his considerable repertoire was on target.

Agassi had seen Sampras in The Zone before: In the 1990 US Open final Agassi was encumbered by expectations for his first major, while Sampras was a bony kid with an explosive serve, too inexperienced to know that he was supposed to lose.

In 1995, they met at the same venue as the world’s No. 1 and No. 2 players, with Agassi bringing his A-game and Sampras his A-plus.

Impressive as those displays were, Sampras had taken his smothering net game to another level by 1999, and the slick sheen of grass clearly favored him.

When he broke Agassi to start the second set, viewers went from wondering who would win to wondering if Agassi would survive the day with his ego intact.

But Double-A responded to the barrage by amping up his second serves from the high-80s to low-90s, then punctuating each groundstroke with a grunt to add a touch more velocity.

His first serve percentage dipped into the 40s and his double fault count increased to six, but for a time it worked: He held his serve throughout the rest of the second set and well into the third.

He just couldn’t break The Pistol. Sampras faced only one more break-point that afternoon, which he promptly denied.

He put exactly two-thirds of his first serves into play, winning 89 percent of them. He hit 16 aces, and didn’t once have to pull out the patented slam-dunk overhead.

Striking out against the Sampras serve and under pressure from his deep returns, Agassi held it together until the 11th game of the third set. Down 15-40, he saved one break-point with a first serve, deep approach shot to the backhand, and a put-away volley.

On the next point, as The Pistol repeatedly floated back a series of deep slice backhands, Agassi tried for a winner too low over the net and found the tape.

All that remained for Sampras now was to serve out the match, which he did, culminating in a second-serve ace down the T. He had never stopped believing in Pete Sampras; still, the roar he released after match-point indicated that making everyone else believe is a feeling that only grows more satisfying as the years pass.

"Andre brings out the best in me," Sampras said later. “He elevates my game to a level that is phenomenal."

Asked how many times Sampras could win the Wimbledon championships, Agassi said: “As many times as he wants.”

That win gave him his 12th major title, tying Roy Emerson’s record. He wanted one more to break it, and got it the following year despite an injured shin. After that came marriage and family, along with the accumulated injuries of age that make victory less consistent.

But when everyone else had stopped expecting much of him, his own expectations carried him to one last major at the 2002 US Open. Having justified his self-belief he left the game, never again needing to prove how good he was.

For the previous installment, In The Zone with Pete Sampras Part 1, click here.

Tennis: As We Bid Adieu to Marat Safin (Pt Two)

Rob York — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:55:05 -0400

It's not every week that a two-time slam winner and major personality retires, so to mark the occasion of Marat Safin's departure, Long John Silver and I look back at his career. I cover his game, while Long looks at the non-stop show that was his personality.

A great all-court player, such as John McEnroe or Roger Federer , fills fans and even opponents with awe.

A great power baseliner can have the same effect, but once the jaw-dropping subsides, the self-aware nodding begins. Offensive-minded players who used their groundstrokes as their primary weapons are almost as old as the game itself, and the new generation of power baseliners always seems a logical progression in retrospect.

Now, when watching Jimmy Connors crush Ken Rosewall in the 1974 finals of both Wimbledon and the US Open, it’s hard to imagine a time when players didn’t use their returns of serve that aggressively.

Watching Ivan Lendl work his opponents’ legs over with his heavy shots—just as Jim Courier and Andre Agassi would in subsequent decades—it’s simply logical that the game’s hardest hitter, if he were also its fittest competitor, could win most matches just by wearing the other guy out.

Likewise, in the late-‘90s many of us watched the game’s tallest players, such as Goran Ivanisevic and Mark Philippoussis, and compared them to athletes of that height in the NBA and NFL. In that era, a 6’4” tennis player was generally considered a lumbering ace-monger who was lost without his serve.

However, at around the same time, 6’4” Daunte Culpepper was drafted into the NFL, and speed was said to be one of his greatest assets. Why, we wondered, couldn’t the same be true of a tennis player?

Marat Safin was tennis’ manifestation of this idea. Virtually the same height as Culpepper, his relaxed, fluid service motion regularly produced aces and 135 mph service winners. Unlike other players of his height, court coverage was no weakness for him, and he had much the same immaculate ball-striking ability that Agassi and Connors did.

In the late-‘90s, it seemed logical that he’d win majors one day.

But for him to do so in straight sets against Pete Sampras in the 2000 US Open was stunning: His ability to win free points with the serve had been seen before, but for him to hit return winners off of 120-mph deliveries and drill bull’s-eye passing shots while on the full stretch was unprecedented. It was like watching a field full of four-legged animals, then suddenly seeing one stand on its hind legs and flash a “thumbs up”; there was a sense that the game had forever changed, and that Safin was a species of his own.

Safin broke the game’s most dominant server four times that day—three times in a row at one stretch. If you’d asked most witnesses that evening whether Safin could beat most opponents just by showing up, my guess is most would’ve agreed.

But that isn’t possible in modern sports; if it were Safin surely would’ve been the player to pull it off. For most of the past decade, the big Russian not only showed up, but was sufficiently displeased with a number of losing efforts to shatter more Head rackets than most players will ever own.

But while Safin enjoyed winning matches and even—once in a while—big tournaments, he was made of a different fabric than the great baseliners listed above. Losses seemed to rankle Connors for months, if not years; Safin lost the 2002 Australian Open final to a lesser baseliner, then shrugged and cashed his runner’s up check.

Safin stayed fit throughout his career, but Lendl and Courier planned their entire years around tennis events, always making sure they were in the best shape to perform at the year’s big events. The Russian, however, showed up for an AO tune-up this year with two black eyes suffered in a hometown fist-fight.

Agassi, much like Safin, allowed stardom to distract from his prime tennis years, but had a late-20s revelation that culminated in one of tennis’ most amazing comebacks. Safin had his late-career moments, particularly in his run to the 2008 Wimbledon semis, but didn’t build upon them.

Now that all the majors of this decade have been played, Federer goes down as this era’s great all-courter. To the surprise of many who saw Safin crush Sampras nine years ago, he does not enter the history books as the great power-baseliner of this era; that honor goes to Rafael Nadal.

(Nadal, by the way, is also a logical extension of a past player, having taken all the fitness, tenacity, and clay-court comfort of Thomas Muster and putting it in the body of a much-superior athlete.

Like Muster, Nadal is great on clay and has won on other surfaces; it’s just that his greatness on clay is thus far equivalent to four times as many Roland Garros titles, and while Muster won a pair of non-clay Masters shields, Nadal has won a pair of non-clay slams.)

In an ever-evolving game, Safin had the potential to join the hard-hitting triumvirate of Connors-Lendl-Agassi. I still think someone 6’4” or greater will do that (a certain Argentinian shows promise) but it won’t be the big Russian. Safin announced at the start of this year that he was done at the end of 2009, and subsequent interviews indicate that his desire to leave has only grown in intensity.

His inconsistency maddened the lovers of his strokes, but for those who loved his antics and his personality (see Long John Silver’s piece for more on that), Safin never disappointed. Perhaps if he’d committed himself fully to tennis, Marat wouldn’t have really been Marat.

And thanks to the joy that is YouTube, Safin’s best tennis will never truly be lost to us. So, as his career comes to an end, we thank him for the memories he did provide, and wish him well with his next set of endeavors (whenever he decides what that is).

Andy Roddick's Vicious Coaching Cycle

Rob York — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:24:22 -0400

Andy Roddick is well-known for his coaching choices, as he has worked with some of the biggest names in tennis since 2003 and, in the process, won more than a few of the game’s biggest titles. But as any fan of five-time New York Yankees’ manager Billy Martin could tell you, the downside of coaching a high-ranking prospect is the expectations that go with it. When those expectations aren’t met, your reputation may only be as good as your latest set of results. By that standard, Roddick’s current coach Larry Stefanki may be back on the job market soon.

Begin Slideshow

What the Shanghai Masters Means for …

Rob York — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 08:12:25 -0400

Nikolay Davydenko

Though injury kept him out of action until May this year, it would appear that there was a hidden blessing in this forced break: With so much of the rest of the tour breaking down due to injury, the Russian is left to romp in the latter months of the year.

What’s more, Davydenko’s game is ideally built for facing a player like Rafael Nadal, especially on a quick indoor surface: Nadal, with his elaborate forehand backswing and a serve that wins few free points, can be put on the defensive more easily by Davydenko, whose strokes are relatively compact and who hits the ball as cleanly as anyone in our post-Agassi landscape.

Davydenko has now beaten Nadal in three of their four off-clay meetings (and very nearly topped the Spaniard in the 2007 Rome semis when Nadal was at the peak of his clay court dominance). He also put the clamps on the eighth qualifying slot for the London Masters Cup, and it’s hard to see Fernando Verdasco, Gilles Simon or anyone else overtaking him on these surfaces.

All of which comes as bad news for fans who like players with big personalities or varied games, but great for lovers of pure ball-striking.

Rafael Nadal

Perhaps it was a case of cosmic justice that the Spaniard, whose injuries are more freely discussed than any other player’s on the ATP Tour, would have both Ivan Ljubicic and Feliciano Lopez give up against him in the lead up to the Shanghai final. Both of these players have the kinds of games that could blast Nadal off a fast court, but their departures left him relatively fresh for his final encounter with Davydenko.

And the long march back to the top of the game continues for the world No. 2, who hasn’t won a title since late-April. He continues to lay the seeds for eventual triumph, but don’t look for it before the end of this year.

Novak Djokovic

With its third-set tiebreak and equal number of breaks for both players, the semi between Davydenko and the Serb would have made a crowd-pleasing final. Afterwards, Djokovic was positive, saying that he had played a great match against the undersized Russian, but there must be a real sense of disappointment.

Djokovic had a real chance to win his second title in as many weeks, thus building his momentum at time when most of his major rivals are hurt or struggling. And, in a match that was virtually even in terms of shots, the Djoker was routed in the match’s eight most critical points.

Winning at the game’s highest stages means playing the best on the most important junctures of a match, and this was not a step in the right direction.

Gilles Simon

The match the Frenchman played against Djoker was a fine one, but the loss there drastically reduces his chances of return to the Master’s Cup. Better luck next year, Gilles.

The ATP Tour

Nadal and the recently injured Andy Roddick are slamming the tour schedule. In truth, with Roger Federer, Andy Murray and Juan Martin del Potro out, as well as Roddick, Ljubicic, Lopez and Gael Monfils (miss anyone?) falling along the wayside, such statements should hardly be necessary.

The value of tennis’ finest product, its players, is being mismanaged, and it may take a more organized approach from them to address the problem.

In The Zone With Andre Agassi

Rob York — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:08:11 -0400

Agassi’s balls look more like (Bjorn) Borg’s balls would have looked if Borg had been on a yearlong regimen of both steroids and methamphetamines and was hitting every single f***ing ball just as hard as he could. Agassi hits his ground strokes as hard as anybody who’s ever played tennis – so hard you almost can’t believe it in person. -David Foster Wallace, “The String Theory”

Anyone who has read the essay from which that quote originated knows that Wallace was not a fan of Andre Agassi.

He loathed his wardrobe, his personality, and even his game, which he compared to a film of the Soviet Russian army subduing dissidents in an Eastern European satellite.

In fact, when grouped with what he said in “Roger Federer as Religious Experience” regarding Rafael Nadal (“unsleeved biceps and Kabuki self-exhortations,” anyone?) it was clear Wallace didn’t have a high regard for power baseliners in general.

He recognized talent in the native Las Vegan, though. Even those who loathed the long hair and flashy clothes of his early years, or the pirate rag of his mid-'90s resurgence all noticed his innate feel for the game: He took the ball earlier and hit with more consistent pace than anyone ever had, and returned serve even better than Jimmy Connors, whose returns revolutionized tennis in the ‘70s.

These attributes, combined with his…unconventional fashion sense drew numerous new observers to the game, but concerned many a tennis purist (like Wallace) that their refined, cultured game was under siege from a hard-hitting Hun in Nikes.

They were saved from seeing him in the winner’s circle too often, however, firstly by his own suspect discipline and secondly by the competition he faced: First in 1990 and then in ‘95, he reached the final of the US Open, only to meet the purists’ standard bearer in Pete Sampras, the most complete player of his generation.

In both cases, the defeats he suffered stole his momentum and, particularly in ’95, were so discouraging as to exacerbate his dedication deficiency.

Though it took longer to reach fulfillment than his supporters would’ve liked, Agassi’s undeniable ball-striking ability remained, ready for the day he chose to put it to use.

That day arrived when he won the 1999 Roland Garros, completing his collection of Grand Slam titles and helping him back to the No. 1 ranking. In his 30s, he remained a contender at the majors, eventually accumulating eight of them.

And it was his last, the 2003 Australian Open, that displayed the American legend in his most dominant form, despite his being just shy of 33.

This was partly because Agassi had solved his self-discipline issues: At this point, Double-A was no longer the skinny kid in denim shorts who bragged about eating cheeseburgers, but a grown man who could bench press somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 pounds and who spent the off-season running up hills to prepare him for the AO.

The other factor was the competition: Sampras, having won the ’02 US Open just months earlier, was unofficially retired.

Most of those who remained were now, like Agassi, power baseliners who hit harder than previous generations, but lacked the American’s unprecedented vision and reaction time.

Still, it took him some time to work his way into form in that event, as he labored through the first round against 93rd-ranked Brian Vahaly in a match that was over in straights, but by the hardly dominant scoreline of 7-5, 6-3, 6-3.

If a Vahaly had pushed him, his second-round opponent, South Korea’s Hyung-taik Lee, appeared a genuine threat. Lee had just won his first career title in Sydney a few days earlier, beating Andy Roddick and Juan Carlos Ferrero (both of whom would win majors that year) along the way.

When Lee used his fleet feet and smooth one-handed backhand to win his opening service game and then pressure Agassi’s serve, it appeared that Double-A had a long day ahead of him. However, after holding, he proceeded to break Lee, and then did so twice more to win the first set, 6-1.

A 23-year-old grad student at the time, I was following the score online, finding it considerably more interesting than the musings of the Romantic Era poets I was studying.

Still, the thought of a stern lecture from an erudite English professor and the idea that I might be wasting the considerable sum I’d used to enroll eventually forced my attention back to the books, at least until my required reading was finished.

When I turned the Internet back on somewhere between 30 minutes to an hour later, I was surprised to find that Agassi and Lee were no longer on the “Matches Underway” page of the AO’s Web site. I switched to “Completed Matches” where I saw Lee’s name with a 1 and two 0s beside it.

After losing the opening game, Agassi had pulled off 18 in a row against his very tough opponent. It was a beating so severe as to prompt Bud Collins to ask Agassi afterwards if he were aware that Lee was from South Korea, and not North.

As hard as that was to top, Agassi’s form only seemed to get better from there: The only set he lost in six matches was to Nicholas Escude, a dangerous Frenchman with an all-court game and the only one of Agassi’s opponents who offered any contrast to his baseline play.

In his quarterfinal encounter with the speedy Sebastian Grosjean and the semis against veteran Wayne Ferreira, the Double-A lost seven games apiece.

On the opposite side of the draw there were a few players with games that could have tested Agassi: There was then-No. 1 Lleyton Hewitt, there was the rapidly rising Andy Roddick, as well as the huge-serving and hitting Moroccan Younes El Aynaoui.

As it happened, the draw gods seemingly sought to use these three to destroy one another, as El Aynaoui served Hewitt off the court in four hard-fought sets, then pushed Roddick to a 21-19 fifth set—that’s three sets' worth by itself—before falling.

Roddick, exhausted and succumbing to tendinitis in his critical serving arm, fell in the semis to Rainer Schüttler of Germany.

Schüttler was himself more of a counterpuncher, primarily relying on speed but possessing surprising bite on his first serve and forehand.

Before Roddick, he had defeated Richard Krajicek and David Nalbandian, and he went on to win two titles that year and finish in the top 10 for the first time.

But against Agassi he was seen as the second coming of Chris Lewis, the New Zealander who found himself in the 1983 Wimbledon final where tennis viewers everywhere could see him in the chokehold of John McEnroe.

And that’s basically what happened: He wasn’t speaking of Agassi at the time, but Wallace once wrote that watching two mismatched baseliners play was like “watching an extremely large and powerful predator get torn to pieces by an even larger and more powerful predator.”

In this case, Schüttler would have been a jaguar: lithe, strong and with an imposing set of fangs, but no match for a Kodiak bear.

When playing well, Agassi typically required a bit of time to really sink his teeth into a match, at which point he would use his immaculate precision and ability to reach the ball in few photo flash steps to demonstrate that opponents would not get any balls by him.

That established, he had the freedom to run his opponents from side-to-side until they grew weary, surrendering more errors or simply declining to retrieve any more of his shots.

The difference between a very good Agassi and an Agassi in The Zone is that no time was required to ease into the match.

From the first point, Double-A was drilling any serve that he could get a racket on, finding angles that would make a geometrician giddy, pounding the German’s legs and easily finishing points with drop volleys at net.

By the third set the very fast, very fit Schüttler was spent, and Agassi finished the match by breaking him for the seventh time.

Fittingly, the last point was a second serve, and after the American struck the forehand return he was celebrating by the time the ball had landed. He’d surrendered only five games; one less than McEnroe allowed Lewis.

Afterwards, he said it was the best he’d ever played, and few could argue that he hadn’t made the most of his game by the end of his career. Of course, it’s not a game for everyone, especially those who prefer finesse to power.

It’s their loss; at his best, Agassi showed that pace can be picturesque.

For the previous installment, In the Zone with John McEnroe, click here.

What the China Open Means for...

Rob York — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:48:05 -0400

Novak Djokovic

None of his three titles this season have been at first-tier events, but his China Open win came against some keen competition. This win comes at a critical time for Djokovic, who struck out at the majors this year and tends not to play his best tennis in the fall.

The (still) young Serb desperately needed momentum, and hopefully back-to-back wins over a pair of huge hitters like Robin Soderling and Marin Cilic will give him the pick-me-up he required.

But watch for his first round match in Shanghai this week. His opponent may well be the streaky Latvian Ernests Gulbis, and Djokovic has a history of following up his wins with early defeats (see Cincinnati 2007 and Miami 2008). Just getting to round two may be a sign of improvement from the still-maturing Djoker.

Marin Cilic

His Davis Cup disappointment does not seem to have thrown the young Croat off his game too badly. Cilic defeated the Russians Igor Andreev and fourth seed Nikolay Davydenko, both in straight sets, before administering a beating to the embattled top seed Rafael Nadal.

In the final, however, he missed out on repeated early chances to break Djokovic before a rain delay swept away his momentum and put the Serb in front.

Given his huge shots and the fluid movement that belies his towering size, Cilic appears separated from the top 10 by nothing more than mental consistency.

Rafael Nadal

Fans of the Spaniard need not panic, because we’ve seen this before: In the fall of 2007 and spring of 2008 Nadal consistently reached the latter rounds of events but was beaten soundly at the end of nearly every one.

His triumphant opponents in those matches included David Nalbandian, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Novak Djokovic, and Mikhail Youzhny; very different players all, but each capable of hitting through the spin Nadal generates and keeping him on the defensive.

When Nadal lacks momentum and/or confidence, he is vulnerable to these types of players, especially on hard courts. However, when the clay of 2008 arrived, everything changed, and the Raging Bull played the best tennis of his career. That, in turn, carried over to less muddy surfaces.

The bad news is that clay is a looooooong way away, and beatdowns like the one Nadal received from Cilic are not fun to watch. His first match in Shanghai will be with James Blake, who has given him fits in every match they’ve played.

Robin Soderling

Le Sod has got the game to do very well on fast surfaces, and his semi appearance in Beijing seems further evidence.

However, Djokovic and Roger Federer have more in common than just a natural all-court game: Both have thoroughly dominated the big Swede, as Djokovic has now lost only one set in four meetings. Now that he’s fit and focused, Soderling’s next step will be to solve the dilemmas these players pose for him.

Andy Roddick

Hard as it was to watch, at least Nadal’s defeat in Beijing came at the hands of a player we’d heard of.

With his straight sets defeat against Lukasz Kubot, Roddick has now lost two matches in a row, and the novelty of Larry Stefanki appears to have worn off.

Creature Vs. Creature: A Change in Rafael Nadal's Priorities

Rob York — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 08:35:57 -0400

Introduction

Roger Federer’s ascent to the top of the game in 2004 was a blessing to all tennis fans who longed to see a dominant figure in the men’s game.

Rafael Nadal’s rise to No. 2 the following year was another blessing, as it gave us an actual rivalry (long missing from the sport) between two great but highly contrasting players.

Together, they’ve won 21 Grand Slam titles in their five and a half years at the top, but how have all their years grinding at the top of the game affected the most interesting rivalry in tennis, if not all of sports?

I examine the tale from Nadal’s side, while Clarabella Bevis examines Federer’s.

The Story So Far

Though they split their first two meetings on hard courts, their most storied encounters were to take place on clay and on grass.

This was due mainly to Nadal; Federer’s graceful movement and easy generation of pace and spin allows him to conserve energy and avoid injury.

Meanwhile, Nadal is certainly capable of playing great tennis on hard and indoor courts, but hard surfaces beat up his joints and lead to significant ailments.

Therefore, grass and clay were the surfaces on which both men could be counted to play their best. Their top matches, particularly Rome 2006 and Wimbledon ‘07 and ’08, have been the best matches between any two men in this decade, as Federer sought to end Nadal’s dirt dominance and the Spaniard attempted to do the opposite on grass.

Nadal maintains a 13-7 lifetime edge against the Swiss, who has had the misfortune of facing the Spaniard on clay 11 times, winning only twice.

Furthermore, Nadal’s heavy spinning forehand bothers Federer more than any other player’s best shot, and the Spaniard’s defensive skills have made the Swiss doubt the certainty of his attack.

Under the Microscope

There have been a few instances in which it appeared that the duopoly at the top of men’s tennis would expand into oligopoly: Novak Djokovic showed no reverence for either man when he emerged, and his 2008 Australian Open win seemed to indicate the entry into the exclusive club.

However, he never got higher than No. 3. Andy Murray, on the other hand, temporarily bumped Nadal to No. 3 this year, but he's still seeking his first major, and his ability to survive finals weekend remains unproven.

What ultimately changed the status quo was Nadal himself; or rather, Nadal’s knees.

After years of putting them to the limit, they finally gave out on him in the middle of the 2009 season, contributing (along with Robin Soderling’s forehand) to his dramatic departure from Roland Garros and his absence from Wimbledon.

When he finally re-emerged for the summer hard courts, he faced a new threat: the towering Juan Martin del Potro, he of the 110-mph forehand.

Del Potro twice defeated the Spaniard, first in Canada, and then in Nadal's most lopsided defeat in a major in the US Open semis.

The fact that del Potro then defeated Federer in the finals of that tournament may finally signal the end of the two-man show.

The 6’6” Argentine is overawed by neither Nadal nor Federer, and it’s easy to believe the 20-year-old del Potro has not yet peaked.

The Momentum Shift

But before Nadal’s summer sabbatical and the Argentine’s arrival, Federer foreshadowed his RG triumph by defeating the Spaniard in the finals of Madrid.

Serving great and returning to his former confidence, Federer dismissed Nadal in straights, only his second win on clay against the Spaniard and his first against him on any surface since late-2007.

Madrid plays faster than most clay surfaces, but Nadal was No. 1 at the time the holder of three of the game’s four majors, so a straight-sets win over him has to be considered a feat, no matter where it happened.

It’s hard to know when they’ll play again, as Federer has indicated that he’s playing a limited schedule this fall, and Nadal is not entirely comfortable on the indoor surface.

If healthy, Nadal is likely to be favored over Federer on most clay surfaces simply because his game is better designed for the dirt, but that Madrid win, and the Grand Slam glories that followed it, should boost Federer’s chances on firmer footing.

Future Showdowns

Though Federer is nearly five years older than his Spanish rival, they’re at a similar stage in their careers. Both have been winning for years, have seen their share of disappointments, and need to begin considering which events not to play to preserve their chances.

Given what both have achieved so far, it’s also safe to say that both men have priorities. The Great Swiss wants two more Wimbledons and one more US Open, which would give him the records for most wins in both places.

Having finally won the RG this year, it would be considered less of a priority, except he’d still like to get the recognition of topping Nadal in the final.

The Spaniard wants three more RGs, which would give him one more than Bjorn Borg’s record. One US Open would give him the career Grand Slam, making him only the fourth man to claim that distinction in the Open Era.

Therefore, the most intriguing possible confrontations between them would take place at the RG or the US Open. However, Nadal has yet to make it to an Open final to challenge Federer, so it remains to be seen whether he can in the future.

The RG clash we witnessed between them for four straight years is no longer a certainty, either, as del Potro took Federer to five sets in the Paris semis and would appear to have grown further as a player since then.

Del Potro has also beaten Nadal three times in a row, and while none of those matches took place on clay, the sure-footed Argentine would surely be a formidable threat.

But Nadal and Federer will surely meet again on a big stage; both men are too gifted and too driven not to.

Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi had some of their most exciting matches in the early part of this decade when both were in their 30s, and fans appreciated those matches at least as much as their encounters in the ‘90s.

We knew they still provided the best show in the game, and that there was a limited time to see the two men on court together. Let’s not wait until this rivalry is over to fully appreciate it.

Please also read Rajat Jain and Antimatter's views on the rivalry between Nadal and del Potro.

The Roger Federer Fan's Dictionary

Rob York — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:27:43 -0400

Australian Open, The; Noun

1. The first Grand Slam tennis tournament of the year, taking place in Melbourne, Australia, where Roger Federer has won three great victories so far in his career.

2. The first Grand Slam tennis tournament of the year, where Roger Federer should have won this year if only he’d served better and taken advantage of all those break point opportunities early in the match.

Backhand; Noun

1. A stroke made from the side of the body opposite to that of the hand holding the racket, paddle, etc. Roger Federer has one of the most graceful and effective backhands in tennis.

2. A stroke made from the side of the body opposite to that of the hand holding the racket. Roger Federer has the most beautiful, excellent, and best backhand in tennis.

Cry; Verb

1. To weep; shed tears, with or without sound, as Roger Federer did with joy when he finally won Roland Garros in 2009, and the Australian Open in 2006

2. To weep, shed tears, with or without sound, as Roger Federer did out of sadness upon losing Wimbledon 2008, and the Australian Open 2009, and all of us did the same. Let us never speak of this again.

Djokovic, Novak; Noun

1. A Serbian tennis player who won the 2008 Australian Open title and who, aside from Roger Federer, has the smoothest and most complete game in the sport.

2. A Serbian tennis player who took advantage of Roger Federer’s illness to win the 2008 Australian Open, and who could never compare to Roger in terms of class, etiquette, and heart. And his impressions are annoying.

Federer, Roger; Noun

1. A Swiss tennis player who is the best all-around athlete, champion, and ambassador currently active in the game.

2. A Swiss tennis player who is so, so, SO the best at everything he does! The best tennis player, the best dresser, the best at speaking four languages! Oh, and he’s won the sportsmanship award five times!

Footwork; Noun

1. The use of the feet, as in tennis, boxing, or dancing. Roger Federer’s footwork is one of the most amazing sights in tennis.

2. The use of the feet, as in tennis, boxing, or dancing. Roger Federer’s footwork is what makes him better than any other player in the history of sports.

Forehand; Noun

1. In tennis, a stroke made from the same side of the body as that of the hand holding the racket, paddle, etc. Roger Federer has one of the most effective forehands in tennis.

2. In tennis, a stroke made from the same side of the body as that of the hand holding the racket, paddle, etc. Roger Federer has the hardest, most varied, and most liquid whip-like forehand in tennis.

Language; Noun

1. A body of words, and the systems for their use common to a people. Having grown up in Switzerland, Roger Federer speaks four languages fluently.

2. A body of words, and the systems for their use common to a people. Roger Federer speaks four languages fluently because he’s Roger, and he’s the best.

Laver, Rod; Noun

1. An Australian tennis player, active from the 1950s-70s, who twice won the complete calendar year Grand Slam, a feat placing him among the very best to ever play the game.

2. An Australian tennis player who played a long time ago. Roger Federer cried when Laver gave him the Australian Open trophy once, so he must have been good, but not as good as Roger (obviously).

Murray, Andy; Noun

1. A Scottish professional tennis player who, along with Roger Federer, is one of the smartest and best tacticians in the sport.

2. A Scottish professional tennis player who will never be as stylish, and fun to watch as Roger Federer, because he doesn’t hit as hard, doesn’t smile, yells “Come on!” too much, and needs to shave.

Nadal, Rafael; Noun

1. A Spanish professional tennis player, and the only one who can rival Roger Federer’s champion’s instincts, and will to win.

2. That guy who has taken some of the major titles Roger Federer should have won. There is nothing more to say about him.

Quick; Adjective

1. Done, proceeding, or occurring with promptness, or rapidity, as an action, process, etc.; prompt; immediate: Roger Federer is quick on the tennis court.

2. Moving or able to move, operate, function, or take effect quickly. Fans of other players are quick to make excuses when Roger Federer beats them.

Roland Garros; Noun

1. The second Grand Slam tennis tournament of the year, taking place in Paris, France, where Roger Federer finally broke through in 2009 to complete the career Grand Slam.

2. The second Grand Slam tennis tournament of the year, where Roger Federer should have won earlier, and could have if he’d come to net more, or had a really good day against that Nadal guy.

Sampras, Pete; Noun

1. A former American tennis player who, before Roger Federer, was the game’s best combination of power, professionalism, and all-court play.

2. A former American tennis player who is always being compared to Roger Federer, though it’s hard to see why, because he never won a Roland Garros title, didn’t speak four languages, and never once won the sportsmanship award.

Tennis; Noun

1. A game played on a rectangular court by two players, or two pairs of players equipped with rackets, in which a ball is driven back and forth over a low net that divides the court in half. Roger Federer is currently the most exciting tennis player to watch.

2. The sport we watch because Roger Federer plays it.

U.S. Open, The; Noun

1. The final Grand Slam tennis tournament of the year, taking place in New York City. Roger Federer won five straight titles there from 2004-08.

2. The final Grand Slam tennis tournament of the year, which Roger Federer really should’ve won this year, but let it slip away because he didn’t serve well enough, and let a break advantage slip away early in the match, and they really need to get rid of instant reply, because Roger doesn’t like it.

Wallace, David Foster; Noun

1. A novelist, journalist, and essayist whose tennis stories rank among the greatest modern examples of sports writing.

2. A writer who wrote that one really great story about Roger Federer that we like to quote whenever possible to describe how great Roger is! His forehand is a great “liquid whip!” Not like that Nadal guy, who is “martial” and “mesomorphic.”

Wimbledon; Noun

1. The third Grand Slam tennis tournament of the year, taking place in London, United Kingdom. This is Roger Federer’s favorite tournament, where he has won six titles, including his Grand Slam breakthrough in 2003.

2. The third Grand Slam tennis tournament of the year, which Roger Federer should have won seven times had he played better in the 2008 final, and the Nadal guy not taken so long in between points.

Win; Verb

1. To finish first in a race, contest, or the like. Roger Federer wins more frequently and more reliably than any other tennis player.

2. To finish first in a race, contest, or the like. Roger Federer is the best and wins the most, just not as often as we’d like.

Catch a Falling Star: Gael Monfils

Rob York — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:31:15 -0400

There are many qualities that a champion tennis player must possess: talent, fitness, mental strength, and a sound game plan all come to mind.

Which of these qualities, though, is most important?

It might surprise you, but I’d say talent is the most valuable asset for an athlete. That may sound superficial, but show me a tennis player who is fit, competitive, and tactically astute but is lacking great physical talent and I’ll show you a guy who struggles to win the annual tournament at his local club, much less succeed at the pro level.

A perfect example of my contention would be Gael Monfils; a tennis player who lacks mental strength and a solid game plan, and yet remains in the top 20, because of his talent and fitness.

In fact, he just won his second career title last week.

Monfils won the genetic lottery when he was born: The son of a soccer-playing father, the 6’4” Frenchman is taller and possesses more explosive power than all but a few of the game’s great champions (Boris Becker, for example). Yet, he moves extremely well; it’s not hard to imagine him beating every other player in the game’s history in the 100-meter dash.

Add to this a finely chiseled physique that would give Michelangelo’s David an inferiority complex, and you have the makings of a champion.

However, Monfils hasn't taken advantage of these undeniable physical assets, and has employed the worst game plan of anyone in the top 50 (and possibly lower).

The Frenchman blasts first serves that often reach 130 MPH, but if they come back, he goes on the defensive. Having good defense is an essential skill in modern tennis, but even players like Lleyton Hewitt and Michael Chang, who were exceptionally good at it, attacked with their groundstrokes, attempted to control the center of the court, and came to net to finish points.

Contrary to this sound approach, Monfils usually rolls the ball into play even when his opponent offers a soft return after a big serve. He will then chase the ball for a while, suddenly going for a huge forehand only when out of position or at completely unpredictable times.

This approach once prompted an announcer to say that he isn’t “that interested in playing tennis; I just think he quite likes running around the court and pulling off the impossible.”

After beating Monfils about this time last year, Andy Murray, another player whose defense is central to his game, said that the Frenchman “almost enjoys running too much and almost likes you to dictate play.”

It’s not that he’s been totally without success in using this style: He reached the semis of Roland Garros last year and the quarters this time, and it took no less than Roger Federer to beat him both times. The slow clay of Roland Garros, it would seem, lends him a few extra increments of time to make the impossible happen.

Nevertheless, why should a player with so many natural gifts have reached only No. 9 in the world and won only two titles?

His match with Rafael Nadal at this year’s US Open was probably a good indicator: For one set Monfils’ was content to chase Nadal’s heavy topspin back and forth across Arthur Ashe stadium, producing some incredible shotmaking in the process.

After Monfils won the first set in a tiebreak, however, Nadal–one of the few players on tour who can rightly be considered Monfils’ peer as an athlete—showed the necessity of a game plan. Even a player who is fit will eventually get tired after chasing balls that rotate 3,000 times per minute indefinitely. When Nadal got a break and consolidated it, the Frenchman’s energy evaporated and the Spaniard ran out the match.

If Monfils is satisfied with being a top 20 player who hits spectacular shots now and again, he needs to do nothing more. If he wants to win more frequently, he needs to think more about how to impose his game on the opponent.

The number of Grand Slam champions 6’4” or taller is slim, but none of them–from Stan Smith to Juan Martin del Potro—got there with defense.

There are a couple of ways for him to play more authoritatively. First, after hitting a first serve that puts the opponent on the defensive, he can try to attack with his next groundstroke and get the other guy on the run. Second, he could move forward; though Monfils is by no means an exceptional volleyer, there’s no reason anyone capable of hitting a 118-mph forehand can’t hit a good approach shot, and no reason a guy standing 6’4" can’t cover the net.

Monfils is now 23, which for a tennis player isn’t that young. He’s technically been a pro since 2002, and in that period of time it is hard to justify having gone without winning more than two titles.

He still has the most important attribute, which is talent.

Jim Courier, who had a hearty game and was a fit competitor couldn’t suddenly discover more natural athleticism when his results stagnated. Monfils, though, can still find better ways to play and achieve greater results. If he does, he’s capable of taking our already exciting, athletic game of tennis to new peaks.

First he needs to take an interest in actually playing tennis.

Tennis Community Bulletin: Help Wanted

Rob York — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:36:06 -0400

Hello all,

This is more a community bulletin than an “article” per se.

Since I became Community Leader in the past month and a half, several of you have offered suggestions on articles or series you’d like to see written in the tennis domain.

In the interest of giving each of you the chance to take part (and not giving myself more work than I can handle!) I've decided to inform you as to the possibilities available.

Here are a few of them:

* The price of grinding—Over the past year and some change, Rafael Nadal won his first two majors off clay and reached the No. 1 ranking, but his results since then have suffered due to his grinding style of play.

He is, however, not the first player who also had to work exceedingly hard to win (say, Jim Courier in 1992 or Mats Wilander in 1988), but has done so and paid the price later. What we’d like is a piece comparing Nadal to these players (and possibly others).

* The greatest tennis nicknames (Rocket Rod Laver, Iceborg, Pistol Pete, etc.)—How did they get these names, and how fitting were they? This could be either an article or a slideshow.

* An article on the tennis golden age (late-70's to early-80's) to the current era—In this era, thanks largely to Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe, tennis really grew in popularity around the world. What could today’s players, or maybe the tour that organizes them, learn from that era? Then again, in what ways is this era offering a better product?

* A series on near misses—A loser's perspective on tight losses, and as the name suggest, there must be a feeling for the viewer/reader that it was a "miss" for the loser rather than an earned victory for the winner (near tie-breakers? plundered break points?). The person who suggested this said that one article every fortnight would be a good target.

This series would require not only articles, but a coordinator.

* A series on the tennis archives: An article each on matches over 50 to 100 years old. As this would require some significant digging into the archives, the one who made this suggestion said that it could be written once a month.

As above, this project would probably require more than one writer and a coordinator.

* Book club: Tennis.com’s writers do this, in which they read a book about tennis and discuss its content and their impressions through a series of posts back and forth. With Serena Williams having recently released a memoir and with Andre Agassi’s coming, I felt this was the time to broach the possibility with you all.

I am unclear as to how it might work, but would love to hear your suggestions if more than one of us are willing to acquire the same book. I plan to buy both; I’m also willing to look into the idea of having a discussion on books that are older.

If you have any interest in these subjects, please say so on the comments section here. As I am still coordinating the “Zone” series and J.A. Allen is doing the Power Rankings, I think coordinators for those series will have to come elsewhere.

Also, if you have another idea you haven’t run by me (or have, and I’ve forgotten it) you can also use this space for leaving your suggestions.

Catch a Falling Star: Marcos Baghdatis

Rob York — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:02:43 -0400

Fans of Andy Roddick couldn’t be happy seeing their man get upset in the fourth round of the 2006 Australian Open. As the tournament went on, however, it because increasingly hard to dislike the guy who beat him.

The then-20-year-old Cypriot Marcos Baghdatis played a game that might best be referred to as “extroverted”: There was a resounding *pop* every time he connected with a groundstroke, he served big, and he crowded the service box on returns.

Backed by the partisan Greek contingent in Melbourne, he played with infectious energy and a shot selection that was, to put a positive spin on it, brave.

After beating Roddick, he defeated No. 8 Ivan Ljubicic and rallied from down two sets to defeat No. 4 David Nalbandian. In the final, he took the first set against Roger Federer before succumbing both to Federer’s all-court game and his own exhaustion (he’d also gone five against Radek Stepanek in round two, and his calf muscle had to be treated near the end of the final).

His results after this were erratic, but at Wimbledon he again came alive, stopping the then-rising Andy Murray in straight sets and then, to the surprise of many, clobbering 2002 champion Lleyton Hewitt in the quarters. After his semifinal loss to Rafael Nadal, his summer was quiet, with him re-emerging with some of his best tennis at the US Open.

Unfortunately for him, 36-year-old Andre Agassi also had his best tennis available for one more match. Though there’s enough of an age difference between them to squeeze in a high school sophomore, the American legend yanked the Cypriot around the court, jumping out to a two-set lead.

Such was his talent that the streaky Baghdatis recovered from that deficit to force a fifth set, before being famously undone by Agassi’s play and cramps.

2006 revealed the potential of the Cypriot, and not just in his stroke production: In a game where some talents can’t handle the pressure of majors, Baghdatis seemed to relish those opportunities offered by the games biggest arenas and their best-of-five format.

Sadly, they also revealed his flaws as a competitor. His suspect fitness was exposed by his matches with Federer and Agassi. He followed his comprehensive win over Hewitt with a straight-set drubbing from Nadal, whom he later said that he “can’t play” against.

2007 was a lackluster year by comparison: He won no titles, and his best performance was again in defeat, as he fell 7-5 in the fifth against Novak Djokovic in the Wimbledon quarters.

In 2008, he took part in the longest day in Australian Open history, eventually losing to Hewitt in the third round in a match that finished just past 4 a.m.

Only flashes of brilliance have been seen since: His win over Robin Soderling at this year’s AO looks a lot better in retrospect, but he lost in round one at Roland Garros and didn’t even play at Wimbledon or the US Open. He is currently ranked No. 103 in the world.

The best thing about this year is that time in the ATP Challenger Tour, the minor league of professional tennis, can be good for a player.

At his lowest, Agassi played several such events in early 1998 after falling out of the top 100, which preceded his storybook rebirth the following year.

In 2009, Baghdatis has won a pair of Challenger events in Vancouver and St. Remy, so his return to the main-draw tournaments seems inevitable; perhaps right on time to delight the Greeks in Melbourne in January.

When he does come back, though, one can only hope he’s internalized a few important lessons. The first of these would be fitness; his ability to take the ball early and hit winners from all directions does recall Agassi, even if he can’t do it quite as frequently.

Even Double-A eventually found that such skills were of limited value without taking good care of one’s body, though; at times Baghdatis’ build suggests that he doesn’t save his celebrating for the courts.

The next item would be point construction. We all love to see sudden flashy down-the-line winners during rallies. When you’re on fire as Baghdatis was in Australia such shots appear bold; when your form isn’t so great, they just look like poor strategy.

Finally, there are certain things a professional tennis player ought never to say: Baghdatis is, after all, the guy that once admitted that Nadal’s style flummoxes him terribly and makes victory over the Spaniard unlikely.

The fact that he said this just before a match with Nadal (in Paris 2007) may have been meant to take the pressure off himself.

Indeed, Nadal’s style bothers many people, Federer included, but one can’t imagine The Great Swiss ever saying such a thing to encourage his opponents before a match.

The sad fact is that it doesn’t appear that Baghdatis emphasizes the “professional” part of being a “professional tennis player.” For a long time Agassi didn’t either, so Baghdatis still has time to change.

He’s already 24 and some of his prime tennis years are already past, though, so he ought to get started right away.

Catch a Falling Star: Gilles Simon

Rob York — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:32:30 -0400

Going into 2009, Frenchman Gilles Simon was coming off the best season of his career. In 2008, he’d won three titles, defeating Roger Federer in Toronto and Rafael Nadal in Madrid; a rare feat to accomplish in one year, but even rarer was the fact that both Federer and Nadal were ranked No. 1 at the time Simon defeated them.

These results propelled him into the top 10 for the first time, allowing him to qualify for the season-ending Master’s Cup in Shanghai. There he scored his second win over Federer, en route to the semis, and reached a career-high ranking of No. 6 by January.

At this year’s Australian Open he reached the quarterfinals of a Grand Slam for the first time, only falling to eventual champion Nadal.

So...what happened?

Simon has not even been to a final this year, and he’s fallen back to No. 10. He is not a hard player to root for if you’ve watched him play: Not generating a ton of power on his own, he instead plays the classic counterpunching style of using the opponent’s pace against him, finding angles, and making changes in direction/pace to keep the opponent off balance.

His strokes are smooth and movement graceful, and while he is primarily a baseliner he shows good feel at net.

Counterpunching is, however, a strategy resulting in diminishing returns in the modern era of power-baseline tennis. That’s not to say it’s a lost art: Federer and Nadal, plus Novak Djokovic and especially Andy Murray all have the skills of a counterpuncher incorporated into their overall package; Simon does not win free points with his serve the way Federer and Murray do, and his groundstrokes lack the weight of Nadal or Djokovic.

When these players are off their game (as Federer was in Toronto) or not at their physical best (as Nadal was in Madrid and Federer was in Shanghai) a counterpuncher like Simon is just cagey enough to take advantage.

When they’re at their best, as Nadal was in Australia, a Simon-type player has a hard hill to climb. Furthermore, this style of play no longer lends itself to much success in majors.

Let’s look at them:

Australian Open

Yes, this was the site of Simon’s greatest run in a major so far. Long term, though, it doesn’t look promising: The surface speed in Melbourne has long been a slower hard court than at the US Open and is only getting slower.

This lends more time to players with big windups who can hit enormous pace and/or spin, making it increasingly hard for a counterpuncher to hurt them. This is the kind of player Simon ran into in Nadal this year, and that’s why he couldn’t win a set from the man he’d beaten just three months earlier.

Making matters worse, the enervating heat of Melbourne in January deprives players of energy, especially those who have to work harder because they have fewer weapons.

The last great counterpuncher, Lleyton Hewitt, only reached the final in Australia in 2005 after putting on about 10 pounds of muscle in the offseason and using his endless tenacity (aided by a vocal home crowd) to fight through two five-setters (and two more in four) along the way.

The still-spindly Simon has not yet shown that kind of strength in body or mind

Roland Garros

The slow clay of Paris once rewarded the most patient, consistent, and swiftest of players: just ask Bjorn Borg and Mats Wilander. That, however, was in the days of wooden rackets. Now, clay rewards those who can, in a patient and swift manner, knock the crap out of the ball consistently. Counterpunchers can certainly play good matches there, but cannot sustain it for seven rounds.

Hewitt twice reached the Paris quarters in 2001 and 2004; on both occasions he has exerted so much energy in getting there that he was promptly flattened by very good clay courters. The first time David Nalbandian punched his way to the RG semis in 2004, he was crushed by Gaston Gaudio. He again got there in 2006, splitting sets with Federer before withdrawing injured and never reaching a major semi again.

Simon’s own record on clay is a mixed bag: Three of his five career titles are on the dirt, but before this year he had only won one match in four RG appearances. This year he won two before he was bounced in straights by Victor Hanescu.

Long term, the RG is probably like Australia, only worse for this native son.

Wimbledon

The lawns of Britain are a question mark for counterpunchers. Those comfortable moving on the grass, like Borg and Hewitt, can win the title through the strength of their passing shots. Those uncomfortable, like Michael Chang, are lucky to win matches.

With Simon it’s evident that he has some comfort on the lawns: He reached the second round in 2007 and has gone one round better in each subsequent year. Still, it was rather disappointing (and surprising) to see him fall meekly to Juan Carlos Ferrero in the round of 16 this time.

At least if trends continue he’ll be a quarter-finalist next year.

US Open

This is now the major whose surface plays fastest, and therefore ought to suit Simon’s game best. For that reason, it’s perplexing that Simon has not been past the third round yet. In 2008 he lost in five to Juan Martin del Potro (which looks an awful lot better in hindsight), but this year he again succumbed to Ferrero, this time withdrawing with an injured knee down two sets to one.

The biggest problem for Simon (and a few others) is the event’s positioning eight months into the season: injuries aren’t uncommon, especially for the leanest of players.

If he’s going to contend for a major, this is his best bet, but it will take careful management of his physique.

In Conclusion

For Simon there is good news coming with the indoor season ahead. Fall indoor carpet once benefited the hard-serving players like Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek who had no shortage of power and, to be blunt, hadn’t exactly overexerted themselves in the majors during the year.

In the modern game, it may well be the surface of choice for guys who feed off the pace of others (see Nalbandian in 2007 and Nikolay Davydenko in 2006).

As for other events, but this year may have reinforced unpleasant truths: Simon is not Grand Slam-winning material, and with his game it’s hard to sustain success. He is 24, and probably doesn’t have time to add more power to his game.

His best chances are probably to focus on the events that come in late-June and thereafter (putting in some hours in the weight room wouldn’t hurt).

Justine Henin's Return Would Be Great for Women's Tennis

Rob York — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 05:36:24 -0400

Very little of the buzz coming out of women’s tennis in the first half of the year was celebratory.

Serena Williams was money when it came to winning majors, but her indifference toward minor events left her outside the No. 1 ranking.

Dinara Safina, by contrast, made the most of the second- and third-tier events, soaking up enough points to stay No. 1, but fell painfully short in the latter rounds of majors.

Serbian stars Ana Ivanovic and Jelena Jankovic continued to disappoint, as the latter couldn’t break through in majors, and at times the former couldn’t seem to win matches.

Many longed for the solution to ranking problem, and the possibility of rescue has been seen in numerous sources. Maria Sharapova’s return from a lengthy stay on the DL has been saluted, even if the additions to her haul of majors remain in future tense.

Kim Clijsters' return from a self-imposed exile of two and a half years, followed by winning the US Open in just her third event back, may go down as the feel-good story of 2009.

And now word has it that Justine Henin is coming back. A little more than a week after her countrywoman Clijsters’ New York triumph, the woman whose early retirement created the void we speak of is reportedly going to announce her return to competition today.

Granted, we’ve only heard from “Belgian press” and not the woman herself, but the “Belgian press” was where we originally heard about her shocking retirement plans more than a year ago.

What will the return of the most beautiful backhand in tennis mean for the women’s game? Soon enough we may find out whether or not Clijsters’ success at the Open gave Henin the impetus to return, but it certainly proved that a long layoff may not prevent triumph at a major–in fact, the rest may aid it.

Now Clijsters and Henin may truly have the rivalry expected of them in the early part of this decade. While Henin led their head-to-head series by a slim margin of 12-10, she was 3-0 against Clijsters in Slam finals and 5-2 against her in all Slam matches.

Clijsters was too sweet to win the majors her talent seemed worthy of, and Henin was the ruthless, efficient businesswoman who thrived during the last weekend.

But that was not the Kimmie who returned to action this summer. A too-sweet competitor wouldn’t have shrugged off a 6-0 set against Venus Williams to win in three sets, nor would she have pushed Serena Williams to the brink of defeat (before the younger Williams leapt the rest of the way in).

It would appear that during her time off, Clijsters found that killer instinct she’d been missing. If Henin still has hers, they may produce some classic confrontations in the year to come.

As for the rest of the tour, Maria Sharapova is still a three-time Slam winner. However, each of her Slam wins came more than a year apart, and her injury problems would seem to make her chances of a long stay at No. 1 rather slim.

Svetlana Kuznetsova won a second Slam this year, but may be one of those squeezed out of the winner’s circle should competition stiffen.

For Dinara Safina, the best thing about this development is that it will take attention away from her.

And how about the Williamses? Leading up to 2007, Venus was 7-1 against Henin, whereas Serena was 5-3. In Henin’s career-best 2007 season, though, she defeated the younger Williams in three consecutive majors, stopping her and her older sister in back-to-back rounds at the US Open.

As great a game as Henin has, few would say she’s as naturally gifted as either sister, but in 2007 she proved herself the most serious competitor on the women’s side. Serena has benefited more than anyone in her absence. Will the highest-ranked American be more motivated by her return?

The lean, efficient Belgian’s departure was attributable to injuries and a need to get away from the pressure of the game. If she is returning now, one may be confidant that she has come back to win, and Clijsters’ recent victory ought to have convinced her that she can.

No matter what she achieves, Henin’s return would certainly make the women’s game a lot more interesting in 2010.

What the Davis Cup Semifinals Mean For...

Rob York — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:38:33 -0400

Spain

The defending champions have now won 17 consecutive home ties and 19 in a row on clay. Even with world No. 2 Rafael Nadal and No. 9 Fernando Verdasco inactive due to injury, their 4-1 victory over Israel was just as comprehensive as one would imagine.

David Ferrer and Juan Carlos Ferrero lost no sets and only 14 total games in their day one singles wins over Harel Levy and Dudi Sela. It took perhaps team Israel’s strongest link, the doubles pairing of Jonathan Erlich and Andy Ram, to win their first set.

Both Nadal and Verdasco were in attendance during this past weekend’s tie, which indicates their intense interest in DC competition. December’s final round match will take place at home, most certainly on clay, and if those two are healthy it will be all but a formality against…

The Czech Republic

Radek Stepanek is a cagey veteran and Tomas Berdych a huge hitter, but neither has been known as a clutch player in their professional years. Their results this past weekend may prompt a re-evaluation: Away against the towering Croatian pair of Ivo Karlovic and Marin Cilic, both Stepanek and Berdych turned in wins that rank among their best achievements.

Berdych took down one of the tour’s hot hands in Cilic, while Stepanek survived an unprecedented 78 aces by Karlovic, winning 16-14 in the fifth set of a five hour, 59 minute match.

Their odds of triumphing away against Spain (especially if Nadal and Verdasco are playing) are slim, but it’s worth wondering if Davis Cup success will galvanize Berdych’s career, much as it did Verdasco last season.

Croatia

Karlovic’s ace count against Stepanek—23 more than the record he previously set—ought to solidify his status as the biggest server to ever play the game.

Still, he is widely known as the most one-dimensional player in the men’s top 100, so his five-set loss, though heartbreaking, was hardly a surprise.

Cilic coming out on the losing end of a five-setter is another matter. The soon to be 21-year-old Croat ought to have had the wind at his back following his quarterfinal run at the US Open, but instead found himself down two sets against Berdych. Then, after managing to dig himself out of that hole, he fell in the fifth.

Berdych ought to serve as an example of the type of player Cilic does not want to become: a tall, gangly, massive hitter who only wins titles sporadically and has made only one Grand Slam quarterfinal in his whole career. A win on Friday would’ve gone a long way to making us believe Cilic is not Berdych, but now we’ll have to see how well he recovers from disappointments.

Switzerland

This weekend’s World Group tie against Italy showed how impressive the Swiss can be when the world No. 1 is in their ranks. Unfortunately, it also showed why his being at their fore during Cup ties is so rare.

His win over Simon Bolelli surprised no-one. Coupled with world No. 22 Stanislas Wawrinka’s impressive display against Andreas Seppi, the Swiss went into day two with a 2-0 lead.

The days of Federer as the youthful, long-haired wunderkind with the boundless energy required to play three straight days of singles and doubles are evidently over, however. Following another draining US Open campaign, he sat out the doubles on Saturday and watched Wawrinka and Marco Chiudinelli fall in straight sets.

Federer clinched the tie on day three by easily dispatching Potito Starace, but this bodes badly for the Swiss’ Davis Cup hopes. One of The Great Swiss’ breakthrough victories came in 2001 when he played two singles and one doubles match to defeat the United States. If such feats are required for the Swiss to advance, they may be beyond what even the now 28-year-old Federer can achieve.

Of course, it’s a moot point if the grind of the tour prevents The Great Swiss from competing in DC, as it did this spring against the Americans. To make the 1,009th comparison between Federer and Pete Sampras, the U.S. team longed to see The Pistol play in the Cup for many years, but he was scarcely able to compete full-time until 2002.

And by then, he wasn’t really The Pistol anymore.

Davis Cup: Israel Looks to Keep the Dream Alive Against Spain

Rob York — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:30:22 -0400

With the Davis Cup semifinals taking place this weekend, a few of us Bleacher Creatures will preview the path each team has taken to get this far, and examine their chances of advancing to the finals.

For Clarabella Bevis' take on Croatia, click here.

For Rajat Jain on the Czech Republic, click here.

For antiMatter on Spain, click here.

Israel’s Davis Cup team makes its first-ever appearance in the DC semifinals this weekend, as they face defending champions Spain in the Spanish city of Murcia.

Though they will be distinct underdogs on clay, there’s no doubting that the Israeli team has come a long way: In 2008, they had to defeat Sweden and Peru in the World Group playoff system just for the right to compete in the main draw this year.

News has followed this team from round one, when they played away against the Swedish team in Malmo.

That tie retains its infamy for the decision by Sweden’s tennis federation to have the matches played before no crowds; a security measure enacted due to the fear of Swedish protests against Israel’s Gaza offensive this past winter.

The lack of hometown support may have been a killer for the Swedes, though, as Israel's Dudi Sela defeated Andreas Vinciguerra and 2002 Australian Open champ Thomas Johansson, both in five sets. The Israelis won 3-2, advancing to face Russia at home.

Compounding Sweden’s misery, the ITF fined them $25,000 for barring fan attendance and banned Malmo from hosting future ties.

Despite the tie taking place in Tel Aviv, the Russians, including Marat Safin, Mikhail Youzhny and Igor Andreev, were the heavy favorites on paper. Safin went so far as to say that Israel was “lucky” to be in round two.

In response, 30-year-old Harel Levy (who reached a career-high ranking of No. 30 in 2001 but was ranked No. 210 at the time) vanquished No. 24 Andreev in four sets. Sela followed with a four-set win over Youzhny the same day.

When Jonathan Erlich and Andy Ram won the doubles match the next day against Safin and Igor Kunitsyn, the tie was clinched. Israeli captain Eyal Ran likened Levy and Sela to twin F-16s, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the team had filled all of Israel with pride.

A great accomplishment it was, but it would be forgotten were the Israelis somehow able to sink the Spanish Armada. In addition to winning last year’s Cup, Spain has won its last 16 home ties, its last 18 on clay, and has lost only one rubber in its three previous meetings with the Israel.

Again, Israel will be led by Sela (now ranked No. 29) and Levy (ranked No. 140), with Erlich and Ram playing doubles.

Spain will be without its injured superstars, No. 2-ranked Rafael Nadal and No. 9 Fernando Verdasco; in their place will be Tommy Robredo (No. 16), former Roland Garros champ Juan Carlos Ferrero (No. 21), the gritty David Ferrer (No. 19) and flashy Feliciano Lopez (No. 34).

However, Ferrer and Robredo have indicated that Spain will not underestimate Israel as Russia did, pointing out that Sela is 1-1 against Ferrer and 3-0 against Robredo. None of Sela's previous matches with those two took place on clay, though.

Israel’s only real chance is for Sela to win two matches, with Erlich and Ram adding the doubles point. That seems unlikely, though, against a Spanish squad that not only has a surface and hometown fan advantage, but has a lot more experience with Davis Cup pressure.

Look for Israel to win a rubber, but no more: Spain wins 4-1.

The Morning After: How Bright Is Juan Martin Del Potro's Future?

Rob York — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:04:09 -0400

Long John Silver and I are collaborating to describe the effect Monday's shocking men's final will have on the future of tennis. For his reflections on the event, click here

Roger Federer was 13-0 in major finals against all opponents not named Rafa. He had won 41 consecutive matches against all comers under the New York skyline, and was pursuing a sixth consecutive US Open title, a feat not witnessed in 70 years.

He had also won 20 Grand Slam matches in a row, and 26 of 27 he’d played this year. He was 6-0 against his final round opponent.

These indicators all seemed to be pointing in the same direction, so the conclusion of today’s match may leave one with a feeling akin to opening a geography textbook and seeing that Mexico is actually north of the United States.

It surely leaves many tennis fans with questions, so let’s try to address a few of them here.

How good can Juan Martin del Potro be?

There’s no mistaking that we saw a new development out there today: Federer had faced big forehands before, from Andy Roddick to Fernando Gonzalez to Robin Soderling, and had proven that his superior defensive skills and low slice backhand could effectively neutralize them.

Today was the first time we saw a Big Forehand (aside from Nadal’s Super Topspin variety) that really hurt Federer. At the end of the final, del Potro had struck 37 forehand winners to the Swiss’ 20. This speaks not only to the pace of his shot (which was often reaching 110 mph according to some sources; a speed faster than some pros’ first serves) but also to his mobility.

Federer was able to exploit Roddick’s and Soderling’s movement through his service placement and various spins, but this time del Potro showed an ability to strike offensive groundstrokes from highly unconventional positions on court.

So, can del Potro be an all-time great?

He certainly appears to be an evolutionary leap in the sport; at three inches taller than Boris Becker and Pancho Gonzales, he’s the tallest major champion the sport has ever seen. Also, in a game rife with Big Forehands, his may be without peer on a day like Monday.

However, he lacks the complete game that we have seen among the GOAT candidates from Federer to Sampras to Laver. Those guys had careers that spanned decades and won majors in the double-digits because they were world-class in all areas, be it the groundstrokes, the serves, the movement, and the volleys. This gave them more options and gave their games a timeless quality

Del Potro isn’t phenomenal in all these departments; it’s just that the weapons he brought to the table in this event were bigger than what had been seen before him. Players who represent evolutionary leaps, hitting and/or serving harder and/or better than those who came before them can have highly distinguished careers: Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, and Andre Agassi are all good examples.

Those who lack dedication (like Marat Safin) or who see the game evolve past them (like Andy Roddick or Jim Courier) achieve less. The quality of del Potro’s career victories from here on really depends on how bad he wants it, and whether or not there’s another evolutionary leap while he’s active.

The second factor is unknowable; regarding the first, his career progression seems a lot closer to Connors than to Safin.

How bad is this news for Federer?

It’s not the best news he’s gotten this year, but remember that he was within points of closing out this match in four. As amazing as del Potro’s strokes were, Federer’s complete game was still nearly enough to contain him despite it not being his best day.

The comparison is already being made to Marat Safin’s victory over Pete Sampras in the 2000 Open final, in that the newly crowned Grand Slam king lost a shocker to a towering opponent. In that case, it ushered in a lengthy period of struggles for The Pistol, but this case is quite different.

Federer is two years younger than Sampras was in 2000 and hasn’t shown many signs that age is slowing him yet. As hard as the first half of the year was for him, he’s still gone 26-2 in the majors, and his two losses came in fifth set finals.

Anyone who thinks he can’t win more majors needs to pay closer attention.

Is del Potro the Nadal killer?

Much has been made of del Potro’s height and how it can counteract Rafael Nadal’s topspin. The fact that the Argentine just handed the Spaniard the most lopsided defeat of his Grand Slam career in the semis will be seen as evidence of this.

It doesn’t mean he can duplicate this feat on Parisian clay when Nadal is at full strength, though. The Argentine will threaten for the Roland Garros crown (and all other majors, with the possible exception of Wimbledon) in the future, but it’s definitely premature to anoint him the favorite in Nadal’s back yard.

Does the US Open need to start preparing for more multilingual acceptance speeches?

Absolutely. Caroline Wozniacki speaks fluent English and del Potro speaks it serviceably, but both have large non-English speaking constituencies they needed to address this weekend, and both Mary Jo Fernandez and Dick Enberg seemed unable to accept the idea.

The 1990s, in which an American won the Open six times out of 10 (and an Australian won two other times) are not coming back. More and more major champions are going to be coming from places where English is not widely spoken.

Roland Garros allows for acceptance speeches in multiple languages, and sooner or later the Open is going to have to do the same.

The Grand Slam Finals of Roger Federer: An Analysis

Rob York — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:04:48 -0400

It's well-known that world No. 1 Roger Federer has won 15 major titles in his career. Less known, but just as significant, is that at Wimbledon Federer reached his 20th major final, breaking the previous record held by Ivan Lendl. In the major finals he's played since 2003, patterns have emerged despite the variety of opponents and playing styles he has faced. Perhaps by studying those past finals his opponent, world No. 6 Juan Martin del Potro, can make Monday's final a great one; based on Federer's track record in these events, help is something del Potro's definitely going to need.

Begin Slideshow

Rafa Nadal's Blues: Is It Time to Nix Super Saturday?

Rob York — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:58:24 -0400

The idea behind Super Saturday at the US Open was an intriguing one: Like a heavyweight prize fight with a padded undercard, it puts three matches that each could highlight a single day of tennis all into a single afternoon/evening, placing the women’s final alongside the two men’s semis.

When this concept has worked, it has worked spectacularly: In 1984, Ivan Lendl went five sets against Pat Cash, Martina Navratilova overcame Chris Evert in three, and then John McEnroe went to the limit against Jimmy Connors in the night session.

Not only did this give fans 13 sets of the most highly competitive tennis imaginable, the winners of the two men’s matches would face each other the next day under equal terms.

McEnroe, by far the ATP’s most dominant player that year, easily topped Lendl the following day, and all was right in the tennis world.

The next year the gift of Super Saturday wasn’t quite so extravagant: McEnroe was pushed to five sets by Mats Wilander (Evert also beat Navratilova in three), but Lendl easily dispatched Connors without losing a set.

The price of Super Saturday, however, was much more evident: The next day McEnroe fell in straight sets to the Terminator, whose reign as the most dominant player of the ‘80s was now underway.

On the eve of this year’s US Open, McEnroe told Tennis.com that he felt he should have won the Open that year, and probably would have with another day of rest.

“If I had that day off, I think I would’ve won the match, because I had beaten Lendl in the two finals leading up to the U.S. Open,” he said.

Call it sour grapes if you like, but Mac isn’t alone: Wilander recently agreed with the assessment, using his epic match with the American in 1985 as evidence for a needed change in US Open scheduling.

“McEnroe was a shadow of his normal self against Ivan Lendl (the next day), and slipped to a straight-sets defeat in the final,” Wilander wrote.

Between 1985 and this year, the complaints of male players regarding the Super Saturday concept have been restrained.

An issue wasn’t made of it, but the concept was at least partially to blame for Pete Sampras’ struggles in the early part of this decade, as a 29-year-old Pistol was beaten handily in the 2000 final by Marat Safin the day after playing three tense sets with Lleyton Hewitt.

The next year, the situation reversed itself, as Sampras overcame Safin in the semis only to be dissected by Hewitt the next day.

In both finals, Sampras started strong and kept pace with his younger rivals only to see his form fall after the first set. No doubt Safin and Hewitt were playing outstanding in those finals and The Pistol would have faced tough opposition even at his best; in both cases, though, The Pistol’s lag in energy after set one was visible, his serve lost a bit of its bite, and his net closure was sluggish.

Sampras didn’t make an issue of the tournament’s format, probably because he didn’t want to take credit away from the younger men, and also probably didn’t want to admit that he could no longer compete with younger pros under such conditions. It seems appropriate to remember, though, that when the 31-year-old Sampras did finally capture his last Open in 2002, it was against Andre Agassi, who was 32.

That Wilander and McEnroe chose to mention that final weekend in 1985 this year seems fitting now, in that Rafael Nadal may be poised to make it an issue.

Saturday won’t be quite so super this year, as the rain has delayed the quarterfinal match Nadal was playing against Chile’s Fernando Gonzalez, as well as the two women’s semifinals scheduled for Friday.

However, if the rain relents long enough for Nadal to prevail, he would then be forced to face the very tough No. 6 seed Juan Martin del Potro on Sunday, and should he survive that, face either top-ranked Roger Federer or No. 4 Novak Djokovic on Monday.

The rains have done a lot to force this dilemma, and USO organizers would do well to follow the lead of Wimbledon and the Australian Open by installing a roof.

Still, the Super Saturday concept is largely to blame here: Had they been scheduled to be played Friday (as Roland Garros and Wimbledon both do), both men’s semifinal encounters would probably have been set a day earlier.

We’d still be seeing back-to-back days of tennis due to the rains, but Nadal would probably not be facing the prospect of back-to-back-to-back days, culminating with a final against an opponent playing only two days in a row.

But Nadal is probably the best player to prove the ultimate folly or irrelevance of Super Saturday: If the Spaniard, recently returned from a two-month layoff caused by bad knees, can overcome the two bruisers that stand in the way of the final, and still win the title (despite his current abdominal injury) then his already monolithic status as a competitor will grow, and the current schedule will be maintained.

If he fights to the final and gets hammered worse than Sampras did against Hewitt in ’01, the folly of the Super Saturday concept will be clear to all.

Remember, the current schedule assumed that the finalist on Nadal’s side would have time to catch up; he played his first round match on the same day Federer played his second, and his schedule in this second week offered him no slack in case of a rain delay.

In an increasingly physical, demanding game, how many more generations of players must suffer due to bad scheduling?

Even if we do get a dream final of Federer vs. Nadal, and both men are healthy enough, the TV networks who surely have plenty of influence will have something to consider: The people who work on Mondays have a lot less time to watch tennis matches.

Creature vs. Creature: A Surprising Opportunity for Yanina Wickmayer

Rob York — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 03:13:38 -0400

Introduction

Dinara Safina.

Ana Ivanovic.

Elena Dementieva.

Maria Sharapova.

Svetlana Kuznetsova.

These are just some of the names found in the top half of the women’s draw when the US Open began, but none of them are taking part in today’s women’s semifinal.

Instead, we have the matchup that no one predicted, and probably no one at the TV networks was dreaming of broadcasting: Danish No. 9-seed Caroline Wozniacki vs. unseeded Belgian Yanina Wickmayer.

To read of Wozniacki’s side of the story, have a look at what J.A. Allen has to say here.

Yanina Wickmayer

The downside of writing about the 19-year-old Belgian surprise is that so little is known about her, even among would-be tennis “experts.”

The upside is that virtually nothing you can tell readers about her is going to be something they’ve heard before. So, here’s some basic information about the Belgian who would be an Open finalist:

Yanina Wickmayer is ranked No. 50 on the WTA Tour. In just the past couple of years, she’s been in a dilemma that perhaps only Andy Roddick can really understand: Her nation’s top two Slam-winning tennis stars had retired, thus turning the eyes of her home nation upon her.

Now, even with the seemingly hitch-free return of Kim Clijsters to women’s tennis, Wickmayer is still, at least for the moment, Belgium’s top-ranked player.

Wickmayer’s mother died of cancer when the future tennis pro was only 9, after which her father relocated with her to Florida.

Young Wickmayer had been playing the sport for a year and a half up to that point, and Florida has been the destination of choice for many a prodigy; her father’s decision, however, had more to do with creating a newer, happier environment for the two of them.

Her cultivation into a top 50 tennis pro was apparently a bonus. Wickmayer turned pro in 2004, but didn’t reach her first WTA final until ’08, where she lost to Ukrainian Kateryna Bondarenko in Birmingham.

2009 has been her best year so far, as she won the Estoril Open in May and reached the final of the Ordina Open in the Netherlands in June.

To date, Wickmayer has only won one career match at Roland Garros, and none at the Australian Open and Wimbledon, making this by far her best slam result.

Coming from a quarter of the draw rife with upsets, she has only faced one seeded player so far in the year’s Open: No. 16 Virginie Razzano of France, whom Wickmayer topped in round one. In the quarters, she dispatched Bondarenko 7-5, 6-4.

Will Win If...

In the words of Matt Cronin at US Open.com, Wickmayer has “a good serve and more than average pop off the ground.” She survived against Razzano in round one and Czech Petra Kvitova in the round of 16 by making fewer errors, but in her three other matches, she won through aggression and hitting more winners.

Against Wozniacki, whose defensive skills drove Kuznetsova and Melanie Oudin to distraction, Wickmayer is going to have to play aggressively. The Belgian simply can’t expect that the No. 9 seed will make enough errors to hand her a place in the final.

Also, while attacking, she ought to play to the forehand of the Dane, which is where Wozniacki is more likely to break down.

Will Lose If...

Attacking her forehand may not guarantee success, but expecting Wozniacki’s backhand to yield is a guaranteed recipe for defeat. Among the mistakes Oudin committed in the quarters was playing too much to the Dane’s backhand, a shot Wozniacki was seemingly content to retrieve all evening.

As both of these ladies are 19, they have not yet met on the WTA Tour, but Wickmayer would do well to forget the juniors, where Wozniacki dominated her.

And finally, Wickmayer has to see this for the opportunity it is, and go for her shots. If she is overwhelmed by the situation, or overawed by Wozniacki’s defense, she has no chance, period.

Intangibles

Though her breakthrough at this year’s event may have been aided by the fall of Dementieva and Sharapova to Oudin, Wozniacki has been a known commodity on tour for some time, and therefore more is expected of her in this encounter.

If Wickmayer shows more poise than Oudin did, she may provide the opportunity for those nerves to surface.

My Call

Let’s be blunt: Should Wozniacki win, she would be an underwhelming underdog in the final against Serena Williams (or Kim Clijsters, for that matter). All signs indicate, however, that she’s a huge favorite in this match based on career achievements and personal history.

Wickmayer has what it takes to make this a close match, though, and while I believe Wozniacki wins in straights, both sets ought to be competitive.

Robin Soderling Full of Surprises Against Roger Federer

Rob York — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:34:27 -0400

Robin Soderling first surprised us in Paris, when he did something no man had ever done previously: He beat Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros.

It was a dream match for the Swede and introduced him as Le Sod, he of the sky-high ball toss that accentuated its thunderous pace and the windmill forehand that, for at least one day, even Nadal couldn’t retrieve.

They were perfect conditions for Le Sod to cultivate his image: Nadal’s heavy-spinning forehand actually sits up in the 6’4” Swede’s strike zone, and the extra fractions of a second provided by French clay gave him plenty of time to wind up and rip the ball off his dominant wing.

Then there’s his contentious relationship with the Spaniard—years before getting our attention as a player, Soderling grabbed it with his personality, unsubtly imitating Nadal’s crack-picking during their 2007 Wimbledon encounter.

This may have forever earned him the animus of one of the tour’s most popular players: Nadal has called the Swede “very strange” and suggested that Soderling will one day answer for his behavior “in the end of the life.” However, it helped suggest that Le Sod was a rough, intimidating prospect for opponents.

If one calls that match a dream, his encounter with Roger Federer in the RG final must have been a nightmare on par with the “falling dream” or the “went to school in just my underpants” variety. On that Sunday in June, The Great Swiss used his low slice backhand, fluid movement, and indecipherable service placement to turn Le Sod into Sir Robin the Deferential.

Federer broke Soderling three times in the first set of that encounter, hit an ace on every point he served in the second-set tiebreaker, and didn’t face a break point until the third set (which he promptly swatted away).

Afterwards, the hulking Swede, taken completely out of his game by the Swiss, was all compliments for the victor. In the post-match interview, he admitted that he had never played well against Federer because the Swiss “makes” him play poorly.

Despite the puncturing of his brutish image, Soderling continued to have an impressive summer. It took Federer to stop him yet again in the fourth round of Wimbledon, a result the Swede followed up by winning in Bastad.

An injury derailed him somewhat in the summer, but his performance in the US Open showed him back on track, as he manhandled the rising American Sam Querrey and got past the indomitable eighth-seeded Russian Nikolay Davydenko.

In the quarters of the Open on Wednesday, the now 12th-seeded Soderling again faced Federer, who is now seeking his 16th major and sixth consecutive US Open. After his previous defeats from The Great Swiss, one of the biggest questions ahead of time was whether Federer would see Le Sod or Sir Robin across the net.

It didn’t start out as bad as in Paris. Rather, it was much, much worse than that. After being denied a pair of break point chances in the opening game, Sir Robin was broken at love in the second. The windy conditions probably interfered with his high service toss and enormous forehand backswing, but the biggest problem was on the opposite side of the court.

Federer retrieved the forehand blasts the Swede did successfully launch, and the constant variation in the Swiss' groundstrokes—from slice to heavy spinning moonballs to sharply angled drives—exposed Soderling's relatively poor movement.

Sir Robin lost the first seven games of the match. Even after he had gotten on the board, the numbers were astonishing: Soderling had put a little more than 70 percent of his first serves into play but was 0-for-7 on all his second-serve points.

Finally, after a double fault, Sir Robin put his considerable weight behind a swing, cracking his racket frame on the Arthur Ashe Stadium’s asphalt. It was, up to that point, his most effective stroke of the evening, as it got the attention of the New York crowd, which had been lulled into disinterest by the one-sided contest.

Furthermore, it seemed to wake Le Sod from hibernation. Though he lost the second set 6-3, he finally settled into a groove on his serve and his baseline play and wouldn’t be broken again. He had to hold numerous times for it to come to fruition, but it eventually would in the third-set tiebreak he won by the paper-thin margin of 8-6.

In 12 meetings, it’s the second set Soderling has ever won against Federer.

He held his own with The Great Swiss in set four, again forcing a tiebreak. Again the score was 8-6, only this time in Federer’s favor.

Soderling couldn’t get the W against Federer, but then again, neither have the Swiss’ previous 38 opponents at the Open, dating back to 2004.

Federer advances to the semis to face Novak Djokovic and will be favored to reach yet another final. Soderling goes home, probably in preparation for the fall European indoor circuit.

He would appear to have won nothing tangible from his quarterfinal result. Psychologically, though, he accomplished a great deal.

He has shown he can push Federer in unfavorable circumstances. He's shown he can get off the mat after an early disappointment. Most importantly, on an ever-evolving men’s tour, Soderling has shown that the 2009 RG was no fluke: He belongs in the top 10 and can stay there a while.

This makes twice that he’s surprised us: Next time we won’t be.

A Stepping Stone for Marin Cilic?

Rob York — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 04:07:44 -0400

They don’t call it an “upset” for no reason.

That Marin Cilic, and not Andy Murray will be progressing to the quarterfinals of the US Open has surely upset a lot of people, be they British tennis fanatics, fans of Murray’s cerebral game, or those who relished seeing his brain tested against Juan Martin del Potro’s brawn.

But the flip side to all those disappointments is a breakthrough result for the 20-year-old Croat Cilic. Forget his three fourth-tier titles, or his two wins against the US Davis Cup squad in July: This win for the 6’6” young gun towers over all his previous accomplishments.

Little in his three previous wins in this event suggested such a result was possible: not Cilic’s straight-set wins over Denis Istomin or Ryan Sweeting, and certainly not his five-setter over American Jesse Levine.

And the fact that Murray only mustered nine games certainly shifts the emphasis to Murray’s below-par play.

However, Cilic deserves credit for seeing this opportunity and exploiting it. Murray’s returns were poor, and Cilic hit 10 aces; the Scot played too defensively, and the Croat stayed on attack with his flat forehand.

Furthermore, when Murray had set points at 5-4, Cilic, who turns 21 on the 28th of this month, didn’t betray his inexperience. Three games later, he had taken the first set and was scarcely threatened again.

Of all stats, the one that may say the most is this: Cilic had nine break point chances and capitalized on five, while Murray had seven and took none.

Cilic’s next match could double as a slam-dunk contest, in that he faces a man of near-identical height in del Potro. Let’s not confuse height with stature, though, as del Potro clearly has the thicker résumé despite being only five days older.

The Argentine is the No. 6 seed at this event, has been one of the handful of names tossed about as a potential winner here, and has looked imposing from the start. Aside from his single set hiccup against Daniel Koellerer in round three, del Potro has dominated his opponents. On Tuesday he throttled ex-world No. 1 and former Roland Garros champion Juan Carlos Ferrero 3, 3, and 3, hitting 22 aces to only one double fault.

Cilic, however, with his heavy back-arch serve and groundstroke weapons, can potentially threaten del Potro in ways the aging Spaniard could not. To do this, he must view Tuesday not as an accomplishment, but as a stepping stone.

He must be wary of a letdown, as this match presents a chance to do even more damage to the draw, or at least to give the Argentine a severe test. Doing so will show the rest of the tour that Tuesday’s result was not a one-off, and Cilic can earn even greater respect from the tour.

If he brings less than his best and falls meekly, he’ll only be remembered as the guy who opened the draw for del Potro, or possibly Rafael Nadal.

In that case Murray won’t be the only one leaving New York upset.

In The Zone With Martina Hingis

Rob York — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:43:28 -0400

To distill the experience of The Zone to a single sentence, one could say this: The imagined becoming reality.

To play a match in which virtually you can execute any shot imaginable requires innumerable hours of practice and dedication. It also requires a willingness to labor through scores of matches where you can only execute most, or maybe just some of your desires on court.

A pair of recurring themes in most Zone-like performances, though, are 1) familiarity, 2) favorability, and 3) motivation.

Pete Sampras turned in his best performance of his career in the 1999 finals of Wimbledon, against Andre Agassi. He played Agassi 23 times prior to this (winning 13 of them) on grass, a surface that favored him. As Agassi was about to overtake him at No. 1, Sampras was motivated to prove his dominance.

The two most awe-inspiring results of Roger Federer’s career were at the 2004 US Open final and the semis of the 2007 Australian Open. In both cases, his opponents, Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick, had no surprises for him in their approach. Their game plans suited his approach because their strengths were only fragments of his whole arsenal; yet they were unambiguous in their desire to overtake him, thus providing him the motivation he needed.

For Martina Hingis, perfect conditions intersected the 1997 US Open final. Her opponent was 17-year-old Venus Williams, who had won all of her first six matches at the Open to reach her first Grand Slam final.

New as she was to the tour, Williams was still somewhat familiar to Hingis, who’d beaten her twice earlier in the year. Though the Swiss Miss had won two of the year’s previous three majors and was the undisputed No. 1, seeing a rising raw talent of an age similar to hers surely motivated Hingis to bring her best game.

But what about favorability? In retrospect, we all know that one day Venus, her sister Serena, and a few others would overpower Hingis, evicting her from the top spot and eventually driving her from the game.

In 1997, however, young Venus Williams was the most favorable of opponents for the young Swiss. She encountered variations of the same approach from the lumbering Lindsay Davenport and the erratic Mary Pierce, and had shown little difficulty in dispatching them due to their lack of variety.

“(Williams) plays the game I like: She tries to keep the ball in play,” Hingis was quoted as saying by Sports Illustrated. "That's too dangerous if you play me.”

While they all hit harder than her, they had not a fraction of her court sense, her placement, and her ability to deflect an opponent’s pace to her advantage. In the case of Davenport and Pierce, she was also much superior in court coverage.

The supremely athletic Williams could have presented a unique challenge for Hingis in that she had more outright speed than the Swiss, but once play began it was apparent that she was still the pupil, and Hingis the young professor.

The Swiss didn’t hit harder; she hit earlier, especially on service returns, surprising her opponent.

“… my serve is not a big weapon I have in my game,” she said after the match. “I have to have something else. That's my return.”

She also had the hard courts of the US Open to perfect her approach. They were fast enough to allow her opponents to generate the pace she thrived on, slow enough to prevent big servers from blowing her off the court. At the year's previous hard court slam in Australia, Hingis didn't lose a set. At the US Open that stat was about to be duplicated.

She didn’t outrun Williams, rather she got her on the run, hit behind her, and used her craftily disguised two-hander, hitting in directions Williams did not expect.

Williams, hair still adorned with the festive beads she favored in her youth, didn’t play her best under these conditions; she didn’t yet know how to. A few games into the match it was clear she was foundering, but for Hingis the pressure was off, and her typically solid backhand became even smoother, as easy as thought itself.

Such play left the American so uncomfortable that she committed 17 errors in the first six games, all of them won by the Swiss. She settled herself for the second set, holding on to win four games, but could not stay with Hingis. In just over an hour, the young Swiss wrapped it up, 6-0, 6-4.

Williams could only manage a total of four games which, incidentally, was the average number of games all of Hingis’ opponents in the tournament were able to win against her.

That Open was the finishing touch on her most dominant season, having won three majors in singles, captured 12 singles titles altogether and lost all of six matches the entire season.

She looked unstoppable at the time, but as we all know, that would change. Perhaps the turning point was the 1998 final Hingis lost to a fitter, slimmer Davenport. Maybe it was when Serena Williams beat her in the ’99 final.

Or, perhaps Venus herself tolled the last bell in the 2000 Wimbledon quarters, when she overcame Hingis in route to her first major. Any way you look at it, the new generation of power baseliners, eventually known as the Big Babes, proved less and less favorable from Hingis’ perspective.

It wasn’t always that way, though. There once was a time when all the big hitters were just familiar, favorable and motivating enough to make the Swiss Miss’ ideas into reality.

Thanks to Hingis (and YouTube), fans of her approach will always have that one match to savor.

To read the previous installment, "In the Zone with Stefan Edberg" by Leroy Watson, click here.

Flavia Pennetta: Anything Can Happen

Rob York — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 03:40:49 -0400

Based on her play, Flavia Pennetta did not “deserve” to beat Vera Zvonareva on Sunday night.

The 27-year-old Italian was clearly outperformed for the first set, and for most of the second, for that matter, by the 25-year-old Russian. Even when Pennetta managed to break twice in the second set, she promptly surrendered it both times.

When Zvonareva held serve to get up 6-5 in the second, it stood to reason that she would break a final time to close out the No. 10 seed. Four match points in Pennetta’s service game indicated that this reasoning was correct.

But every time she faced a match point, the Italian came up with her best shots against the Russian, eventually holding. Two more match points came in the tiebreak that followed, but with the same result: Five of those six match points ended with winners from the Italian.

“On the match points, I just was playing very aggressive,” Pennetta said afterwards.

A lesson not enough players, on either the men’s or women’s tours, seem to realize is that they should fight to the last point: If you stay in the match, anything can happen.

Against Zvonareva, anything did. The Russian, who has struggled with a both mental and physical frailty during her career, was reduced to tears as the match points came and went.

The third set was an unmitigated disaster for Zvonareva, who was warned for use of audible obscenity, had to call the trainer for bandaged knees, and failed to win a single game.

Now the gritty Italian has equaled her best-ever performance in a major, which was a quarterfinal at last year’s Open. She has already won two titles this year, including her first Premier event in Los Angeles last month. Her current ranking of No. 10 is the best of her career which has spanned almost 10-years.

She is deserving of all this, just as she ultimately deserved to win based on her greater inner strength.

But that will do little to impress her next opponent, who goes by the name of Serena.

After the defending US Open champion’s 6-2, 6-0 demolition of Daniela Hantuchova, that’s an awfully intimidating assignment. Based on raw stats, Penneta’s chances against Serena Williams aren’t good.

She made only 30 winners to 37 errors and served at 45 percent for the whole match against Zvonareva (compare that to the 73 percent Williams managed against Hantuchova).

We advise Pennetta to play every point as if she’s a match point down. We advise her never to quit, because anything can happen.

Both of these statements are cliched, of course, but for her they actually seem to work.

Taylor Dent Knows No Fear: Creature Vs. Creature

Rob York — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 08:41:06 -0400

Introduction

In the third round of the US Open, No. 2 seed Andy Murray faces resurgent 28-year-old American Taylor Dent on Sunday. Murray is considered by many to have the best chance of stopping world No. 1 Roger Federer’s march to a sixth-straight US Open title, but Dent presents an unusual test for the young Scot.

To read about Murray's chances, read Rohini Iyer's take.

Taylor Dent

If there were a television special about Taylor Dent, it would probably be called When Americans Attack!

One of the very few players on the ATP Tour who still serves and volleys, it’s very clear what Dent’s course of action will be on Sunday. It’s the same tactic that propelled him past Feliciano Lopez in round one, and then through his five-set epic with Ivan Navarro in the next round: He has to get to net.

Murray’s returns and passing shots are about as good as you’ll see on tour right now, so Dent has a tough task ahead. He’s already overcome worse trials, though, as two fractured vertebrae and a serious of back surgeries often made it appear he’d never play again.

He’s already doing better than expected, though, and should play with no fear on Sunday.

Will Win If

Dent has neither the groundstrokes nor the lateral movement to beat the world No. 2. The upside of this is that his course is clear, in that he must brave Murray’s passes and move forward. This will require a lot of hard serving, placed with accuracy and variety, coupled with quick closes to the net.

Dent can’t be afraid to double fault, nor can he hesitate to attack Murray’s second serves (the most vulnerable shot the Scot is likely to hit all day). Whenever possible, he must rip or chip approach shots down the line and close it.

Will Lose If

Dent can do everything right and lose this match. Unfortunately for him, Murray has more options, being no slouch at net, having a pretty big first serve of his own, and being a league or two beyond Dent from the baseline.

If Murray pins Dent at the back for much of the match, the American has no chance. If Dent fails to execute his game plan, he will lose quickly.

Shots to Look For

Dent’s slice backhand is his preferred tool for net rushing, so look for him to go down the line with it. Murray’s forehand is no weakness, but his backhand may be the most effective two-hander in the business right now, so look for more of Dent’s approaches to against that wing.

Intangibles

The most discouraging prospect for Dent is that he trails in the head to head meetings with Murray 0-2. Even worse, the two matches Murray won were in his rookie year of 2005, when Dent was at his athletic peak. Murray is now far tougher both mentally and physically, meaning Dent faces long odds.

There is one department in which Dent’s situation has changed for the better, however, in 2005 he, along with Andy Roddick, James Blake, and Robby Ginepri were all members of the next generation of stateside tennis players who could not meet the expectations of American public.

Now, Dent is happy to just be playing again. Murray is the one with the pressure, while the American can know that a loss here will disappoint no one.

Furthermore, the New York crowd has almost certainly embraced Dent following his fifth-set tiebreak win over Navarro.

My Call

The odds point to a likely Murray victory, but Dent has what it takes to push him for four sets. Murray will still win, if he can handle the pressure of the occasion.

Isner, Querrey Leave Americans With Mixed Feelings

Rob York — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 01:11:07 -0400

John Isner and Sam Querrey’s similarities don’t stop at their country of origin.

The two Americans are much alike in size: The ATP Web site lists Querrey in the ATP’s heavyweight division at 6’6” and 200 pounds, while Isner might require a new classification altogether at 6’9” and well over 200 pounds.

Therefore, their strengths and weaknesses as players also have much in common, as both play serve-based games, and can knock the fuzz off a fresh Penn with their forehand wings, but neither would have much of a chance against most of the men’s top 10 in the 100-meter dash.

Querrey, with two titles to his name, and Isner, with none yet, are largely unknown among the general American public and the world’s tennis fans at the moment. However, there may be some benefit in that status, as it prevents the unrealistic expectations created by past American players named Pete, Andre, Jimbo and Mac.

Both the 24-year-old Isner and 21-year-old Querrey have been on the radar of U.S. tennis fans for several years, though, even if neither has known much success outside of the American hard courts. Both men had been coming on strong during this hard court season, and were very hopeful for a breakthrough at this year’s Open.

On Saturday, both men saw a chance for just such a result. Querrey’s opponent would be Roland Garros finalist and No. 12 seed Robin Soderling of Sweden. Much of Soderling’s summer from Paris to post-Wimbledon was incendiary, but his performance on the hard courts had been lackluster due to injury, so it appeared an opportunity was ripe for Querrey.

Isner’s obstacle loomed larger: No. 5 and fellow countryman Andy Roddick stood in his way. Roddick, the Wimbledon finalist, had put up one of the most solid years of his career, and had trounced his first two opponents in the Open draw.

After Saturday’s results, American tennis fans can’t help but feel ambivalent. Against a very similar opponent, Querrey was thoroughly outplayed in his 6-2, 7-5, 6-7, 6-1 defeat. The towering American put 66 percent of his first serves in play against the hulking Swede’s 52, but Soderling won 88 percent of his first serve points to Querrey’s 71.

Even worse, Querrey won only 36 percent of second serve points. It took a tremendous effort for Querrey to even take one set, as the third went to 8-6 in the tiebreak, but Soderling quickly ushered him out in the fourth.

However, against a fellow American considered one of the three or four men most likely to lift the US Open trophy next Sunday, Isner turned in the performance of a lifetime.

The tallest, biggest serving American of them all wasn’t even the top singles college player during his four years of play at the University of Georgia; in his final year he finished No. 2 behind the University of Virginia’s Somdev Devvarman—who is currently ranked outside the top 100 on the ATP Tour. And yet, against the man who won the Open in 2003 and finished that year at No. 1, Isner was the cooler competitor.

He had to be; Roddick broke his serve twice and only lost serve once. Roddick played a cleaner match, actually winning 162 points to Isner’s 155.

But Isner, as they saying goes, was better on the points that counted, winning the tiebreaker in the match’s opening set, and then its final one. The former Georgia Dawg also proved that fortune favors the brave, as he struck 90 winners to Roddick’s 51 and made 52 unforced errors to the higher-ranked American’s 20.

Both men had an average first serve speed of 122 mph, but Isner’s second averaged out to an intrepid 109 mph, nine miles per hour faster than Roddick’s.

The day after Taylor Dent’s inspiring win over Ivan Navarro that also went into a fifth-set tiebreak, this was the second match-of-the-tournament contender to feature an aspiring American champ.

The result brought the New York fans to their feet when Roddick’s last passing shot attempt went into the net. On the day after, though, most American fans (outside of UG alumni) are going to be feeling a lot less overjoyed: Roddick would have been the favorite against Fernando Verdasco in the fourth round, and would have had approximately even odds against Novak Djokovic in the quarters had both men gotten there.

Isner can win those matches if this play continues, but he will be an underdog both times. Isner’s win was certainly good for him, but following his defeat of Roddick, Querrey’s loss to Soderling, and James Blake’s fizzling out against Tommy Robredo, there isn’t a lot else for fans of American tennis to celebrate.

The two towering Americans gave their countrymen a lot to hope for going into Saturday, but now all their hopes rest on Isner and Dent.

Get To Know a Tennis Upstart: Francesca Schiavone

Rob York — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 08:35:45 -0400

Francesca Schiavone of Italy defeated No. 8 seed Victoria Azarenka 4-6, 6-2, 6-2 on Friday, ending the Belarusian’s hopes for a Grand Slam breakthrough.

The 29-year-old Schiavone is now in her 12th year as a pro, having won one singles title, seven in doubles and reached the Roland Garros doubles final while partnering with Casey Dellacqua of Australia.

Her career highlight, however, may have been her involvement in a Fed Cup victory in 2006, when Italy defeated the heavily favored Belgian team led by Justine Henin 3-2.

Schiavone is known for her all-court game with a hard forehand and one-handed backhand that she prefers to slice, along with her comfort at net.

In her decade-long career she has reached the quarterfinals of every Grand Slam event save the Australian Open, where her best appearance was a fourth round showing in ’06.

Schiavone reached the quarters of Wimbledon in July, which helped her earn a seeding for the Open.

Even so, she went into Friday’s encounter as a distinct underdog against the 20-year-old Victoria Azarenka, who has been one of the fastest-rising young players on the WTA Tour. Azarenka has three titles to her name already, including the Premier event in Miami where she routed a hobbled Serena Williams in the final.

While Azarenka put 80 percent of her first serves in play on Friday—an extremely high percentage to maintain over three sets—she won only 56 percent of points on her first serve and an abysmal 26 percent on her second. She committed 46 unforced errors to only 18 winners, and had only one ace to six double faults.

The No. 26-seeded Italian, by contrast, had a first serve percentage of 57 percent, but her average first serve speed was 98 mph to Azarenka’s 87. The Italian also played a much cleaner match, committing 32 errors to 30 winners.

After the match, Schiavone said that her plan had been to keep Azarenka beyond the baseline, as allowing her to step inside the court would have permitted the up-and-coming Belarusian to dictate play.

The Italian’s next opponent will be No. 18 seed Li Na of China. Schiavone is currently the No. 2 Italian in the women’s game behind No. 10 Flavia Pennetta, who is also still in the tournament.

Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt Trade Places (Humor)

Rob York — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:10:45 -0400

NEW YORK: US Open fans were treated to a pleasant surprise tonight when the mercurial Russian Marat Safin crushed Austria’s Jurgen Meltzer 6-2, 6-3, 6-2.

Australia’s normally steady Lleyton Hewitt was not so impressive, turning in a lethargic performance against Argentina’s Juan Ignacio Chela, falling 6-3, 6-4, 6-2.

It was a stunning turnaround for both men, as Safin, who had vowed to retire at the end of this season, had sleepwalked through most of 2009, winning only a handful of matches and openly proclaiming his distaste for life on the ATP Tour.

Hewitt, on the other hand, had returned from hip surgery in late-2008 and was seemingly determined to earn a seeding for the final major of the year. The Australian had actually succeeded in doing so just in time for the Open, where he was seeded No. 31, making his exit all the more perplexing.

Onlookers were visibly surprised by the behavior of both men, as Hewitt grew impatient during routine rallies, at one point shattering his racket and earning a point penalty.

Safin, by contrast, was focused throughout his match, pumping his fist and shouting after hard-fought points. It’s not been confirmed, but we’ve been told that his favorite catchphrase of the evening roughly translates from Russian into “Come on!”

Several witnesses also reported Safin taking out a bright necklace from under his shirt during changeovers, rubbing it while mumbling in an unconfirmed language (most believe it to be Latin) and then tucking it back inside before anyone could ask him about it.

During his post-match press conference, the Russian announced that he is changing his mind and no longer plans to leave the game at the end of this year.

“Now that I have this body…I mean, since I have this talent, why would I want to walk away now? Marat has…I mean, I have barely begun to use my potential,” the Russian said, using uncharacteristically good grammar.

Safin then offered to enlighten reporters as to his new fitness regime and the on-court drills he has been practicing.

Hewitt, by contrast, was mostly indifferent to his loss during his post-match interview.

“I played terrible,” he said. When asked what he did wrong, he listed “the serve, the volleys, the groundstrokes…I guess that’s everything.

“Mostly I’m just glad it’s over,” he added. He then proceeded to ask if any of the reporters had seen Safin recently.

“He’s been borrowing something of mine I’d kind of like to get back,” Hewitt said.

A necklace similar to the one spotted on Safin was reportedly seen being worn by David Nalbandian, whom sources say has lost 15 pounds and is eager to return to action. Curiously, Andy Roddick recently gained 15 pounds and withdrew from the Open with a hip injury.