Bleacher Report - Articles by claudia celestial girl

Near Misses: Venus at the 2008 US Open

claudia celestial girl — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:56:36 -0500

There's a certain commercial for the 2009 US Open—one where Serena Williams has two dolls in her lap.

"I'm gonna beat you, Venus," Serena says, marching one doll over her knee into the other one's face.

"No, you not," replies the second doll in an elevated, falsetto voice.

Near Misses: the canvas on which is painted ugly, bitter things, the scope of which contains hidden beauty that lingers in the mind like the aftertaste of a fine, aged Scotch.

The subject of this series is not the winner, but the so-called "loser," the one whose exit is at first bitter and burning like the first note of a 30-year-old Glenmorangie, but for whom the second note is sweet, nuanced, and lasting, just like said 30-year-old Scotch.

Richard Williams, their notorious, old father and coach, announced, when Venus won her first title, that his two daughter's would ultimately find that their greatest rival would be each other.

Such was his confidence in the talents of both of his offspring.

How bitter then, must it be, to realize that of all the finals played against your sister, if not for her, the title might have been yours (other rivals having been beaten).

How burning after all the years growing up with her stealing your toys, taking the last flakes of cereal from the box at breakfast, hogging the bathroom and the phone, that she won't go away in humble defeat and leave you the field.

Sweet. When you go out and defeat the rivals from other countries and even those from other regions of the US who you know from the locker room.

Nuanced. When you have to play her instead.

Lasting. How much longer can you last? This would be your seventh US Open campaign. You're not getting any younger.

In 2008, Venus was arguably at the height of her career—experienced, battling injury before coming back to top form; Wimbledon Champion; 27 years of age. But she had neither won the Open since 2001, the day before 9/11, nor won any other major besides Wimbledon since, where she was a five-time defending champion.

At the 2008 US Open, Venus stormed through the draw up until this point. Serena looked sharp as well.

Ten set points.

1. 1st Set [(6-6) 6-4]. It’s the tiebreak, and you’ve arrived a set point. You've got two set points, actually. You've led through the match so far with an early break, but it’s been a tough match with a lot of deuce games. You skid and slip on the DecoTurf and miss the forehand, but it's no big deal. You’ve still got a set point, though it's her serve now.

2. 1st Set [(6-6) 6-5]. Oh, bad. Serena gets out of that one with a forehand winner. The stats for this match are so close between the two of you, like playing a clone of yourself.

3. 2nd Set [(5-3) 40-0]. You’ve arrived at three set points this time. You leaped out in front through the second set with two breaks, and Serena has been hard to put away, saving more break points with hammer forehand winners—clocking 109 mph and such. But you’ve arrived at the finish line, you just have to serve it out. OK, well, a forehand error. On to the next set point.

4. 2nd Set [(5-3) 40-15]. Another forehand error.

5. 2nd Set [(5-3) 40-30]. Yet another forehand error after a nine-stroke rally. The completely sold out stadium is quiet. Your body language is starting to droop. You’ve lost the last three points. But you are too classy to smash your racket to the ground.

6. 2nd Set [(6-5) 40-30]. OK, now you’ve got her. The match has reached the two-hour mark and with a break you can drive this to a third set. But yet again you put too much into that forehand, after a seven-stroke rally, and we’re at deuce.

7. 2nd Set [(6-6) 6-3]. That last game went to five deuces! Back and forth, back and forth—a ten minute game. And now we’re in another tiebreak. You got a standing ovation from playing a phenomenal point at 4-2 in the tiebreak, then, like an idiot, you missed an easy put away on the next point. But now you’re here again. Three set points. Yet another phenomenal rally—this one characterized by a lob from Serena that floated in the air like a hot air balloon. Only, doggone it, you overcooked the reply with another forehand error.

8. 2nd Set [(6-6) 6-4]. A glance at Serena across the net shows her intensity is keyed-in. One of those close-up photographs of her winning a point in this tiebreak, in her red dress, fist clenched, mouth wide open, is going to be a classic shot of quintessential Serena.

9. 2nd Set [(6-6) 6-5]. You miss the line with the overhead smash, and you are so flustered that you forget to change ends. The crowd cannot believe the call is out.

10. 2nd Set [(6-6) 7-6]. This is a phenomenal tiebreak. Been going on for 12 minutes. You’ve got the 8th set point of this second set. Serena comes in for a crosscourt-smashing passing shot that is phenomenal in its beauty, power, and elegance. A truly brilliant shot. Why is she so hard to put away?

The final score: [6-7(6); 6-7(7)]. Serena has only one set point and one match point in this contest.

Burning. When you have to shake her hand at the net. No hugs this time.

Bitter. When you could be packed up and headed home but instead have to hang around and smile and support your sister's success (Serena would go on to win the tournament).

Sweet. The acknowledgement of appreciative fans for one of the classiest matches you have ever played.

Nuanced. How it must feel to be on the losing end of a contest that is a contribution to the legendary matches of the sport.

A lasting memory for this tennis narrator.

Here is the video of Serena’s commercial with the dolls, and here is Venus’ reply, which is essentially, if you want to have friends on the tennis tour...get a dog.

Other articles in this series:

Hingis [1999 FO]
Djokovic [2009 Madrid]
Kuznetsova [2009 AO]
Venus [2008 USO]

State of Grace: Losing in 2009

claudia celestial girl — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:32:42 -0500

After a spectacular loss to Roger Federer in the 2007 Australian Open, Andy Roddick, said, "It was frustrating, it was miserable, it sucked, it was terrible...Besides that it was fine."

Decades ago, for those of us in the US old enough to remember, ABC used to open a weekly sports show citing, in equal measure: the Joy of Victory...and the Agony of Defeat (using a horrible skiing accident to illustrate the latter).

The truth is that defeat, though agonizing, can often be the most inspiring illumination of character that comes out of a sporting contest.

This year, Roger Federer took two of the most spectacular losses a champion can accept, and also recorded two of the most spectacular wins a champion could ever make in meeting, then breaking, the all-time Slam record formerly held by Pete Sampras.

But this is an article about that state of grace that can sometimes be entered by a sporting champion in defeat.

1) 2009 Australian Open Final

Roger Federer was so distraught in his runner-up speech that he lost his composure and cried in front of 15,000 fans, an international TV audience and a collection of the sport’s all-time legends gathered at the ceremony ostensibly to honor his achievement in meeting the all-time Slam record.

For me, this occasion is memorable for two things. One is the passion that Roger brings to the game that he rarely releases on the court, but that emerged as fans acknowledged their appreciation for it, and he said “God, it’s killing me!” (somewhat reminiscent of the tears he shed at his loss at the 2008 Wimbledon final, where the evident pain of the loss only served to further illuminate how magnificent an event it was).

The second moment that stood out was the gracious way in which the champion of the event, Rafael Nadal, was able to help Roger regroup and make composed remarks, as is expected.

2) 2009 Madrid Master’s Series Semi-Final

It was the longest semi-final in Master’s Series history, not only tournament history. Novak Djokovic walked off the court in an evident state of distress after giving his all and having his heart broken. He acknowledged later that he was having trouble getting over the loss. He skipped Queen’s Club, where he stood to face Nadal again, opted instead for Halle, where he stood instead to face Roger Federer, but lost early, and in fact, his performance (that of both contestants of the Rome semi-final) suffered for months after. Unable to defend points, he dropped from World No. 3 to World No. 4.

For me, and I can’t do it justice, there is something elegant about having a loss affect one’s performance so. It is illustrative of the heart and self-validation that went into that particular contest.

3) 2009 French Open Fourth Round

Rafael Nadal had never lost at Roland Garros. His opponent in the QF was one whom he rather famously disliked on the tour, and to whom he had administered a drubbing 1-and-0 on clay just a few weeks before. The loss was compared by one commentator to that of boxer Mike Tyson against Buster Douglas in 1990—a shocking change of fortune that affected the future of the sport.

Nadal’s extraordinary remarks on the occasion of this loss included some rather poetic work. “Defeats never make you grow, but you also realize how difficult what I achieved up until today was, and this is something you need sometimes. You need a defeat to give the value to your victories.”

The fact that tennis has these traditions of the handshake following every match and occasionally speeches from the loser only seconds after the loss, which are for the most part extraordinarily gracious, was captured with profound irony on the occasion of this loss, as the NBA playoffs were underway, and a famous player and the team he led had failed to qualify. The basketball star in question (Lebron James) walked off the court without making the customary remarks, and so the world’s press was treated to this wonderful dichotomy of grace, recorded in a fantasy telephone call in commentary on ESPN (presented at the last page of this article).

4) 2009 Wimbledon Final

Yet again, Andy Roddick lost in spectacular fashion to Roger Federer, and handed him one of the greatest triumphs of Federer’s career—his 15th Grand Slam title (allowing Roger to reverse the tears he’d shed in January at the AO). After playing what amounted to a seven-set match (the final set went to 14-16, and not in his favor), he had to sit in the chair and applaud while Roger made the rounds with the golden trophy in his hands.

Andy Roddick has borne the expectations of American tennis fans for half a decade as the heir apparent to the tradition of Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, John McEnroe and Jimmy Conners. Though consistent for 10 years and one of the few to be ranked in the top 10 for eight consecutive years, Roddick may yet go down in history as a ‘One Slam Wonder.’

His closest chance of wiping that appellation from his record and perhaps the greatest performance of his career ended in an extremely tough loss. Yet he did not throw his racket to the ground; he retained his sense of humor. He did not get down on himself. He showed us that a champion digs deep, and sometimes when the contestants leave the field, the audience feels as if there was no loser.

5) 2009 US Open Fourth Round

The biggest disappointment of my career, said Andy Murray, losing in the fourth round to Marin Cilic, after being touted (as he always is for every single Slam) as the hands-down, odds-on betting favorite to win the tournament. As such, it was a big disappointment to more people than just Murray! The young Scot's savvy, canny game has so much potential and seemingly is without the fitness problems that plague Novak Djokovic.

As the heir apparent to Fred Perry and Tim Henman, he shoulders the expectation of a nation of tennis lovers where the game was born to be the next great British champion. He bears these expectations with considerable grace, and none more profound than when he has to stand up before the world’s (but particularly the British) press, and expound on the reasons for the loss and his feelings about it. On this occasion, he offered these explanations in somber, sincere tones, without the glib, cavalier attitude of Andy Roddick or the occasional self-pity of Roger Federer.

6) 2009 Paris Third Round

Everybody loved Marat Safin. One commentary noted that he leaves the tour without having made a single enemy (though he had some pretty sour remarks to make about Andre Agassi, and one wonders how Andre would have responded if he’d still been playing, but then again that kind of speculation is moot).

He played a competitive, three-set match against Delpo, showing his notorious occasional flashes of brilliance. After his final professional loss, the French held a special award ceremony, and gave Safin the Key to the City. Safin’s "aw shucks" attitude will, for me, leave a lasting sense of charm.

So congratulations to the losers, for their losses have, in some cases, conveyed more "attitude" than yet another win might have.

The following is an excerpt from an article by senior writer Tim Keown that originally appeared on ESPN Page 2. This article (a fantasy conversation) captures some of the expectations of character that tennis seems to enjoy at the expense of some other sports. The original article (very funny in its entirety) can be found here (and seemingly archived under ‘NBA’ and not ‘tennis’).

LEBRON JAMES: ...You gotta understand. When we lost to Orlando, I was out of there, baby.

Right from the court to the locker room. Then I got a cop on each side of
me, my headphones in my ears and headed for the bus. Didn't need to talk.
Didn't have anything to say, man. Did I tell you I'm a winner?

NADAL: I have won a lot. I don't like to lose. I have won Wimbledon and
Australia and Roland Garros, but when I lose it is part of my job to....

JAMES: You know the funny thing? I didn't even have the music on, man. I
just made it look like it. Just playin', you know?

NADAL: That is...funny?

JAMES: They thought I couldn't hear 'em. They were all like, "LeBron, can we
get a minute? LeBron, what do you have to say about the loss?" When I
didn't break stride you should have heard them muttering and complaining.
Those cops kept on walking, and I kept on walking. Right to the bus. Right
off the bus to the plane. Right on home.

NADAL: Sometimes a good walk can help calm a man's....

JAMES: Wait, wait, wait. That reminds me. You gotta come clean with me on one
thing: With calm? What kind of stuff is that? Is that a tennis thing or
something? It's like you're talking about calm all the time, man. Calm this
and calm that. First off, I'm not accepting anything, and I'm definitely not
accepting it with calm. You understand? Calm's messed up.

NADAL: I guess I just have a different way of thinking. I was not happy—I
was very unhappy—but I realize it is not the end of the world. In the
end, I have no one to blame but myself.

JAMES: Well, man—that's one thing we don't have in common.

(JAMES laughs loudly. In the background there is more laughter. NADAL thinks
he hears the sound of hands slapping.)

JAMES: But back to what I'm saying, man. That dude...what was his name?

NADAL: Robin Soderling.

JAMES: Yeah, whatever. He was the 23rd seed?

NADAL: Please, do not remind me.

JAMES: Didn't he make fun of you once before, mocking what you do in front
of everyone at Wimbledon?

NADAL: Please do not remind me.

JAMES: So this time he beat you up, ran you all over the damned court, and
when it was over you congratulated him? You shook the man's hand?

NADAL: As I said, I was taught to be gracious, to be a sportsman....
Perhaps we do not speak the same language, no?

Queens of the Court: The Luminous Evonne Goolagong

claudia celestial girl — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:02:52 -0500

Evonne Goolagong can be described in mathematical terms.

Parallels and angles. Circles and singularities (a situation that is completely unique). Chaos versus The Metronome.

She will be forever remembered as a seven-time Grand Slam winner: four Australian Open, two Wimbledon, and one French Open title(s).

She was a contemporary of Jimmy Connors. (Jimbo was born Sept. 2, 1952, Evonne on July 31, 1951), and her career paralleled his in its dramatic jump-start.

In 1970, at age 18, Connors recorded his first significant victory in the first round of the Pacific Southwest Open in Los Angeles, defeating Australian tennis legend Roy Emerson.

Goolagong came out of nowhere to win the 1971 French Open at the age of 19 and then shocked the world again a month later when she routed her idol, fellow Australian Margaret Court, 6-4, 6-1, to win her first Wimbledon title.

1971 was the year that Love Story was No. 1 at the box office (in the US at least) and "Joy to the World," by Three Dog Night was the No. 1 song. It was also the year that the Pentagon Papers were leaked to the New York Times and Apollo 14 landed on the moon.

1968, three years before, was a seminal year in the annals of tennis. It was the moment (March 30) that saw the birth of the "open" era, where professionals were allowed to compete in the majors—the beginning of modern tennis.

In the early 1970s, big names at the top of the world of tennis included (as a friend recently wrote to me) Arthur Ashe and Rod Laver—Chris Evert and Evonne Goolagong too.

I remember 1968 very clearly. I remember Arthur Ashe and Muhammad Ali, two diametrically opposed personalities; the former being the first African-American man to win a major in tennis (at the US Open), and the latter being stripped of his heavyweight title in April of that year.

In another article in our Queens of the Court series, I noted that almost no tennis players came from poverty. I wrote of the success of Althea Gibson , being the first person of African descent, of any nationality, to win a major (1956) in the sport of tennis.

If Evonne Goolagong’s career sometimes paralleled that of Jimmy Connors, her life paralleled that of Althea Gibson.

Evonne was one of eight children from an Australian Aboriginal family, being a member of the Wiradjuri people, making her completely unique in the world of tennis. When she was a girl, her father, an itinerant sheep shearer, used to fashion makeshift tennis "paddles" for her out of pieces of wood.

Like Gibson, she was a consummate athlete. She played rugby, cricket, and soccer as a child, and at 13 left home to pursue the dream of a career in tennis.

Her game paralleled that of John McEnroe in that she was a volleyer who relied more on skill and speed than strength, and thus was vulnerable to opponents with a power game, big serves, and punching groundstrokes, such as that of Chris Evert and Billie Jean King.

Long-armed and graceful, with agile reflexes, Evonne Goolagong reputedly possessed the ability to cover the court with great precision. At her peak, like Johnny Mac, she was regarded as one of the most subtle practitioners the women's game had ever seen.

Her greatest weakness, in a complete departure from Johnny Mac: lapses of concentration that may have cost her several titles, and for which her home press in Australia used to take her to task.

Her luminous and memorable rivalry with Evert, so fondly remembered by my friend, was dominated by Evert, who led 21-12; in the majors Evert’s edge was 3-2 (a ratio that roughly paralleled their overall record).

Evonne first met Evert in the 1972 Wimbledon semis, where Evonne pulled out with a third-set rally, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4. Goolagong won their initial championship encounter, the 1974 Australian, 7-6 (7-5), 4-6, 6-0.

Their tightly contested 1975 US Open contest was a three-setter that Goolagong lost 5–7, 6–4, 6–2, and their 1976 Wimbledon final also resulted in a three-set thriller that Goolagong lost 6–3, 4–6, 8–6.

She beat rising star Martina Navratilova for her second Australian Open title in 1975. After that, Evert and Navratilova would dominate the Ladies’ Tour for the latter half of the decade of the 1970s (though Goolagong was ranked World No. 1 in 1976).

In 1980, Goolagong became only the third mother in history to win Wimbledon (in a parallel with Kim Clijsters’ 2009 USO experience). She upset Tracy Austin in the semifinal and Evert in the final of the 1980 Wimbledon.

"When I was 19, I didn't appreciate it," she said comparing her two Wimbledon titles that, separated by nine years, book-ended her career. "But in '80, I had a child and nobody expected much. That was amazingly sweet."

Enjoy this five-minute clip of Evonne’s win against Austin in the 1980 Wimbledon semifinals.

Read other articles in this series about women and their contributions to the game. See how 19th-century American Molla Mallory pioneered the "look" of flowing short skirts for ladies’ tennis, and how Helen Willis came of age as an American rival of Suzanne Lenglen. Look for other articles about Billie Jean King (BJK), Martina Navratilova, and Althea Gibson, among others.

Greatest Lady Competitors in Tennis History

claudia celestial girl — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:40:06 -0500

In your face. Pushy. Mentally strong. Competitive. These are not your usual adjectives for describing 'Ladies.' Gracious and elegant; cute, classy, and tenacious. These are more common ways Lady competitors are described. And yet, one of the reasons that we love to watch tennis is that very basic, visceral psychological aspects of life, play themselves out in 1-2 hours on the tennis court. This slideshow is meant to be complementary to Rob York's presentation of the top five male competitors (here - http://bleacherreport.com/articles/285813-the-greatest-competitors-in-mens-tennis). In his piece, York suggested that great competitors brought something of mental strength, focus, or force of will over and above their physical abilities to achieve the victory. This slideshow is a presentation of the top five Ladies' Competitors. I mean those who, like their male counterparts, show you their will to win, their audacity, their indomitable spirit; something about the Human Condition. As a themesong for this slideshow, I've selected You can Take This Job and Shove It (I Ain't Workin' Here no More). This is a humourous song that underscores a core, basic, fighting spirit, that is part of what a true competitor brings to the contest.

Begin Slideshow

Queens of Court: Althea Gibson, a Pioneering Tennis Talent

claudia celestial girl — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:43:24 -0400

Born in 1927, the year after the historic "Match of the Century " featured in our previous two articles between the divine Suzanne Lenglen and the poker-faced Helen Wills, Althea Gibson is another of our Queens of the Court.

In 1956 Althea Gibson made history by becoming the first person of African descent, of any nationality, to win a tennis major (the French).

Ironically, Althea Gibson became the first woman to not only achieve major success in the world of professional tennis, but also to compete after leaving tennis as a professional golfer.

But her career in tennis was a tough row to hoe.

Unlike Suzanne Lenglen or Helen Wills, who both played their first tournaments as teenagers, and so began amassing statistics, Althea Gibson did not enter the world "tour" of tennis until the age of 23. Why?

As an African-American woman from Harlem, New York, Althea Gibson was not allowed to play the majors until in the fall of 1950, when she was allowed to enter the U.S. National Championships (later to become the U.S. Open), then played at Forest Hills.

After a half-decade spent playing in a Negro tennis league known as the American Tennis Association, adjusting to the more rigorous world of then current world-ranking players was a challenge.

In this, her first tournament in the majors, Gibson completed her first round in straight sets. But her second round match on the grass of Forest Hills would be against Louise Brough, who had won the previous three Wimbledons.

After being routed 6-1 in the first set, Gibson recovered to win the second set 6-3 and led 7-6 in the third when a thunderstorm struck, halting the match. When it resumed the next day, Gibson dropped three straight games to lose the match.

A tough debut, but Gibson continued to grow her game. By 1952, Gibson was the ninth ranked American woman on the tour, and by 1956, she was among the top five in the world.

Poverty as a Germinator

Over the history of tennis in general, boys and girls of modest means succeed, but none come from poverty.

In the 1920s and 1930s, tennis in Europe was played in elite tennis clubs by the upper classes. Von Cramm was a true aristocrat, from a titled family. Fred Perry’s father was a member of the British House of Commons, and Suzanne Lenglen’s father owned a large carriage company.

Don Budge, who in contemporary terms we might call a "surfer dude" learned to play tennis in Oakland California on public courts, and came from a family of modest means.

Helen Wills was from Fremont California, which at the time was a sleepy farming community. Bill Tilden was from a wealthy family in Philadelphia.

In 1927, when Althea Gibson was born, Harlem was in the midst of what would come to be called The Harlem Renaissance. That ended with the great crash of 1929, but Harlem nonetheless, while harboring great poverty, would play host to a bohemian society.

The likes of Zora Neale Hurston, Langston Hughes, and Duke Ellington would continue to create great works of art well into the 1940s. In such an artsy, open environment, it is not inconceivable that tennis would be followed, and supported, by the African-American community of Harlem.

Althea Gibson’s family is reported to have been on public assistance, and she is reported to have been a runaway, and truant in her early years. But she excelled at sports, including basketball, horsemanship, golf, and table tennis.

At the age of 14 (when Suzanne Lenglen, Tracy Austin, Martina Hingis, and others started playing major tournaments), young Althea was introduced to tennis by a local Harlem musician and tennis fan named Buddy Walker.

Racism

As an amateur on the world tennis tour, Gibson remained unwelcome at some clubs where tournaments were held. Even while winning tournaments she was denied rooms at hotels. One refused to book reservations for a luncheon in her honor.

Zena Garrison, a WTA member in the top 20 in the '90s has been quoted as saying that younger tennis players have no idea what it meant for Gibson to not even be allowed "in the front door."

It had to have been tough to concentrate solely on playing the game.

Jackie Robinson, who similarly pioneered African-American participation in American baseball, was constantly required to block out racial slurs when he played. He had to endure a negative environment in which every mistake was held up as rationale for denying African-American’s the right to play.

At one time, Robinson received a seven-inch gash in his leg after being provoked by players on another team.

Gibson said she didn't care. "I tried to feel responsibilities to Negroes, but that was a burden on my shoulders," she said in 1957.

Ms. Gibson’s Game

She was tall, standing at 5'11" (compared with Suzanne Lenglen or Helen Wills, both in the 5'0" range), with Serena Williams’ height and power, in a time when women sports figures were not so big.

A right-hander, Gibson had a strong serve and preferred to play an attacking game. A woman who had excelled at basketball as a girl, she had good foot speed.

She played a serve and volley game, but continued to learn and improve her game as the years went on, and became more consistent from the baseline.

Highlights of Her Career

Gibson won her Grand Slam titles in 1956 (French), 1957 (Wimbledon and U.S. Nationals), and 1958 (Wimbledon and U.S. Nationals). Her singles record at the Grand Slams events was an impressive 53-9: 16-1 at Wimbledon, 27-7 at the U.S., 6-0 at the French and 4-1 at the Australian.

She defeated Brough (who she had met in her first outing in a major tournament in 1950) for the 1957 Wimbledon title. She defeated Mortimer 8-6, 6-2 in the 1958 Wimbledon final and rallied to beat Hard 3-6, 6-1, 6-2 for the U.S. title.

Lost Years

It is unfortunate that Ms. Gibson’s prime tennis-playing years overlapped with some formative years in the U.S. Civil Rights movement, though perhaps we should be grateful that she was allowed to play in the latter half of her prime years.

If we assume that, like other female tennis stars before and since, that her career might have commenced at age 17, she lost a good six years out of her prime, and another three years developing her game while competing against world-class competition.

When she started in the majors, she also spent time earning a bachelor’s degree at Florida A&M University. (By contrast, most tennis stars of today don’t take time away from their careers for college. John McEnroe, for example, spent only one year at Stanford University, at age 19, in 1977.)

After winning her fifth major title, Gibson turned pro. Like many tennis stars of the time, as amateurs they did not earn sufficient income to make a living.

Unfortunately, the professional Ladies’ tour in those days was slim pickings in terms of earnings, and Gibson shortly left tennis altogether for a golfing career. (Making the Ladies’ Tour a success would be a task taken up by another in our series of Queens of the Court, Billie Jean King).

Years When Althea Might Have Been Winning Majors

1944 – publication of An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy, which basically said that there was no reason why Negroes could not enjoy full participation in the American democracy; Duke Ellington records jazz masterpiece Black, Brown, and Beige (perhaps his most famous piece, "Take the ‘A’ Train," was recorded in 1941, when Althea Gibson was 14)
1945 – deployment of the first atomic bomb and end of WWII;
1946
1947 – Jackie Robinson starts for the L.A. Dodgers (first African-American to play a major American sport)
1948 – Thurgood Marshall wins the Shelley v. Kraemer case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down legality of racially restrictive covenants; Martin Luther King graduates from Morehouse College
1949
1950 - Thurgood Marshall wins Supreme Court victories in two graduate-school integration cases, Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, laying the groundwork for the landmark Brown vs Board of Education case, which, in 1954, would demolish the legal basis for racial segregation in America

Where Gibson Stands Among Legends of the Sport After Age 24

Lenglen: three Grand Slam singles Titles after age 24 (she turned pro)
Gibson: five Grand Slam singles Titles after age 24 (she turned pro)
BJK: seven Grand Slam singles Titles after age 24
Wills: eight Grand Slam singles Titles after age 24
Graf: eight Grand Slam singles Titles after age 24
Court: 11 Grand Slam singles Titles after age 24
Evert: 11 Grand Slam singles Titles after age 24
Navratilova: 15 Grand Slam singles Titles after age 24

It’s clear from this table that Gibson probably would have stood among the legends of the sport if she’d been allowed to compete in her prime tennis years.

Read other articles in this series about women and their contributions to the game. See how 19th century American Molla Mallory pioneered the look of flowing short skirts for Ladies’ tennis and how Helen Willis came of age as an American rival of Suzanne Lenglen. Look for other articles about Billie Jean King (BJK), Martina Navratilova, Althea Gibson, among others.

Queens of the Court: The Divine Suzanne Lenglen

claudia celestial girl — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:08:51 -0400

She was called 'La Divine.' Some say in the 1920s she was a bigger name in sports than that of Babe Ruth.

Between 1919 and 1926, at a time when three and not four tennis majors were played, she won twelve Grand Slam titles, on three different surfaces, and an Olympic Gold medal (Antwerp). Notably in seven of 81 singles titles she did not lose a game!

She was dominant in a way that only a handful of male stars have been since the open era of tennis. More than that, she imposed her personality on the sport, and the entertainment world of the day. We recognize such a personality in contemporary terms, in modern English, we might call her a diva.

Diva: A talented, imperious, and overly dramatic female performer.
Her command of the media, the crowds of fans drawn to her tennis, but more so because of her immense celebrity, are comparable to divas of contemporary screen and stage. (Here’s a clip of contemporary divas Whitney Houston and Maria Carey going at it).

On Bleacher Report we have a long running argument about whether women should receive the same pay as men for their contributions to the game of tennis. As an example of the enormous draw-power of Ladies' tennis, Wimbledon, in 1922, decided to move the tennis center from Worple Road to its larger, current location on Church Road, in order to accommodate the following of of a single tennis star. None of the male stars of the age commanded such a show of respect. Wimbledon was moved because of Suzanne Lenglen.

Forma Divina:
Most famous for leaping into the air to strike a ball, as shown in the picture that opens this piece, Lenglen was able to create a stunning forehand by leaning into it, and was devastatingly accurate with her first serve. Her accuracy was honed by her coach and father, who used to put a handkerchief down on the court at random to provide a target. She is reported to have had remarkable anticipation and a complete, all-court game. But it was the fact that she played unencumbered by the tight layers of clothing that others wore that also made a contribution to her extraordinary success.

Flappers, The Charleston, and Women in the 1920s:
In Paris Lenglen’s contemporary, Coco Chanel, working in the (otherwise entirely male) world of clothing design, introduced a stunning concept - women's sportswear - at her Paris showroom in 1913. It was only a year later that Lenglen was to begin making her mark in the world of tennis (1914).

Chanel struggled to redefine a woman’s ‘image’; to depart from the clothing structures of the Victorian era. Chanel wanted to introduce "a sense of freedom". She wanted a complete separation from lace, corsets, underclothes, and padding which she felt separated women from their bodies.

A new breed of self-confident young women would be drawn to Chanel's iconic style, a style that is indelibly associated with the image of the 1920s ‘flapper.’ Flappers demonstrated their independence by wearing short skirts and haircuts, openly using cosmetics, and being seen to smoke and drink cocktails.

Flappers exhibited an increased level of activity over their Victorian forebears, driving their own automobiles, and going out to nightclubs where they could listen to jazz, pursuing athletic sports or energetic dances such as the Charleston.

D-delightful; I-invasive; V-vivacious; A-attitude.
Ms. Lenglen entered right into the flapper spirit. Though not particularly attractive from a physical point of view ( she had the looks of ‘Lyndon Johnson in drag’ according to a contemporary blogger), she dressed and wore for competition, shorter, flowing skirts, that allowed her legs freedom of movement (and showed them off, of course).

Thus she was able to tap her considerable athletic talents and demonstrate in dramatic fashion, a different aspect of femininity that had been rejected in the Victorian era.

Like male contemporary tennis stars, Ms. Lenglen was known for screaming at referees over bad line calls – a true departure from the demure standard of the previous era and likely contributing to her reputation for temperamental flair. She also was known for pouting on court and even weeping - actions that were recognized at the time as passion for the game.

1926: Divine Cusp between a Golden Age and the Contemporary World :

1926, the year of the ‘Match of the Century,’ discussed below, was a year that saw the birth of Norma Jeane Mortenson who would become the quintessential icon of celebrity and power over the media (Marylin Monroe), to whom Ms. Lenglen can be compared at least in terms of stature in the media.

1926 saw the production of a movie by Al Jolson that would enable The Jazz Singer (the first talking movie) to be made the following year – breaking open the field of entertainment.

1926 also saw the publication of a landmark novel by mystery writer Agatha Christie (later Dame Agatha Christie), who’s volume of sales of published works currently is only eclipsed by that of The Bible.

In this masterpiece, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd , Ms. Christie breathtakingly broke established conventions about storytelling (which can’t be revealed here, obviously, without introducing a spoiler), putting her on a par with analytical male writers such as Edgar Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle.

Roll ‘em:
This video captures all that was magnificent about Suzanne Lenglen, why she is such a legend of the sport, and why we still celebrate her achievements to this day. In the video you will see the elements of her that we have presented thus far: power over the media, imposing herself on a match, shocking attire that presaged contemporary sportswear, incredible forehands, feel at the net, and power serving that pre-dates the contemporary women’s game.

It is the 'Match of the Century' from 1926 - between the indomitable international superstar Suzanne Lenglen and the uncomplicated California ingénue, Helen Wills (here ).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HSsH7V3Ml8

Things to watch for:

In this video you’ll see Lenglen entering the stadium like a Hollywood movie star—only Hollywood as we know it today did not yet exist. Keeps Wills waiting (like anyone we know from contemporary tennis?) while she signs autographs. Drinks on a changeover from a flask of brandy! The number of spectators (3000) was large for a tennis match in that locale (Cannes, France), and swarmed all over the court. The block of photographers seems about the same size as it would be in a contemporary major. At the end, about 6-8 huge bouquets are brought out, presumably for Ms. Lenglen, since it doesn’t look like anything is brought for Helen Wills.

The body language as both women come out is classic. Lenglen strides around the court, shoulders back, and head up. Wills schlepps to her side like a teenager doing a chore (she was a teenager at the time). Both women are wearing short(er) skirts. Helen Willis is actually wearing a visor. One of them has a wicked backhand. Both seem to move pretty fast around the court, and Lenglen looks to have a very nice slice backhand.

Lenglen’s life in brief :
She was born in 1899. Sickly, she took up tennis at the encouragement of her father, to bolster her health. She perished at an early age (37) to leukemia. She played her first Slam at age 14 in 1914. She was the first female World #1, when rankings were introduced in 1921 and she is sometimes credited with singlehandedly turning tennis from a country club sport without much public attention into a nation’s (France) biggest sporting draw at the time. Such was her mark on the sport that 1997 saw the dedication of the second show court at Roland Garros—site of the second tennis major played every year t—to La Divine Suzanne Lenglen.

Summary :

Lenglen: 12 Grand Slam singles Titles; 1920 gold medal
BJK: 12 Grand Slam singles Titles
Navratilova: 18 Grand Slam singles Titles
Evert: 18 Grand Slam singles Titles
Wills: 19 Grand Slam singles Titles (all surfaces); 1924 gold medal
Graf: 22 Grand Slam singles Titles (all surfaces in a single year); 1988 gold medal
Court: 24 Grand Slam singles Titles

Read other articles in this series about women and their contributions to the game, see how 18th century American Molla Mallory pioneered the‘look of flowing short skirts for Ladies’ tennis, how Helen Willis came of age as an American rival of Suzanne Lenglen. Look for other articles about Billie Jean King (BJK), Martina Navratolova, among others.

Andre Agassi and the Hot Air Problem

claudia celestial girl — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:36:11 -0400

Andre Agassi, that zen guru of tennis prognostication has provided his insights today on the state of men's tennis.

Andre says that the era of Roger and Rafa is coming to an end. That they are 'losing ground' to the likes of Djokovic, Murray, and Del Potro.

What is more, says Andre, Murray is the likeliest of these contenders to 'dominate' the game in the era to come.

As much as I like Andre, and love his on court analysis of tennis matches, I'm not sure I'm willing to go along with this forecast. In my opinion, Andre has never like Rafael Nadal. He never believed Rafa would win Wimbledon.

Andre does not have a good track record on seeing Rafa's role in men's tennis.

He admitted earlier this year—at the Wimbledon roof exhibition—that he was one of the ones on tour that scoffed at the idea that Rafael Nadal would win a major on a surface other than clay, and certainly not Wimbledon. He has always (since 2006 when Rafa beat him at Roger's Cup) had unkind things to say about Rafa's game (I will find the YouTube of his 2006 comments about the grinding style of Rafa's game and post it here.) Moreover, at this exhibition earlier in the year, he called Rafa a 'freak'. Which I took to imply a singularity, a unique never to be repeated phenomena, and not in a positive sense. Not normal.

To say that both Roger and Rafa are 'losing ground' is a fantastic stretch when the players he says they are losing ground to include two players with a single Slam win, and one with no Slam wins!

It may be true that an era of big, taller, faster, players is coming (but has not arrived yet.) I don't see Murray being part of that bunch, though he is slightly taller. I do see Delpo being part of that contingent. I think of Djokovic as not part of that group at all, but a fantastically talented member of the Roger and Rafa Era.

Why didn't Andre mention Cilic? Or Soderling? Karlovic? Isner? Querry?

Well one reason might be that these are players that are not even close to winning their first Slams (an arguable point, I'll admit). These players are still beatable by the likes of Roger or Rafa.

Why?

Because Roger and Rafa are both match savvy. They both have well rounded games and can take advantage of the vulnerabilities of 'altitude enhanced' players.

Though I agree that an era of taller, faster, and more powerful players is on its way, it is not clear which of the class is going to emerge as the dominant player of that era. And I can't agree that Roger and Rafa's days are over.

For someone who played and was competitive well into his thirties, I'm surprised that his vision for the future of men's tennis has no room for savvy, brilliant tennis legends.

In the Zone with John McEnroe

claudia celestial girl — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:43:02 -0400

In this series, we’ve had 15 attempts to describe a sporting experience, a state of mind, conventionally known as ‘The Zone’. In this installment we will discuss The Zone in the context of the 1984 Wimbledon final between John McEnroe and Jimmy Conners.

Here’s a definition of The Zone proposed in 1975 by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, a psychologist.

‘Flow’ is the mental state of operation in which the person is fully immersed in what he or she is doing by a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity., 'Flow' is a positive psychology concept. Colloquial terms for this or similar mental states include: to be on the ball, in the zone, or in the groove. [Wikipedia]

Here’s a correlated definition that we’ll look at extensively here: 'Beat Down.'

Beat Down v. (1): The act of receiving a serious butt whoopin at the hands of a person or group of persons. [The Urban dictionary]

In 1984, Jimmy Conners ought to have been a fading star of the sport. The height of his career was a decade earlier: July, 1974, through August, 1977. [Jimbo held the top ranking for 160 consecutive weeks in his prime]. But five years later, in 1982, at age 29, Conners was still winning Grand Slams. In 1982, he defeated John McEnroe in a hard fought, bitter, Wimbledon final.

In 1984, Jimmy was 31 and McEnroe was 25, and they would go head to head once again to contest the Wimbledon final.

In defining the positive psychology concept ‘Flow,’ Dr. Csíkszentmihályi identified the following factors as accompanying the experience.

‘Flow’ factor 1: Balance between ability level and challenge (the challenge level and skill level should both be high).

Because of the overall quality of performance of both players exhibited in the lead up to the final, the 1984 match was highly anticipated, and was expected to be close.

Far from fading, Jimmy Conners at 31, meeting rival John McEnroe in the final of Wimbledon can be compared to Andre Agassi winning his final Grand Slam title in the Australian Open in 2003 at the age of 33, or Pete Sampras winning his final (and 14th Grand Slam) in the USO at age 31 in 2002. His skill level was high, his experience and maturity were optimum, and he was fully capable of challenging McEnroe to the fullest extent.

Jimmy C. and Johnny Mac were separated by seven years in age, making their rivalry more akin to Roger Federer (currently 28) and Rafael Nadal (currently 23) than that of Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, who were separated in age by only one year. Nonetheless, the two men fought nine Grand Slam matches (compare with Rafa and Roger who have contested seven matches so far, or Andre and Pete who contested nine) and at the time of this match, Conners led their overall h2h 11-8, and on grass was 4-2.

Corollary v. (2): To receive a BEAT DOWN would be equivalent to getting "pounded into the ground" by someone who doesn't like you. [The Urban dictionary]

As tennis rivalries go, the McEnroe/Conners rivalry is among tennis' best (or most notorious).

Both of these men were extremely competitive, they were two of the most competitive and emotional champions the sport has ever known. Whereas McEnroe's rivalry with Bjorn Borg could be characterized as 'fire and ice,' his rivalry with Conners was more like two kindred spirits, perhaps 'bourbon and scotch,' or even 'scotch and vinegar.' McEnroe has been quite clear (in recent remarks in the commentary booth) that his rivalry with Borg was friendly, but that with Connors was ... less so.

Of his own competitive nature Connors has said, "If I won, I won, and if I lost, well, I didn't take it so well." He has also famously said, “I didn’t lose, I just ran out of time.”

It’s worth it here to set the stage for this contest, as the match itself would hold little drama. Instead there is this delicious irony, that the match would become a quintessential example of that ‘Positive Psychology’ known as The Zone, where Conners, but more especially McEnroe, were notorious for drawing strength from negative energy.

McEnroe would sometimes get to feeling victimized by a bad call, or audience reaction, and would channel the negative feelings into competitive fire.

Conners was also a master at turning seeming disadvantage into a competitive edge, only Conners was just plain obnoxious at times, a true maverick, a non-conformist, someone who didn’t play the conventional tennis game, and who didn’t let his technical unconventionalities get in the way of winning.

During the early part of his career, Connors frequently argued with umpires, linesmen, the players union, Davis Cup officials and other players. As for John McEnroe, his diatribes were legendary.

The following two videos capture the quintessential Johnny Mac. In the first (43s), John is disbelieving over a call at Wimbledon, and utters two of his most famous outbursts in quick succession (the third utterance in this diatribe would earn McEnroe a $5 thousand fine in 1982 dollars - quite a bit more when inflation is factored in).

The second video (2009 against Djokovic) captures in 15 seconds, the technical excellence for which McEnroe will forever be known [watch the video at the 3:38 - 3:50 marks]. (In videos from the match itself from 1984, it is hard to see the ball).

The Match begins.

‘Flow’ factor 2: Direct and immediate feedback (successes and failures in the course of the activity are apparent, so that behavior can be adjusted as needed).
‘Flow’ factor 3: A sense of personal control over the situation or activity.

The First Set

McEnroe opens the match by holding serve to love and then goes on to break Connors in the next game. Connors has to play a very good game to hold serve to 1-3. In the first three games Connors earns a total of two points!

It is an era of 'serve and volley,' yet Connors is one of the few players to consistently hit the ball flat, low, and predominantly from the baseline. His game pre-dated that of Andre Agassi, with the return of serve being his greatest strength. His forehand is perhaps his greatest weakness [see this article from Pete Bodo], as it was typically hit with little net clearance. His serve, while accurate and capable, was never a great weapon for him as it did not reach the velocity and power of his opponents.

But in this set, Connors gets no opportunity to show off any retrieving. It is McEnroe with the big serve, and also the athletic retrieving, holding serve at love. In one of only two rallies, McEnroe executes a fantastic lob that has Connors scrambling (and losing the point). McEnroe breaks again and wins the set 6-1. The whole set takes 21 minutes, and Connors can't really get going.

‘Flow’ factor 4: The activity is intrinsically rewarding, so there is an effortlessness of action.
‘Flow’ factor5: People become absorbed in their activity, action awareness merging.

The Second Set

Connors loses his opening service game in the second set, and is down 0-4 before he holds serve. Everything is going McEnroe's way; even the net-cords turn out in his favor. McEnroe takes the set 6-1.

In this set, Conners changes his tactics and tries to serve and volley, which is not his natural game. He has no greater success than his baseline play. At one point, McEnroe falls down, but Connors is not able to take advantage of even this. Mid-way through the set, the crowd starts to rally behind Connors, encouraging him to do ... something. McEnroe takes the set in a total of 28 minutes. The commentators observe that this is a perfect display of 1984 tennis.

‘Flow’ factor 6: Distorted sense of time, one's subjective experience of time is altered.

The Third Set:

In 80 minutes, the whole match is over (on my DVD the whole thing takes less than an hour to watch end to end without commercials). Connors manages to hold serve until 2-2, but McEnroe breaks to take a 4-2 lead, and wins the match as he breaks Connors to love in the final game. McEnroe only gives up ten points on his serve the whole match. Connors keeps trying very hard, but can't do anything.

Corollary v. (3): To deliver a BEAT DOWN would be to verbally berate into submission (publicly); (4) to physically rough up or convincingly administer authority over another person or thing; (5) the exercise of legitimate authority, or rules/procedures, which leave a person or persons in a poor position and often disappointed. [The Urban Dictionary]

This match has been called the most brutal beat down in Wimbledon history. McEnroe managed it without drawing on anger, or resentment of a bad line call. He was a 'gentleman' on the court, exhibiting no 'ill-behavior' in the words of the English commentators (and disappointing his American fans). It was his inner fire that fueled this extraordinary, flawless, performance.

After it was over, match statistics tell more of the story of The Zone.

‘Flow’ factor 7: Concentration, (a person engaged in the activity will have the opportunity to focus and to delve deeply into it).

McEnroe had two unforced errors in the whole match.

Beat Down Verb. (6) To offer a sound drubbing. [The Urban Dictionary].

What is more, McEnroe’s entire 1984 season could be considered in The Zone. As far as winning, and GOAT status in the Open Era, McEnroe's 1984 season is unrivaled. He compiled an 82-3 record (96.4%). The only [man] to come close to matching this record is Roger Federer in 2005, when he amassed an 81-3 record before losing his last match of the year to David Nalbandian. [For comparison, Rafa Nadal went 88-11 in 2008 (88%)]

Conners and McEnroe would go on, in 1984, to contest one other, much more competitive, match together on ‘Super-Saturday’ - the second semi-final of the U.S. Open, in which Conners would take McEnroe to five thrilling sets but ultimately succumb. McEnroe would go on to defeat Ivan Lendl the next day for the title in what is widely regarded as one of the most challenging weekends in the history of tennis.

___________________________________________________________________

In the Zone Series:

The Introduction
Agustin Calleri [6-2, 7-6]
Phillip Kohlschreiber [6-4, 3-6, 7-6(9), 6-7(3), 8-6]
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga [7-6(4), 7-6(3), 7-5]
Robin Sodering [6-2, 6-7(2), 6-4, 7-6(2)]
Fernando Verdasco [2-6, 6-1, 1-6, 6-3, 6-4]
Richard Krajicek [7-5, 7-6, 6-4]
Marat Safin [6-4, 6-3, 6-3]
Rafael Nadal [6-1, 6-3, 6-0] (108 min)
Stefan Edberg [6-3, 6-3, 6-4]
Martina Hingis [6-0, 6-4]
Serena Williams [6-3, 6-2]
Andy Roddick 4-6, 7-6(9-7), 7-6(5)
Boris Becker [0-6, 7-6(1), ... , 6-5]
Mats Wilander [7-5, 6-2, 6-1]
John McEnroe [6-1, -61, 6-2] (80 min)

In the Zone with Jo-Wilfried Tsonga

claudia celestial girl — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 09:49:51 -0400

Jo-Wilfried—Who?

At the start of 2008 I thought I knew all the competitive male players of African descent, and they could be counted on the fingers of one hand. There was James Blake and Donald Young. Oh yeah, there was that skinny French kid, who looked like the Lost Child of Don King.

Wilfried? What kind of a name is that? The only Wilfred I know is a character in a 200-year old book called "Ivanhoe." As an African-American myself, I would sarcastically tell members of my family that only a black person would name their kid "Wilfried."

I was at my get-away spot in rural Oregon along the slopes of Mt. Hood. It was January, and throughout the rainy afternoon, the snow-line—the cold-front that, by converting rain to snow, converted the nominally green pine forest outside my window into spikey white sticks, threatened to descend the slope of the mountain. I kept my eye on it from my vantage point—horizontal on the couch.

Thank God the Australian Open was on. There was no telling in advance what sort of tennis would be accessible in this remote but lovely spot called Welches, Oregon.

I was interested in a different kid—a Spanish player who I'd heard had won a couple of French Opens.

But not only that, he was pretty good, the kind of player you wanted to keep your eye on. Pictures of this Spanish kid were amazing. He had an incredible on-court presence, despite the weird-looking pants, that I was very interested in seeing first hand.

“We drink the beaker,” said he, “to Wilfred, Knight of Ivanhoe, champion of this passage of arms ....”
-Sir Walter Scott [1814]
Tsonga’s resemblance to Muhammad Ali was intriguing. One wondered if he had the spirit and the athleticism to go with the looks.

The commentators warmed us up by telling the audience about Jo-Wilfred's many injuries. He had a herniated disc in 2004; right shoulder injuries in 2005; back and abdominal ailments early in 2006, and a re-injured abdominal muscle at the end of 2006.

Tsonga began 2007 ranked 212 in the world, but finished 2007 ranked No. 43—a climb of 169 ranking points in a single year. So he came into the 2008 Australian Open brimming with confidence, ready to take on the tour.

Rafa, meanwhile, was on form, and looking good on the hard courts [Plexicushion]. He was looking to go deep at this tournament, if not win it outright, as he had ambitions of improving his game and succeeding at tennis majors other than Roland Garros. He was healthy, which he often is not for the USO [the USO is played on DecoTurf].

We would learn, as time marched along, a certain formula for beating Rafa: tall men, of superior athleticism, who can flatten out their forehands and push Rafa back with powerful groundstrokes, then come forward to cut off the court.

Jo-Wilfried, at 6' 2'' is taller than Rafa by one inch; at 200 lbs Tsonga has terrific power on the forehand, mastery of a variety of shots, great hands at net, and—what took us all by surprise - quickness on the court. His footwork and movement were exemplary.

Jo-Willy started out right away moving Rafa from side to side, well beyond the doubles alley, with serves out wide. Then, using his speed he would rush the net.

Rafa Is an excellent passer. Superior hand-eye coordination is required on the part of an opponent to anticipate and return those passing shots. Early in the match, Jo-Willy's ability to cut off the court, AND return the passing shot, gave Jo-Willy the early break in the first set, even wrong-footing Rafa so that he stumbled on-court.

I was surprised by the performance of both men as this match got underway. They were all over the court. Not only side to side and deep into the corners, beyond the doubles alley, but front and back, sometimes with twisting contortions to retrieve a ball as it whizzed by.

Jo-Willy was able to volley with exceptional feel, with sufficient poise that he softly placed his volleys in the open court, and didn’t go for too much.

In the middle of the first set, Rafa tried to use his athleticism to run the legs off of Jo-Willy, but Tsonga came right back with the same strategy.

So we were privileged to games of powerful groundstroke exchanges, end to end, with full-body twisting, torque-inducing, I-really-mean-this, kiss-this-ball-and-die-sucka, this ball is going to pass you so fast there will be a sonic boom.

It became clear that Jo-Willy didn’t need a sleeveless shirt to impose a physical presence on the court, and that his physical presence was not confined to a stretch of road along the baseline.

The champions thus encountered each other with the utmost fury...The splendid armor of the combatants was now defaced with dust and blood. All that was beautiful and graceful in the marital array had disappeared, and what was now visible was calculated to awake either terror or compassion.
-Sir Walter Scott [1814]
The second set contains one of my favorite points of all the tennis I’ve ever seen. Rafa placed a shot low to Tsonga’s feet and Tsonga picked it up with about an inch to spare, and placed it, with a delicate volley close to the net on the other side. Rafa tried to run it down and didn’t make it.

Rafa’s face as he marched back to the baseline recorded, with an expressive grimace of irritation, his appreciation for the athleticism exhibited by Tsonga.

His facial expression was better than a gracious bit of applause for an opponent’s well-placed shot, it was better than a jolly 'I say, nice shot!"; it was the acknowledgement by a fighter, by a contender, that he’d been out done, and the audience laughed when it re-played on the big screen.

In another favorite shot, Tsonga raced down a drop shot from well behind the baseline, and placed with with sublime delicacy after all the power we'd seen, into a lob right over Rafa's head. A fantastic exhibition of poise and control.

In yet a third favorite shot from this match, Tsonga dove for a ball, and again placed a volley with a backhand (his back to the net, the way a backhand overhead smash would look, only he was diving to the ground, not reaching over his head) delicately just over the net and out of Rafa's reach.

In the third set Tsonga got the wrong end of a bad call (overrule by the chair umpire), argued with the chair, then came back with an ace when the point had to be re-played.

In these days of Hawk-eye, we don't often have to see bad calls that throw off a player's rhythm. In the middle of a burst of momentum by Nadal, this was an exceptional bit of poise.

There aren’t many men who can hang with Rafa for multiple sets at a time, and out-hit, and out-volley, and out-pass, make every shot just a little better, and make Rafa suck wind, drop his racket, and fall on the court (multiple times).

There aren't many men who can wrest control of a point from Rafa once he's gotten a rally underway, or illicit a sense of panic from Rafa as the match starts to close out.

There are not many men who can handle Rafa’s high bouncing serve, the left-hander to the right-handed player at shoulder height [read: Roger Federer]. It was a match that forced Rafa to exhibit more variety of game, adjustments and strategy changes.

It was a sublime exhibition of tennis. Very few UFEs (four UFEs from Nadal in the match). A combination of power and delicacy that you only see when a player is on fire and in The Zone.

Two-three-two. Rafa was thoroughly outplayed in a way he has been only one other time since—when he lost to Robin Soderling at Roland Garros, but Robin didn't display as great a degree of deft net control and creativity.

Rafa didn't lose this match with bad play, he was comprehensively beaten when he was giving it everything he had.

And when the first moments of surprise were over, Wilfred, of Ivanhoe, demanded of the Grand Master, as judge of the field, whether he had manfully and rightfully done his duty in the field of combat?
-Sir Walter Scott [1814]
This AO match changed my life. I thought I was a tennis junkie before because I would religiously get up for Breakfast at Wimbledon every year. After this match I was a permanent junkie. I couldn't get enough of either player.

A few weeks later, Rafa would win a tough and tense re-match on hardcourts [Plexipave] in the semi-finals at Indian Wells. The score would be much closer but the match not nearly as good.

A particularly telling turning point took place early in the second set, when Jo-Willy lost concentration in the hot sun, became testy and irritable, his athleticism seemed to desert him, he lost a break, and went on to lose the match [7-6(4), 6-7(3), 5-7].

Jo-Willy would never beat Rafa again, and would not seemingly play such an out of-his-mind, in The Zone match like this again, though he has successfully taken on some of the best in the sport, such as Novak Djokovic, who he beat for the Bangkok Title late in 2008.

Jo-Willy also became the first person of African descent to win a tournament in Johannesburg [South African Open, early 2009]. Take a look at this picture of a thrilled group of African kids posing with the Champion (scroll for it).

He made a believer out of me with this single match. He's my champion.

“And now for my boon,” said the King ...” receive to thy paternal affection the good knight Wilfred, of Ivanhoe...”
-Sir Walter Scott [1814]

To view a YouTube extract of highlights of this match click here. The first of Rafa's many falls (forced error?) occurs at the 44s mark, the second at 4:23. Lovely drop volley at 5:30. A suite of aces near the 7:30 mark.

To view the previous installment, on Philipp Kohlschreiber, click here.

Greatest Match of All Time: Objective Approach, Subjective Topic

claudia celestial girl — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:40:39 -0400

What is the 2009 [Place great match here]’s Place in History?

We seem to always have these discussions. See Trey Bradley’s analysis following the 2009 Wimbledon final, in which B/R's top tennis analysts were invited to weigh in on the match’s "greatness".

Opinions and lists were provided by all, in this round-table discussion, but the discussion was qualitative (subjective) and biased toward those matches that have occurred in the recent past (begging a question—can one ever tack on the qualifier "of all time" to any appellation of greatness?)

Film clip (3m): From Henry V—the part where the Duke hold up a case of tennis balls and says ‘Tennis balls, my liege.’ The relevant part of the speech happens at (about) the 1:30 mark, but the whole clip is well worth it, particularly the lead in.

FRENCH AMBASSADOR: ...He therefore sends you, (holding up a box),
This tun of treasure; and,
Desires you let those dukedoms that you claim
Hear no more of you. This the Dauphin speaks.

KING HENRY V: What...treasure, uncle?

EXETER (opening the box): Tennis-balls, my liege.

Can we really compare matches? How do historical matches, that fare well in our memory banks over the midst of time, really compare with that great match we saw yesterday?

I was shocked to discover recently that fellow writer Clarabella felt that the Madrid SF involving Nadal and Djokovic “was less gripping than the Rome semi between Novak and Roger, which swung from one to the other, with the weather throwing its bit into the equation.” How can she think that way?

Likewise I wrote an article and listed the scores of what I considered to be the best Nadal/Djokovic match-ups and was shocked to discover that the one I liked the best didn’t have the closest score, did not appear to be the hardest fought, nor was they the longest on record. Could I possibly be biased?

(For comparison, the list of scores for those matches are provided at the bottom or this article. The list was thrown up for a poll, and the most recent match was selected by a landslide, though one commenter remarked that the landslide for the most recent match might not have accounted for a match that received his personal vote for the best.)

How can we decide that we are talking about the same thing, much less take our biases and favoritism out of it and decide which is greatest? For one thing, we must get into the nitty-gritty of just what it is that causes a match achieve a consensus of "greatness."

A Sampling of Tennis Sensibilities:

Player X gets too long and drawn out in close matches for my liking, so I am usually inclined to the faster paced matches (loved the 2009 Wimbledon final for that reason—so much tennis for your money!).

I favor artistry over brawn, so give me Haas, Nalbandian, Djokovic, Mauresmo over Nadal, Murray, del Potro, Sharapova any day of the week...

Film clip (1m 30s): The opening of The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly, where ‘Ugly’ is rendered ‘Il Bruto’ in the original Italian.

To make it go faster, you could start about 60s in. Note that Rafael Nadal has been called 'The Ogre' in France!

For another fan, gripping tennis is: hard and smart hitting, lengthy rallies, improbable shots, variety, and unpredictability until the last shot. (Note: the 2009 Wimbledon final was unpredictable until the last point, but most agreed it did not have the same quality as the 2008 or 2007 Wimbledon final).

For another, memorable matches bring fiery personalities together, and contrasting styles of play.

Film clip (4m): More scenes from The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Tuco is cussing out Blondie: “Tuco: You’re the son of a thousand fathers, all bastards like you!”

The relevant part of the clip is the speech at the beginning up to the 1:00 mark.

For others, low numbers of unforced errors (UFEs) is an important criteria for "greatness"—yet in such a category, almost any Pete Sampras match is ruled out because Pistol Pete made a lot of double faults on his way to serving greatness.

For others, tennis speaks, and great tennis transcends nascent ideas of winning and losing.

For David Foster Wallace it is religious: There are times, as you watch the young Swiss play, when the jaw drops and eyes protrude and sounds are made that bring spouses in from other rooms to see if you’re O.K. The moments are more intense if you’ve played enough tennis to understand the impossibility of what you just saw him do...

from Federer as Religious Experience, 2006 New York Times

For a tennis writer from b/r it’s the struggle with the irreconcilable: "I have to battle. I have, but one aim in my life—to improve in what I do. But I do not have a measurable entity or a metric that will tell me whether I am doing the best—that I am living the limit...I am not my body. Survival is not my aim."

From The Death and The Fight For Existence: The Nadalian, Bleacher Report, 2009

Film clip (2m 30s): Barishnikov & Gregory Hines dancing to White Nights — ‘Prove me Wrong’

Film clip (2m 30s): Antonio Gades’ Carmen—a classic flamenco interpretation of the passionate story.

These are all excellent (and personal) qualities with which to judge greatness in tennis! These are not only what make a great match great, but also why we have a hard time judging one great match from another.

There is no "right" when it comes to aesthetics. And in many ways tennis is as mental a game as there ever was. It’s thrust and parry, probe and penetrate, with a bit of game face and junk-yard swagger thrown in as well. Aesthetics are too important to our sense of what makes tennis great to throw away with dry statistics.

For someone interested in judging the "greatness" of a tennis match without the prejudice that we all have toward the most recent match played, or the one involving our favorite player, the following are humbly submitted as objective criteria, with a somewhat subjective sliding scale of assigned points, for a cumulative point score. An attempt to capture a subjective impression in an objective way—without losing the subjectivity.

Claudia’s Collection of Categories:

a.) Important things at stake (significant records, history)
b.) An element of drama
c.) Great Shot Making

The drama can take six forms and is relatively easy to judge:

b.1) drama from the natural world-darkness and rain delays that effect the players; nature playing to the advantage of one or the other
b.2) drama from the external political world: war, and players from different nations. [example(s): Budge vs von Cramm, Davis Cup 1937]
b.3) interpersonal drama: a great rivalry, or a rivalry of tennis nations, a history of head-to-heads between players, or other personal (non-historical) quests; a lower ranked player taking on a much higher ranked player in a challenging five-setter. [example(s): Kei Nishikori vs D. Ferrer USO 2008]
b.4) drama from extraordinary length of tie-break, or an extraordinarily lengthy set within the match itself.
b.5) drama from a large number of break-point chances, or a large number of deuces (changes of momentum would be included here).
b.6) A sense of a-priori Unpredictability (Roger Federer defeating a player ranked outside of the top 100 in five sets ranks lower on the scale of unpredictability than Roger defeating a player inside the top three in five-sets; Budge vs von Cramm was more unpredictable than say a Budge vs Tilden match in the same year.)

Great shot-making is the hardest to judge of these criteria. Here are some things to consider when it comes to how shot-making affects our appreciation of a match:

Borg-McEnroe [1980]:

McEnroe would do everything in his power to bring Borg to the net, and the Iceman still found ways to stay where he was comfortable: at the baseline. Sometimes, the look of utter bewilderment on Mac's face was priceless. This is an element of "greatness"—the ability to palpably befuddle one’s opponent with shot-making.

Versatility and virtuosity demonstrated on the court:

I think almost everyone would agree that variety is important. Compare the early days of the Williams' sisters: endless baseline ground-strokes pushing the opponent out of position...with...the Federer/Roddick match of Wimbledon 09, among the top five Wimbledon finals of "all time," according to reference Tred Bradley.

The points were short, there were the love holds, few break points here and there, big serves saving them, more net approaches. It may not have had the versatility, but the virtuosity was tangible.

So what follows are our categories for great shot-making (on both sides):

c.1) ‘ferocity’: energy, movement, power, hard and smart hitting or serving, moving the opponent around the court
c.2) volume of improbable shots (on both sides)
c.3) variety of shot-making and/or stealthy strategy and/or defeating opponents strategy—includes but not limited to: great serving at critical moments, charging the net unexpectedly, keeping points short
c.4) high number of winners to UFE (points being "won" rather than "lost")
c.5) "Elegance" or "brilliance" or "virtuosity" (different from "improbable"or strategic)—classic form on a particular shot; elegant point construction

Each bullet shall have a three-point scale. Three points for a significant contribution to any bullet, one point for a minor element of any bullet. An example of a major contribution: For bullet b.2, the Budge vs von Cramm match of 1937 would get a "3" because not only was it Nazi Germany vs "Democracy", but von Cramm, not being a Nazi, was in danger of his life if he lost the match.

Maximum points for any match = 36 pts.

Evaluation Phase

To evaluate these criteria, I propose to watch the upcoming 2009 US Open, with Clarabella Bevis, using the above criteria, comment on matches using the same, and in the end, judge the final against this criteria and also against other great matches this season.

Clarabella and I have a different sense of the aesthetics of what constitutes ‘great’. We will exchange comments on matches as the USO Series unfolds. We will ask ourselves—Does our ‘sense’ of a match from watching it in person, line up with how we might score it on these criteria?

If we have time we will study the following classic five-setters, with an eye on our criteria (available as DVDs for purchase online for anyone else who’d like to participate in the discussion at The Tennis Nexus):

2000 TMS Hamburg Final - Kuerten def. Safin 6-4, 5-7, 6-4, 5-7, 7-6(3)
2004 Melbourne Semifinal - Safin def. Agassi 7-6 (8-6), 7-6 (8-6), 5-7, 1-6, 6-3
2005 Melbourne Semifinal - Safin def. Federer 5-7 6-4 5-7 7-6(6) 9-7

I'd love having more readers join in the discussion and keep score yourself! That will lead to a more lively discussion at the end. This can be our way of both participating in a "Trey's Table" type discussion, and finding a way to do it so that we are all talking about the same thing.

And of course, now would be the time to discuss the categories themselves and whether they will accurately capture our innate sense of what makes a match great.

Final Film clip: KING HENRY V: ... such a wretch; Winding up days with toil and nights with sleep; Has the fore-hand and ‘vantage of a king.’

The relevant part is at the 3:00 mark - but the lead in is fantastic! One of my favorite speeches in literature.

References:

[1] Oh Greatest Match, How do we Quantify Thee?
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/213250-oh-greatest-match-how-do-we-quantify-thee

Scores for a sub-set of Nadal/Djokovic match-ups

(If one examines just the score, does one come to the consensus conclusion about which match was the "greater"?)

2009 Madrid semi-final [3–6, 7–6(5), 7–6(9)] (4 hours)
2009 Rome final [7–6(2), 6–2)]
2008 Olympics semi-final [6–4, 1–6, 6–4]
2008 Queen's Club final [7–6(6), 7–5]
2008 Hamburg semi-final [ 7–5, 2–6, 6–2] (3 hours)

Top Nadal/Djokovic Match-Ups

claudia celestial girl — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 16:23:40 -0400

Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have met 20 times in their careers. They have played some highly entertaining matches (one regarded, by some, as the best Wimbledon final of all time).

Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal have met almost an equal number of times (17). I find their match-ups to be as entertaining, if not more entertaining, than those between Roger and Rafa.

(I have gotten into screaming matches with fans over this, in which fans will say "How can you SAY that Roger and Rafa's matches are NOT the MOST entertaining of all time!")

I can pretty much predict Rafa's game-plan when he faces Roger, but I can't say the same for Nole. Just as Roger and Andy Roddick played a different sort of Wimbledon final in 2009, Rafa and Novak's match-ups have a different flavor from those of Rafa and Roger.

In this article, I would like to discuss all of the Nole and Rafa match-ups, but I don't have time, and the slide-show format is better suited to it, so that discussion will have to wait.

What I would like to do with this article is have a vote...a vote on the top five match-ups.

Then I am going to lay out my case for why we should be talking about, and looking at, the Novak/Nadal (N&N) rivalry just as much as we talk about Roger and Rafa (R&R).

I looked around and could find neither quantitative, nor qualitative discussion of this rivalry on the web, and I think that is a deficiency. It may be because the stark, dry, numbers are so lob-sided towards Rafa. The numbers don't tell the real tale about how good this rivalry is, and the high quality of these matches.

My top five are listed below (in order). You may argue with me. You may point out that I only selected those matches where Rafa won, and what about some when Novak won? I would counter by saying, yes, but those weren't really outstanding matches–the kind that one would compare with a R&R match.

And then we would enter into an argument about how one measures "outstanding". (I have some ideas on that, but that is a different topic.)

By all means, please give me your opinion.

1. 2008 Hamburg (clay) The Battle for #2 [7–5, 2–6, 6–2] (3 hours)

After 150-odd weeks at No. 2, Rafa was finally facing a legitimate challenge for the spot from Novak, with the winner being the undisputed No. 2 in the world.

Novak broke Rafa early in the first set, but Rafa clawed back. The second set was pivotal, as Rafa, down 0-40, clawed his way back to deuce several times, but then lost the game as Novak held serve and more. Rafa then broke early in the third set, and Novak could not get back in.

This match was characterized by lots of forward-and-back (rather than side-to-side). Novak would draw Rafa to net, lob him, Rafa would race back and retrieve the lob, and drive it back with a reverse lob or down the line shot.

Novak would win a set for the first time against Rafa on clay (joining Roger, G. Coria, and SOD as the only people who've ever taken a set from Rafa on clay).

2. 2009 Madrid (clay) [6-3, 6-7 (5), 6-7 (9)] (4 hours)

A heartbreaking match for Novak, as he outplayed Rafa throughout, and held three match points. But he could not break Rafa at the critical times, and squandered his break chances.

In many respects, both players suffered for the effort expended in this match. Novak would have a hard time coming back emotionally through Wimbledon, and Rafa would have nothing left for his final the next day with Roger.

He was forced to withdraw from Wimbledon after losing his first-ever match at Roland Garros, with tendinitis in both knees.

The 'quality' of tennis was not as high as the Hamburg semi-final in my opinion, though it was a very tense and riveting final.

3. 2009 Rome (clay) [7–6(2), 6–2]

Both the Monte Carlo and the Rome finals were examples of exquisite tennis. In Monte Carlo, Novak came back in the second set, playing on-fire tennis, and breaking Rafa twice. But he could not sustain it, and faded in the third set.

In Rome, he came closer. They both played an outstanding first set, but Novak faded after losing a heart-breaking tie-break. Both matches are in my personal hall-of-fame match collection as examples of how tennis should be played. Several of the rallies exceeded 30 strokes.

Novak would get closer still in the next tournament (Madrid) in this grueling five-week period.

4. 2008 Queen's Club (grass) Battle for #2 [7–6(6), 7–5]

Another fine example of the kind of exquisite tennis that these two competitors play. Many points came in the forward-and-backward variety (rather than side to side) again. No breaks of serve occurred.

This was also a battle for #2, and even though he had lost the earlier round, for some reason, Novak just would not go away.

5. 2008 Olympics (hardcourt) The Battle for Gold [6–4, 1–6, 6–4]

Both players wanted a spot in the gold-medal round (this was the semis). Both players (palpably) wanted to win a first-ever gold for their country. Both players battered each other with brutal ground-strokes through the best-of-three match.

Rafa broke Novak in the first set, but then Novak caught fire in the second set, playing like a man who wanted that gold medal. In the final game, on match point, Novak netted a pretty easy overhead smash, with Nadal well behind the baseline on the other side.

For me, this match is memorable for its brutal, I-really-mean-this ground-strokes...strokes that easily took both players beyond the doubles alley.

This rivalry is in marvelous contrast to the R&R rivalry, yet has similarities that shed light on the R&R. In particular, much has been made that the R&R rivalry is "skewed" toward Rafa because of the number of times that they have played on clay.

I"m not sure I agree with that assessment. The clay court season represents about 33 percent of the year. The fact that these great players meet more often on clay then on hardcourts says a lot about their ability on clay...and also shows that hardcourts take such a toll that no one player, not even Roger, plays all of them...nor reaches the finals.

What makes a match great? There are many qualities, but one that stands out: close-to- the-brink tennis. This would be a match in which players win a significant number of points on the opponent’s serve, making it seem that anything could happen at any time.

That's why these matches stand out to me.

Please vote! And please give me feedback...we can continue to track this rivalry, and have this discussion again.

Here's a list of their matches (Nadal/Novak) [the order for their h2h is alphabetical]:

2006 French Open [h2h: 1:0] (Novak logged the first entry in his 'retirement Slam' against Rafa in the QF)
2007 Indian Wells [h2h: 2:0]
2007 Miami [h2h: 2:1]
2007 Rome [h2h: 3:1]
2007 FO [h2h: 4:1]
2007 Wimbledon [h2h: 5:1] (Novak logged the second entry in his 'retirement Slam' against Rafa in the SF)
2007 Roger's Cup [h2h: 5:2] (Novak beats Rafa, Roger, to win the title)
2008 Indian Wells [h2h: 5:3]
2008 Hamburg [h2h: 6:3] (This will be one of our entries in the vote)
2008 FO [h2h: 7:3]
2008 Queen's Club [h2h: 8:3] (This will be one of our entries in the vote)
2008 Cincinnati [h2h: 8:4]
2008 Olympics [h2h: 9:4] (This will be one of our entries in the vote)
2009 Davis Cup [h2h: 10:4]
2009 Monte Carlo [h2h: 11:4] (This will be one of our entries in the vote)
2009 Rome [h2h: 12:4] (This will be one of our entries in the vote)
2009 Madrid [h2h: 13:4] (This will be one of our entries in the vote)

Clay

h2h: 9-0 (Rafa/Roger h2h: 9-2)

Grass

h2h: 2-0 (Rafa/Roger h2h: 1-2)

Hardcourt

h2h: 2-4 (Rafa/Roger h2h: 3-3)

Like It's 1999: A Celebration of Serena's Career

claudia celestial girl — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:41:36 -0400

Richard Williams told us it would be so. And Venus predicted her greatest rival would be her sister. I, for one, discounted all this talk at first. But now it's been ten years! Time flies. Serena is a great champion. So it's time to take a look back at the years and the moments in Serena's career. This is not meant to be a comprehensive review, just a brush up on the times and the significance of Serena's wins, and a comparison with past champions. This picture is from Serena's first appearance at Indian Wells at the age of seventeen, where she defeated Steffi Graf in three sets. It was 1999. Remember 1999? We were all afraid of the software bug that was going to hit us at the turn of the millennium and destroy the world as we know it. Song: It's the End of The World as We Know It [r.e.m.] For fun, I've attached a playlist to this slideshow so that you can 'listen' in as the times roll by. You'll need ITunes to take full advantage of that particular feature.

Begin Slideshow

2008 Indian Wells: Rafael Nadal

claudia celestial girl — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:26:18 -0400

We miss you Rafa! In honor of Rafa's knees.... OK, maybe just in honor of the fact that we haven't seen Rafa around... Ok, maybe just because of wanting something fresh from Rafa, I'm posting slides from last year's Indian Wells tournament. Last year, Rafa was in full-fledged 'pirate' look. Look for the fierce game face as he comes on-court! I've posted a slideshow of Novak from the same tournament here: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/216441-2008-indian-wells-novak-djokovic We've posted more slides of 'Hawt' tennis (including more slides from the 2008 tournament) here: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/215276-a-celebration-of-hot-tennis-part-2-an-american-tale and here (where photos of shirtless Roger and Rafa are not to be missed!): http://bleacherreport.com/articles/214978-a-celebration-of-hot-tennis-part-1-a-british-perspective

Begin Slideshow

2008 Indian Wells: Novak Djokovic

claudia celestial girl — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:23:08 -0400

Novak would win this tournament, and some might say he never looked better. On the heels of his Australian Open triumph, his confidence ooozed from every pore, and his form was fantastic. Some of us miss this incarnation of Novak, and notice how careworn he seems, of late. Novak's next great triumph, in my opinion, was the 2009 clay court season. I know it is a year late, but here are 14 great shots of Novak at the tournament. It is a picture book, and so I'm going to keep the words to a minimum. Enjoy!

Begin Slideshow

Oh Greatest Match! How Do We Quantify Thee?

claudia celestial girl — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:03:43 -0400

Last year, we said we'd witnessed the 'greatest match ever.'

And then this year, we turn around and say it was better than last year.

This, of course, begs a question whether we are too biased toward recent memory. In fact, on most folks' all-time great match lists are only those that have happened in the last decade or two.

So I wondered about devising a way of quantifying, setting standards for, a "greatest ever," and taking subjectivity out of it.

But wait...there has to be subjectivity!

The things that makes a match memorable are going to be things that are subjective in nature.

For some, the greatest match will be one in which the rallies were long. For others, it will be because rallies were short and the serving paramount.

With that in mind, here are my criteria for judging greatness. It should be noted that momentum, great shot-making, and great serving change in a match.

Those things are part and parcel of any final, any five-set match.

a.) Important things at stake (significant records, history)

b.) An element of drama

The drama can take four forms:

b.1) drama from the natural world-darkness and rain delays that affect the players, playing to the advantage of one or the other.

b.2) drama from the external world-world war and players from different nations.

b.3) interpersonal drama-a great rivalry, or a rivalry of tennis nations, a history of head-to-heads between the players, or other personal (non-historical) quests.

b.4) drama from extraordinary length of tie-break or set within the match itself.

Now let's test my criteria against some memorable matches.

Um, let's try those that J.A. Allen mentioned in Trey's article on the Federer/Roddick final.

To make it really interesting, let's take each of my five bullets above, and put them on a three-point scale. Three points for a significant contribution to any bullet, one point for a minor element of any bullet.

Maximum points for any match = 15 pts.

Bjorn Borg vs. John McEnroe 1980

(b.4) In my opinion, this match was memorable for its extraordinary fourth set tie-breaker.—three pts.

(b.3) Also memorable for the drama of the ice-man Borg vs. the fiery McEnroe.—one pt.

Total: Four pts.

Rafael Nadal vs. Roger Federer 2008

(a-Roger) In attempting six Wimbledons in a row, it would break Borg's record and do something not achieved in 100 years.—two pts.

(a-Nadal) Attempting the Channel Slam, not completed in 30 years.—one pt.

(b.1) Rain delays that affected both players (but not as significant as the rain delay that gave Agassi the FO in 1999).—two pts.

(b.1) Impending darkness that lent an air of urgency to the fifth set.—three pts.

(b.3) Nadal, a Spanish player from a country without a grass court tradition, attempting to win a major on a surface other than clay.—one pt.

Total: Nine pts.

Roger Federer vs. Andy Roddick 2009

(a-Roger) Going for 15th major title, a record.—three pts.

(b.3) Roddick trying to reverse a pretty egregious h2h against Federer.—one pt.

(b.4) Longest fifth set in history at 16-14 games.—three pts.

Total: Seven pts.

(For some people, this just completed match is the greatest of all time.)

Roger Federer vs. Rafael Nadal 2007

(a-Roger) Trying to tie Borg's record—one pt.

(a-Nadal) Attempting the Channel Slam, not completed in 29 years.—one pt.

(b.3) Nadal, a Spanish player from a country without a grass court tradition, attempting to win a major on a surface other than clay.—one pt.

Total: Three pts.

(For those who witnessed it, an incredibly great and dramatic match.)

Don Budge vs. von Cramm 1937 (Davis Cup-held at Wimbledon, included for comparison purposes)

(b.2) A representative of Nazi Germany vs. a representative of the "free world" in a world on the verge of war—three pts.

(b.3) The aristocratic veteran von Cramm vs. the youthful Budge from California.—three pts.

Total: Six pts.

(By all accounts, truly one of the greatest matches in history.)

In sizing these up with the criteria outlined here, the system appears to evaluate matches in an objective flavor, but I'm not sure it agrees with our intuitive sense of which were the best.

An example is the 2009 Ladies Semi-final between Serena Williams and Elena Dementieva.

Great match.

One of the best Ladies' matches at Wimbledon that I can remember.

The only criteria I can give it is the great shot making and changes in momentum.

But I just said those were part and parcel of any great match!

So even though I like these criteria and scale, I think it's back to the drawing board to come up with a quantitative ranking system. Maybe those intangibles—momentum swings and quality of shot-making—have to be accounted for after all.

Grass Court Season, 2009: A Tribute

claudia celestial girl — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:44:20 -0400

Under construction! since I often lose the connection, I'll construct this over the next hour. Wimbledon is over! I'm sad, and will be reflecting on this season- one in which I had a chance to travel to three tournaments in the grass court season. I never even knew there was a Queen's Club tournament until last year! Here is that fantastic venue - small, only holds 8,000.

Begin Slideshow

Wimbledon 2009: A Fan's Experience, part 2

claudia celestial girl — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:23:21 -0400

This is a work in progress! please be patient! There will be about 20 images, but my browser seems to be finicky, and there is no way to create a draft here at b.r/ This will take a few minutes. (I already lost it once, so I don't want to have to re-create it multiple times). Wimbledon 2009 is almost over, boo hoo! I'm having withdrawl already. In honor of that, and because some of you requested that I upload some of my pictures, I've created this second slide show of my day at Wimbledon. In this slide, I'm in! This is just one example of the beautiful grounds of Wimbledon.

Begin Slideshow

Serena, Hawkeye, and a Game of Millimeters

claudia celestial girl — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:22:05 -0400

You've come a long way, baby!

It may be a little known fact about tennis that Serena Williams invented the Hawk-eye system.

Er...well, that is, it was a critical erroneous line call against Serena in the 2004 US Open (against Jennifer Capriati in the quarter-finals) that initiated an industry-wide consideration of a new autonomous, technical, line-calling assistance protocol that was based upon the physics of the flight of the ball, and a system of cameras installed all around the stadium.

Instant replay at the time on television showed the call to be wrong. The line call was so eggregeous that chair umpire Mariana Alves was later dismissed from the tournament.

Serena continued to play, without a huge display of histrionics, and lost in due time to Capriati. This is her at the time, in the picture above, complaining about the call. (Gee, she looks thinner and younger here!)

I was reminded of this while watching yesterday's instant classic match between Serena Williams and Elena Dementieva at the semi-finals of Wimbledon.

Both players managed their ground strokes with fine levels of precision.

If I could include a second picture with this article it would be one of Serena striking one winner that landed in the corner of the doubles alley with about a millimeter of ball on the line, and the rest out of bounds.

She knew exactly where she wanted that ball to go, and it was only one of the delicately placed winners in this match!

There was also a net-cord point, that landed in, that was initially called out. The ball landed in by about a centimeter (from my position on the couch watching the telly at home).

It is somewhat amazing to someone like me who has lived through a few decades worth of tennis that we are in an era when the modern game is free of the emotional baggage that comes with players feeling victimized by bad line-calling.

A player like Serena can concentrate on the tennis, on painting the lines—without the second-guessing: how would this match have unfolded if that point had been called the way I saw it!

And we fans can treasure the layered game of speed, power, and millimeters, such as what unfolded on Center Court yesterday.

Wimbledon Day Five: A Fan's Experience

claudia celestial girl — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:44:54 -0400

It was supposed to rain horribly over the weekend, starting Day 5. With thunder and lightning. Aha! I thought, the best time to attempt to queue for tickets to this theater of sport, the cathedral of tennis. Because surely it will not rain for the entirety of the day, and the forecast will drive away the casual fan. All the better for me! I am in London on a visit. Been here for three weeks and was lucky enough to secure a ticket to the Queens club final the day I arrived by just showing up (and buying from a man on the street). How hard can it really be to get tickets to the first week of Wimbledon?

Begin Slideshow

Tennis Physics: Part One

claudia celestial girl — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:48:45 -0400

When I'm not watching tennis, I participate in space missions for a living. I just got the Tennis Channel in my house, and I couldn't help but notice a few things—now that I'm watching more regularly—about the physics of tennis.

I thought I'd write some briefs notes on the subject as I get the inspiration.

"Feeding off the pace"

I've heard that phrase a million times during the commentary. It was a long time before I understood what "pace" was (why don't they just call it "velocity?"). A player like Giles Simon, who is as skinny as Rafa Nadal is muscular, can generate as strong of a forehand. Or does he?

When you bounce a ball off of a wall, the ball will come back without losing much momentum. But if the wall moves toward you at the same time, then momentum is added to the ball. If the wall is a tennis racket, so much the better. If the ball is stuck between two walls moving toward each other, then it picks up energy quickly.

If you are a player "feeding off of the pace" then you are taking advantage of the manner in which momentum is preserved for a ball stuck between two moving walls (tennis rackets).

'Reaction Wheels'

While watching Brad Gilbert clowning around in this video on ESPN, I noted that Brad mentioned that players twist with their upper body to generate the modern power forehand. They twist around their waist with their hips and shoulders.

Well, this is just what a spacecraft does, way off in space. Not to generate a power forehand, but just to turn itself. To keep a spacecraft stable, a device called "reaction wheels" were introduced. If you want to turn the spacecraft one way, you have to turn the reaction wheels the other way.

What is impressive is for players to generate a power forehand by twisting at the middle implies a tremendous core strength. They are not just pushing against the ground. Like a machine in space, they have to maintain stability and generate that turn by twisting two sides of their body.

That's it for now. Please let me know if these notes were completely boring or somewhat interesting!

Soderling Beats Nadal: Advantages of Being Disliked

claudia celestial girl — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:57:17 -0400

Reflecting on Rafa's recent historic loss at the 2009 French Open to Robin Soderling, I was struck by a couple of things.

One was Rafa's visible discomfort out there on the court. Another was his post-match comments about feeling "without calm."

Rafa says that he felt fine going into the match, his practices were good, but when he stepped on the court he was out of sorts from the get go.

Of course his opponent's play had a lot to do with how uncomfortable Rafa felt coming out of the starting gate. Robin Soderling started executing his aggressive game plan right away with a brilliant opening game to love.

But, let's try this on for size. What I'm about to say may be a stretch, so let's just remember that this is the opinion section.

Lots has been written, and still more spoken about Rafa and Robin's "feud," "the trouble that they had," or Rafa's evident dislike for this one player on tour, that boiled over in their Wimbledon match in 2007.

At first it might be discounted as hearsay or hyperbole on the part of the media to play up an interpersonal issue between two players.

Who would think that two professionals would allow personal dislike to interfere with their tennis? After all, these two players have only met three times.

So they wouldn't seem to have enough time to build up a meaningful dislike for one another. Besides, Soderling seems like a nice guy on TV. He doesn't seem too surly.

Articles written on the matter include several references to an allegation that "nobody" likes Robin Soderling on tour. I'm still tempted to discount all this dislike fever. Why should it matter?

Ah, but one final note. In an interview yesterday after the match, I heard Soderling himself speak about the "dislike issue," and he said he didn't care.

If no one spoke to him in the locker room that was alright with him. Moreover, he didn't care for some of the common courtesies players extend to one another in this gentleman's sport. He didn't see why he had to oblige with courtesy checks on their condition, if they fell down, etc.

Whoa!

For me, this " unlikeable issue" now takes on a whole new light.

Does anybody remember Dennis Rodman?

Mr. Rodman was in the NBA in the 1990s. He played first for the Detroit Pistons, and lastly for the Lakers (in one of the lowest points of that team's sports history, IMHO).

Mr. Rodman was a fantastic basketball player. He was on several playoff and championship teams, and knew how to win. He played great, and was a threat whenever he was on the court.

However, as his career progressed, Mr. Rodman became more and more eccentric. Known as a "rebel" and a "bad boy," Mr. Rodman was occasionally photographed by the paparazzi in women's clothes.

He was colorful to say the least, often sporting brightly colored hair on court. And he was not afraid to touch other players on the court in inappropriate ways, if it would win him a point.

Whether he was actually gay, or just daring, wasn't really the point.

Actually, I don't know if he is or not. He performed his eccentric actions on and off the court.

In short, Dennis Rodman took players out of their comfort zone just by stepping on the court. People didn't want to guard him or get near him if they could avoid it.

The fact that he seemed unconventional and rebellious was an effective tool for him in his game.

So when you go on court and see a guy that you just don't like in a visceral way, it can have an effect.

For me, Robin Soderling's unapologetic defense of being unlikeable, when he says: "I couldn't care less," means that not only is it a real thing, he is using that issue to work for him.

It means that he can get in the face of other players under their skin. He can stand outside the circle and thumb his nose at those in the circle. He sends a signal that he doesn't respect you.

It works the same way that other players might use clothing choices or physical presence on the court to send signals to their opponent—Rafa for example?

By the way, I am not suggesting that Robin Soderling is gay, or that he is just like Dennis Rodman.

I'm also not sure that Soderling does it on purpose—as if he sits in the locker room figuring out a game plan to get under someone's skin.

I'm just saying that a player who can make you lose your calm and take you out of your game with his attitude has figured out—consciously or unconsciously—an effective weapon to add to his arsenal.

I Can Also Beat You Wearing Pink, No?

claudia celestial girl — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:01:59 -0400

I'm told that Rafa's colors for the French Open, courtesy of Nike, will be (drum roll please)... Fuchsia! With a yellow stripe. And grey pants.

I was on a different blog when we got this news, and someone there coined the phrase that became the title of this piece. So I cannot claim credit.

Nevertheless, I thought it apropos for my thoughts as we go into this year's French Open. It will be a historic one, billed as the first time in 80 years that someone will have a chance to win the Coupe des Mousequetaires five consecutive times.

It will also be the first time we see a British man ranked at No. 3. Novak Djokovic seems to be in excellent form on clay. Though currently ranked No. 4, he is not playing like a No. 4.

And (drum roll please)...Roger has a historic chance for a career Grand Slam, something that would help him eclipse Pete Sampras in the record books on more than one score, by meeting Pete's record of 14 majors in tennis, and achieving the French Open, something Pete was never able to do.

Leaving off a discussion of Djokovic and Murray, a discussion which would require another article, Roger seems to really want the French Open title. You can see it in his eyes.

Someone said (Dick Enberg on TV?) that each one wants what the other one has: for Rafa it was Wimbledon, where Roger seemed to 'own' Centre Court. For Roger, it is Phillipe Chatrier, the one venue that seems to be 'owned' by Rafa Nadal like no one else before (more on that later).

In 80 years, how can one person 'own' what has been historic in nature? What I'm trying to say is, Phillipe Chatrier belongs to no one, everyone: the fans, and the great players down the line who have christened it with their sweat.

If anyone owned that house, it ought to be Yannick Noah, the so far, only, Frenchman to win the championship. Other greats who have graced the stadium with their athleticism, tennis skill and acumen include Bjorn Borg, Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander.

The great Suzanne Lenglen, who won four titles, is one of the sports all-time legends, and lends her name to the other show court of the venue, played in this arena.

OK, enough with the history. On with that look in Roger Federer's eyes, and the issue of how this is going to play out this year.

The last great rivalry, that between Pete Sampras, and Andre Agassi, was one in which in the big matches, Pete always outserved Andre, and won.

I'll never forget the 2002 USO final, which was billed at the time as a huge confrontation between a great returner and the greatest server of all time. In practice, it was pretty tame.

Pete served so well that Andre never had a chance. I remember Andre walking perfunctorily between ad and deuce court between points, as ace after ace went by.

Even though Andre has the Career Grand Slam (Golden Slam, because he also won an Olympic Gold medal), Pete is widely regarded as the GOAT (greatest of all time) on the basis of his overall Slam record and comprehensive game.

That is, until the arrival of Roger Federer, who in many ways has eclipsed Pete. My personal view is that Roger really, badly, madly, wants that mantle of GOAT on his resume.

In his recent win at Madrid, Roger showed that a comprehensive serving game coupled with good net play could beat Rafael Nadal.

Roger left the court waving a sole index finger in the air. "I know what I have to do," he said at his press conference.

And the truth is that when a guy is serving great, there is nothing the opponent can do. A great serving game can make the opponent miss, can make them look bad, shank the ball when returning, etc.

Rafael Nadal has shown himself to be a great retriever in the vein of Andre Agassi. Indefatigable, and also both stronger and faster than Andre was at his age. So at first glance this year's FO may seem to be a repeat of the old formula between Pete and Andre.

But not so fast.

Rafael Nadal seems to own Phillipe Chatrier stadium like no other before him...differently than Noah, who christened it with his joy and the joy of his countrymen in his victory; differently than Agassi, who christened it with his heart in 1999; differently than Laconte, who literally christened it in 1928 when he deftly outplayed Big Bill Tilden.

Rafa's game seems to have evolved from that of his teenaged years in which he could be described as a great retriever. Rafa moves the best of any player we have seen there (with the possible exception of the Ice-man: Bjorn Borg), he's a smart player, and he LOVES a dog fight.

If Rafa is the inheritor of the legacy of Andre Agassi (debatable), in the same way that Roger may be the inheritor of the legacy of Pete Sampras (debatable), then the French Open may be a show-stopper for Roger because of the way the court takes away the efficacy of the serve. This arena makes a player showcase other tennis skills.

"I know what I have to do ..." may be famous last words. Roger has spoken these words before. Roger has exuded confidence going into every final in a major.

He has also played with his usual style, elegance, form, and brilliance throughout the tournament(s), only to lose when facing Rafa. (The exceptions include two Wimbledon finals where Rafa was 20 and 21 years old, respectively).

Roger may know what do to, but even Roger acknowledges "that doesn't make it easy." Last year, Roger acknowledged that he 'tried everything,' only to come up well short.

The only words of Roger's that matter going into this year's FO are these: "It will be interesting..."

And given last year's performance by Roger at this same venue, my thought is...it better be! I have a wait and see attitude toward this year's FO and a Federer chance at history.

I can also beat you wearing pink, no?

If Rafa really does wear the pink duds, I may have to call for the fashion police to issue him a ticket. I mean, what was Nike thinking? Pink tennis uniform against the red clay of Roland Garros? Ahhhh!

Only Princess Diana could successfully pull off that pink and red combination. It is widely regarded as a fashion disaster, and not even if you are from Miami do you try those colors together.

But as Pete Bodo noted in his article about 'Country Club Rafa,' Rafa seems to transcend his clothes, whether downmarket pirate gear, or upmarket 'Slim-Fitting' Summer Bold. (Here's that lovely Pete Bodo fashion discussion: http://tennisworld.typepad.com/tennisworld/2009/04/tk-1.html )

Instead of the clothes being 'forced' on him, the explosive, intense, tenacious, virile nature of Rafa's tennis, takes the whole 'look' into a different zone.

This year's clay-court sesason has already proven interesting (even before the major tournament starts) with great clay-court tennis from the likes of Djokovic, Murray, and Verdasco.

The eventual winner of this year's FO will add to the aura of this event, no matter who it is. If Rafa can pull off a fifth championship, in pink, it will add to the legend, 'patina' if you will, of a great venue, and an historically great tournament; one of its greatest players, and a style of play.

Rafa Will Never Make the Grand Slam

claudia celestial girl — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:03:27 -0400

That's right. Let me be the first to loudly proclaim that Rafa doesn't have what it takes to win all four tennis majors in the same calendar year.

Here is it, time for the opening of the Mutua Madrilena Madrid Open 1000, the last ATP tournament before the French Open, just about one-quarter of the way through the season. (And, by the way, just a few days before the Preakness Stakes, the second jewel of horse racing's Triple Crown. But more about racing later.)

Of the majors this year, Rafa has already won the AO (Australian Open). And, oh, I am confident that Rafa will win the FO this year (French Open). AND at this point in time I would like to openly declare that Rafa will not win all four this year.

Rafa, if you read this article: You can't do it.

Why?

No man has done it since Rod Laver (who accomplished this feat twice!), and in Laver's day the Grand Slam was only contested on two different surfaces—not effectively four different surfaces as it is today (the AO and USO are both contested on hard courts, but the actual synthetic surface for each of these are quite different, and not just in terms of color).

It goes without saying that to win the Grand Slam, you have to have the game on all of the surfaces. Many of our tennis greats, including Sampras, Federer, McEnroe, Borg, none of them had the game on all of the surfaces, to complete the Grand Slam. Though it should be mentioned that Andre Agassi had the Golden Slam—the career Grand Slam (on three surfaces) and Olympic gold metal, making him arguably the Greatest of All Time.

Winning all four will take heart and courage, determination and finesse. It will take stamina, awesome tennis talent, and just a little bit of luck. Even Rafa doesn't think he can do it. He's told the media that it is pretty unrealistic to think that he could ever accomplish that trick.

This is the guy who told the media that it would be unrealistic to expect that he could come back from a marathon 5.25 hour match against Verdasco in the AO and successfully face Federer in the final. He said, "I'll do my best and we will see." But the final was billed as a pretty impossible task for Rafa and a shoe-in for Roger.

Heck, the "Legends" were all out for the trophy ceremony, expecting to crown Roger and congratulate him for meeting the record for majors (14, currently held by Pete Sampras). Roger himself didn't expect to go five sets and lose. "The history books are before me," Roger said in his pre-match interview, and "I never should have been in that fifth set," in post-match discussions.

This is the guy who stoically put aside an unconverted match point in the 2008 Wimbledon final, and served last throughout the deciding 5th set, until he came up with more match points in the end. This feat is widely regarded as a nearly impossible task, one that many players fail to stand up to.

This is the guy who won an Olympic Gold metal! Very few top male tennis players have won an Olympic Gold metal, it is not a straightforward accomplishment for those at the top because of the way the seeds are filled, etc. Rafa scoffed at the idea that he would be a top contender at the end of the week (and so did everybody else). He was tired from a long summer of tennis, and the weariness was evident in Cincinnati, where he lost spectacularly to Novak Djokovic a couple of weeks before.

Rafa is a man who seems to enjoy mountains to climb. Rafa was ranked No.2 in the world for nearly three years, all that time watching Roger Federer
perform acts of tennis greatness. Yet in all that time, Rafa established a
winning record against Roger, a record that went Rafa's way from their very first match.

Their second match, the final in Miami, played out much the same way as the 2008 Wimbledon final, with Rafa in the lead for two sets, and Roger clawing back. In the 2005 match, 18-year old Rafa faded with weariness in the fifth set, and Roger pulled that one out. But typically, when faced with the challenge of tennis greatness that is Roger Federer, Rafa rises to the occasion.

In fact, I would say that Rafa relishes those opportunities when he is the underdog. All those times against Roger, Rafa was the anomaly, the fly in the ointment of Roger's greatness, the annoying, fist-pumping, Vamos-shouting, pirate-wearing, dirt-ball specializing, kid with the ugly-swing-that-couldn't-possibly-work-all-the-time-because-the-technique-was-all-wrong.

Rafa seems to perform his best, most miraculous tennis when expectations are low. In fact, telling him he can't be expected to do something is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

It seems to be different if expectations are that Rafa "probably" can't do it. Like at the 2008 USO, nobody really thought he would win, and he didn't either. Too tired, etc. But "not expected to win" is different from being told that "you can't win." That you don't have what it takes. That you can't pace yourself appropriately, that you can't manage your schedule and your tennis effort in order to make it through that last critical major. It's kind of like going up against the greatest in history, no?

When a horse is going for that Triple Crown, and all the specialists on that surface, be it mile and a half, or mile and a quarter, are all gunning for him, the horse is dependent upon the jockey/trainer to pace himself through the 5 weeks of time, and other things that it takes, to beat back the challengers (including the course).

A quick diversion: in addition to being the longest dirt course in the United States, the Belmont, the final leg of the Triple Crown, is a very sandy track. hey call it The Lung Buster. You can't just show up and win the Belmont Stakes, as if it is just like the Kentucky Derby! You have to be prepared for that course. I'll never forget, as long as I live, Smarty Jones going for the Triple Crown in the 2004 Belmont Stakes, being challenged in the last quarter mile by a mile-and-a-half specialist.

You could almost see him saying "what do I have to do to pull this out!" We haven't had a Triple Crown winner in 30 years. Gee, almost the same amount of time since the last male winner of the tennis Grand Slam!

With Rafa, you can't tell him what to do (nor would I even try). But I can say something to the man who likes a challenge, and that is...you've said that you can't do it, and I totally agree with you. You can't do it. Nope. You don't have it. You're always tired at the end of the year, and you know what? It's always going to be that way! Do we think you can do what other great men in tennis have not been able to do? Of course not! (Even though the women seem to be able to do it...)

So, here's to a great season, and no more Amazing Disasters (ADs). Here's to you as the world's No. 1. Here's to the AO, IW, Monte Carlo, Barcelona, and Rome. Here's to the fantastic tennis that we saw in the semi-final, and final of Monte Carlo, and final of Rome. And Rafa, if you read this article: You Can't Do It!

Tennis and ESPN: Winners and Unforced Errors!

claudia celestial girl — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:58:03 -0400

Over the years, tennis has come and gone from many different venues and vehicles, from the BBC (lots of quiet air time), to live streaming (lots of quiet time with neither audio nor video as your bandwidth freezes).

As an avid tennis fan, I find ESPN to be a breath of fresh air. I am old enough to remember what we used to get in the U.S. 10 years age—namely a 15 minute summary of the early rounds of a Slam like Wimbledon after the late night news, if we were lucky.

Then came finals coverage—‘Breakfast at Wimbledon'—for which I always rose at 6 AM every year with great anticipation, and listened to Dick Edberg’s mellifluous tones coupled with Bud Collins calling Chris Evert ‘Chrissy’ and Arantxa Sanchez -Vicario ‘Bumblebee.’

(For a tennis fan, the only thing worse than tennis coverage from ten to fifteen years ago is Fox Sports Network tennis coverage today, in which matches cannot be found, move around to channels not originally listed, and/or are pre-empted by high school basketball matches or anything not-tennis that Fox can find.)

Of the venues in which tennis can be enjoyed, ESPN produces clear winners! ESPN paints the lines, getting just inside the boundaries, and keeping the error count low.

Winners

Chris Fowler is a breath of fresh air.
Commentary with the three guys: Fowler, Brad Gilbert, and Darren Cahill.
Play-by-play and commentary with Patrick McEnroe and Dick Edberg.
The absence of John McEnroe (OK, I do enjoy John, but a little of John goes a long way)
Carillo/Drysdale/Shriver.
I love the mix of commentators on ESPN, and mostly find that by comparison The Tennis Channel’s (TTC) broadcasts lacks a certain energy. One of my favorite moments in the 2008 coverage of one of the best rivalries in sports these days—that between Rafael Nadal (the world’s No. 1) and Roger Federer (13-times Slam Champion and world No. 2), was at Wimbledon watching four different ‘boxes’, and about 12 different commentators, give their editorial remarks, on-air on ESPN, about the looming (and now classic) 2008 Wimbledon final. Though it looked a little bit like The Hollywood Squares, what a treat for a tennis fan! It was like the build-up to the Superbowl, and the match itself did not disappoint. A far cry from the old days where you could hardly follow what was at stake with a single broadcast of an isolated final.
Different commentators take the lead at different times in a tournament, giving the viewer the benefit of different ‘flavors’ to the coverage at any given time.

Unforced Errors

During the Australian Open, 2009, I was logged into the blog at Tennis.com almost every day, and mid way through the week, Steve Tignor (a regular editor) published his first impressions of the Slam. His final comment was reserved for the ESPN coverage, in which he talked about the omnipresent ‘Crawl.’ This excited a wave of comments about the ESPN tennis coverage (in which The Crawl was universally loathed).
ESPN provides too many people with microphones. A case can be made that there are too many commentators. Bouncing around from head to head detracts from the tennis. Watching a re-run of a Nadal match on TTC, with the more subdued TTC coverage, I could appreciate so much more the virtuosity of Nadal's performance .
Too much American-centric tennis. Tennis is international, and tennis talent is not confined to American shores.
Too many fillers not related to tennis.

‘On-Air’-rors!

A hugely funny moment happened between Fowler and Gilbert at the 2008 Roger's Cup, when Brad twice wondered aloud whether Rafael Nadal's girlfriend (who rarely travels with him, but was present in the audience) was going to 'ride the Beast' when the match was over. After a funny look from Fowler, Brad explained that there was an amusement park across the street with a big roller coaster called The Beast. Fowler had to tell Gilbert no more comments about The Beast, that this was broadcast television.
Fun moments over the summer when Rafael Nadal was about to take over the No. 1 spot in the world, and Gilbert was predicting with great enthusiasm that Rafa would win the match being broadcast that night, despite Fowler’s on-air interview with Rafa in which the player acknowledged being fatigued and worn out. Rafa lost that match so badly...and Gilbert, somewhat sheepishly in the middle of the match turned to Fowler and said - maybe I should have listened to you!
A fun moment in the broadcast booth when Rafa came for a visit just before the World Cup soccer semifinal match between Spain and Germany. Nadal was itching to depart to watch the soccer match, and Cahill started talking soccer with him in the on-air interview, and they almost forgot to re-cap the tennis match!
This from Tignor’s blog: Back in Wimbledon 2007, when Gilbert, Cahill and Fowler were at commentary headquarters, one of my favorite bits was when Gilbert boldly claimed that "the title was Ralph's to lose." Gilbert kept referring to Rafa as Ralph. Cahill and Fowler were doing their devil's advocate part to counteract Gilbert and finally Fowler who is more aware of on-air etiquette said to Gilbert "One more Ralph and it's to the moon." It was so funny, a reference to The Honeymooners.

These were fun, informal, unpretentious moments, moments that make ESPN a pleasure to watch. Tennis fans are lucky enough these days in which there are enough venues that they can be selective about which they choose to watch!