53 posts categorized "April 2008"
I haven't had much occasion to write about Novak Djokovic lately, but a few people did solicit my opinion on the way he pulled out of his semifinal battle with Roger Federer, complaining of a sore throat and dizziness, while trailing by a set in Monte Carlo last week. Then, thanks to El Jon Wertheim, we all saw that clip of an irritated Roger Federer chiding Djokovic's parents for being a little too vocal in protesting what turned out to be an accurate call against their boy, Nole.
Don't you just love seeing The Mighty Fed in that rarest of all modes, disgruntlement? El Jon suggested giving him bonus points for that spontaneous and entirely justified reaction, and I'd add a few more for that clay-kicking gesture. Next thing you know, TMF will be impersonating some major league baseball manager, belly-to-belly and eyeball-to-eyeball with an umpire, kicking dirt on the poor official's shoes, firing spittle as he argues his case with a vein popping out of his forehead.
As if. . .
Anyway, so what is it with Novak? There's clearly a pattern emerging in his retirements against top rivals, as Kamakshi Tandon's analysis makes abundantly clear. It's both a futile and inviting issue to contemplate. My own attitude, which was partly behind my decision to ignore the (non-)story, is that I don't really give a dang what happens once the first ball is put into play; a guy retires with ailments or injuries that aren't obvious, he just gets the "L". No asterisk, no story, we move on.
In a way it's like a breaking-news doping story. I don't delve into what I can't know or substantiate, because all I can do then is exercise my prejudices toward one or the other party. But in doping cases there is hard evidence and that takes precedence over all other factors. I accept the science-based ruling until such time as the ruling is overturned or changed by the powers that be - and then I accept that.
What is noteworthy is that Djokovic was pretty well positioned to make a good run on clay at Monte Carlo, as evidenced by his earlier wins over Andy Murray and surprise quarterfinalist Sam Querrey. He said early in the tournament, "I haven't won a major event on clay, so I always have highest possible intentions and goals any tournament I play. I think I have enough quality to beat the best players in the world - even on this surface. I had more time than last year to prepare, to rest and to work on some things, particular things for clay, and hopefully it's going to pay off in the tournaments."
Given that rosy analysis, combined with Djokovic's admission that his road to the semifinal was not very taxing or stressful, it's hard to imagine that his was a retirement of convenience. Head games? Nah, not unless your talking about his own head. Just how does throwing in the towel because you feel dizzy and had a sore throat for a few days give you some kind of devious psychological advantage over a guy who just got sent home early from work, which consisted of beating up on you?
The most likely explanation is that Djokovic's immune system goes haywire; sirens go off and all sorts of red lights start flashing when he's in a particularly stressful situation, which is not to say that he's inventing or lying about his physical condition. It just tells you that some particle of discomfort, perhaps abetted by nerves, suddenly swells to the size of the Blarney Stone. And hey, the Blarney Stone does exist, and it's heavy.
It's impossible to know what's in Djokovic's head during matches in which his body persuades him that he'd better quit, but we have a pretty good idea of what does not go on: No aspect of his being is screaming, You've got to finish this match, suckah! We also know what's going on in there when he's kicking back in the press interview room, or otherwise out of combat. He's a very ambitious young guy, dying to prove his mettle for a host of reasons, including his desire to represent his native Serbia in the best possible light. It's pretty clear that Djokovic doesn't believe that Top Five status of the kind enjoyed by David Ferrer or Nikolay Davydenko is going to cut it for him, either personally or as an ambassador-at-large.
For some time now, Djokovic has been declaring his intention to catch and even surpass Federer and Rafael Nadal, with pronouncements seemingly unleavened by the customary prudence of newcomers. That approach has made many of us respect Djokovic's healthy disregard for the pecking order; others see his words tainted by arrogance, and lack of respect for the accomplishments and talents of his rivals. Most of us fall into one of two camps: those who increasingly see Djokovic as an aggressive, imperious young dude who takes himself way too seriously (he's currently the pro most likely to end up talking about himself in the third person), and those who are willing to forgive him for having an excessive amount of what might be called youthful impetuosity, exacerbated at times by an insufficient command of nuanced language. What can you expect, the Grand Slam tongues are not his own.
Anybody who lived through the Jimmy Connors era can be forgiven for responding to Djokovic's "controversial" comments with a shrug and the observation, He reminds me of a well-mannered version of Jimbo. In fact, Djokovic may be an appropriately muted, European version of that American barbarian. But you always had the feeling that the only weight on Jimmy's shoulders (Oedipal ghosts are, of course, weightless) was that of his hair back in those Prince Valiant days. He had not a care in the world, other than how he was going to do this to Rod Laver, or that to John Newcombe and Bjorn Borg.
It strikes me that Djokovic is carrying more baggage and not just conscious of it, but hyper-conscious. He's dying to carry it ably, in order to make his family and countrymen proud in a way that would carry none of those vaguely depressing caveats, like, He did incredibly well. . .for a guy from Serbia.
Also, you'll remember that Connors was one of those individuals who demonstrated that pretty much anyone can describe himself as an "outsider", and reap benefits as well as the censures. Djokovic is similar, but his justifications even more powerful. Jimbo's status as an outsider rested on the fact that he grew up "on the wrong side of the tracks" (even though his mother, Gloria, was so in the thick of the tennis mainstream that she dated Chris Evert's father, Jimmy). Djokovic grew up off the tennis grid in Serbia, and he popped onto the tour when it was utterly dominated and locked up by Federer and Nadal. They are his versions of Connors's establishment bugaboos, Stan Smith and Ken Rosewall.
One critical similarity between Djokovic and Connors is that both have been accused of being lousy sports who did a fair amount of manipulation in their drive for success. For Connors, the accusations were based on his attempts to intimidate officials and opponents, and his "ducking" of the top players by refusing to play the main, WCT tour early in his career. The complaints against Djokovic are similar: he doesn't sufficiently "respect" Federer and Nadal; he "ducks" out of big matches against the best players by succumbing to mystery ailments. After all, there is no alternative tour, like there was back in Connors' heyday.
So Djokovic is loosely following in the footprints of Connors and any other player who can claim to have done things "My way." Like Connors, Djokovic has circled the (family) wagons and keeps his own counsel, although he has nothing like Connors's siege mentality. Djokovic also has a much better grasp of public relations and basic decorum than Jimbo ever did. This sense that you have to figure it out all by yourself, with such an enormous amount at stake, can become oppressive. It creates pressure, and pressure always seeks an outlet. If denied, the pressure shuts down the machine.
Djokovic doesn't have an insane number of points to defend during the clay-court swing; he lost in the third round at Monte Carlo last year, but his win at Estoril is coming off the rolls. Then he's got two quarters (Rome and Hamburg) to duplicate, along with his Roland Garros semifinal. He's within striking distance of his rivals, and making good on some predictions that once struck many as borderline delusional. It's gut-check time for Djokovic, and that's enough to make anyone dizzy.
Howdy, everyone. Because of the degree to which so many of you enjoy gathering on the cyber-sofa to discuss or call ongoing matches, we now have a daily thread specifically for that purpose. This is it: Your Call. Think of it as the Crisis Center thread for those weeks when there are no Grand Slams, Masters, or Fed or Davis Cup in progress. Your Call is your "new" Watercooler, and you can go off-topic here if you like as well. This will also make it easier for you to stay on-topic at "premium" posts. You will also have Monday Net Posts and Deuce Club on a regular basis.
By TW Contributing Writer MarieJ, and TW Contributing Editor Rosangel Valenti
Rosangel : As many Tribe members who were reading the Crisis Centers during the Monte Carlo Masters will know, the two of us had a pair of tickets for the day of the Monte Carlo finals. Bought weeks in advance (on the "off-chance" that Rafael Nadal might, just conceivably, turn up in the singles final), the tickets also gave us the unexpected bonus of a doubles final also featuring Rafa, along with Tommy Robredo.
MarieJ: First of all, I want to thank Rosangel for sharing with me those tickets... they were pure gold!
Prologue (to what MarieJ has dubbed a vaguely Shakespearian Federesque Tragedy)
MarieJ : On Saturday night, I was so excited about going down to Monte Carlo from Paris to watch Rafa that I was a bit afraid that I wouldn't be able to sleep at all. I woke up feeling great, though; I believed things were going to be perfect, and nothing could go wrong for the rest of the day! Vamos!
Rosangel : I always have difficulty sleeping before a trip. I'm nervous about not waking up on time, and I'm afraid of flying, even though I've done a lot of it lately on the Rafa Euro-Spectator Slam. When I woke up, it was a gray day in England, with rain spitting down. My photo gear was already packed, so all I needed to do was put my foot down hard on the pedal to get to Heathrow.
Act I
MarieJ : The train trip was quite long (5 hours and 30 minutes), but by the time you pass Avignon, you can feel the southern atmosphere. The landscape colors change, and you enter a panorama of red tiled roofs. Clay is the dominant color in the south of France: those red tiles, the red clay-like earth, and red cliffs overlooking the deep blue of the Mediterranean. The French Riviera is just so so beautiful. The train follows the coast from Marseille to Nice, and everywhere you wish that you could stop over, or at least open the window as you could in the old trains, to smell the air! The train arrived in Nice on time, so I could catch the connection to get to the Monte Carlo Country Club in the nick of time! I was climbing the staircase just at the time Rafa was announced on court... Rosia was there waiting for me, perfecto, no ?
Rosangel : The first thing I was told when I arrived at Heathrow was that check-in was already closed. This timing didn't accord with the information I'd had beforehand, but it didn't look good. The next flight to Nice would arrive at 14.40pm, twenty minutes before the singles final was due to start. I simply begged the airline staff to take pity on me, having only one bag, and promised to run all the way to the gate. Several phone calls later I was given the go-ahead. If I looked slightly disheveled by the time MarieJ saw me, that run, toting two heavy cameras and two large white lenses along endless corridors and down neck-breaking stairs, is probably the reason.
I got to the gate early, of course. The flight arrived in Nice right on time. Outside, the sun beat down mercilessly. One tense taxi ride later (there were traffic jams on the way to Monaco, and all the way through it, which gave me plenty of time to check out the sight of Monaco Beach) and I was in my seat with 20 minutes to spare, just in time for the presentation of the finalists. I can probably be forgiven for thinking that Abba's Gimme!Gimme! Gimme! A Man After Midnight was a strange theme tune for the ceremony. The ball kids formed a kind of "phalanx of honour", and the finalists came out preceded by their national flags. MarieJ arrived just as this was happening, which was a relief, as we'd been exchanging progress reports by text, and the last I'd heard she was still on the train.
Act II
MarieJ : At the beginning of the match I was as nervous as Rafa - I just could not eat my sandwich until the score reached 4-4! The match was a bit of a rollercoaster with so many breaks up or down...when he came back from 0-4 down in the second set, I felt bad for the Fed fans. There were many of them seated on our side, not to mention how they were going to frazzle in TW.
In Monte Carlo you could feel their disappointment too... but, for me it was terrifico; I just love the way Rafa fights back every single time to win a match. I admire him so much for that. I'm not going to comment too much about the match since everything must have been said here already, but Rafa needed this title badly, to keep his ranking, his aura on clay, and his dream about winning his favorite tournament (I guess he meant favorite besides the Slams, because I suspect Roland Garros and Wimby do really matter to him ;-)
But in some ways Rafa and Monte Carlo is a kind of love story; it all started here in 2005, and three years later he's still so much in love with the red clay. I really don't know how many times he's going to win Monte Carlo, but I think the next guy to surpass his mark is not yet born!
Rosangel : Like MarieJ, I had my own lunch with me - I had to smile that for our day trip to the playground that is Monte Carlo, we both took our own sandwiches! We were seated right up at the top of the stadium. Earlier in the week I hadn't been able to see the Mediterranean, as I was seated further forward, but from our lofty perch, not only could we look down into the hot pit of the court, but we could see plenty of sky and water, and some luxurious-looking yachts, bobbing on the horizon.
I was nervous until the match started. However, I had my camera to occupy me for at least some of the time, while keeping an eye on the action. I took a number of pictures of the final, although unfortunately the sheer distance involved and the angle of view means that this was the most challenging tennis match I've ever photographed. Monte Carlo economises a bit on the height between the rows of seats - I presume, to pack as many people as possible into the towering stands - so often, a clear shot was blocked. Thus, these pictures are not of the usual quality - just the best I could do. How I got the picture above, I'll never know.
During the second set, after Rafa went down 0-4 (the flag-waving Swiss fans were in ecstasy!), we had a discussion about whether Rafa could come back and win the set. It's fair to say that although neither of us predicted it, we didn't rule it out, because it appeared to us that his level had dropped at the start of the second set, and he was offering up too many short balls and errors, while Federer had raised his level and was taking full advantage.
We all know the story from there. The Nadal forehand to the Federer backhand, the cutting out of errors, the victor's fall into the red dirt. I was present when Rafa won his last trophy, in Stuttgart back in July 2007, and also attended the final of the Paris Masters with MarieJ when he lost to David Nalbandian. So it was a very long wait for his fans as well as Rafa himself. But he was back in the winner's circle again, holding up the Coupe des Princes. On the way to the title, marieJ did a fabulous job of cheering Rafa on, in spite of the numbers of Swiss fans surrounding us - maybe some of you heard her on TV? She was the one yelling 'Vamos chiqui!'
 Act III
MarieJ : 45 minutes after finishing his match, Rafa was back on court with Tommy. Right from the beginning you could feel that he was there to win, and win as fast as possible. He was passing right and left and smacking some good volleys. Rosia took plenty of pictures of fierce looking Rafa, frustrated Rafa, very pissed-off Rafa and vamosing! Rafa too. By then we had seats much lower in the stands, so it was really fun to see. At one point, in the second set, both Bhupathi and Knowles were standing together to receive Tommy's serve - Rafa's face was priceless as he was laughing at the guys... he cracks me up, i really can't resist that smile.
When they failed to break at 3-2, I was afraid of missing the last train from the Country Club back to Nice, so I almost cheered for them to win faster, because we needed to catch the train....but I restrained myself very hard ;p. Taking both the singles and doubles titles in Monte Carlo is an outstanding achievement that few men have matched in Master series events, and Rafa being one of them makes it very special to me.
Rosangel : There's one picture among those I took during the doubles match of Rafa standing near the baseline watching the ball fly towards his partner. The opponents, Mark Knowles and Mahesh Bhupathi, decided early on that they would try to concentrate their fire on Tommy Robredo, as they were getting burnt by Rafa's groundstrokes and passing shots. He, if course, was itching to get his racquet on every ball. This was a match of much higher quality than I expected; with the Olympics coming up, Nadal and Robredo were taking their performance seriously. But this is not the first year that they have played together, either - back in 2004 they won a title (Chennai) and reached the semifinals of the U.S. Open.
Tommy Robredo gave the speech after the trophies were presented, in French, and marieJ picked up from this that he and Rafa also intend to play together in Hamburg. It seems that they are trying to accumulate points for Olympics entry as a team.
Act IV
MarieJ : We went back to to the train station without needing to rush, which was a big relief for Rosia, who had just enough time to catch her plane. Then, I was alone but very very happy in Nice! What do you do in such a case? I went to a place to eat my favorite food : an Italian trattoria named "La Voglia" which means the Envy or Desire. I could not find a better place to reflect my mood of the day : the gusto of having such a great time! The antipasti were terrific, and the glass of wine was very fine. Afterwards I went back to my hotel washed out, but happier than ever. Rafa is such an exhausting player to watch and follow.
Rosangel : Surely MarieJ knows by now that if the choice had been between missing a plane or missing a Rafa trophy ceremony, the plane would have been the loser? Or I would have bribed a Monegasque taxi driver to somehow make it to the airport. Wasn't it after we last watched a doubles match featuring Rafa, in Paris last year, that MarieJ ended up driving in the bus lane to make sure I got to the Gare du Nord on time?
Epilogue :
MarieJ : Nice 'de bon matin'! I could not visit the city without a walk on the beach, and along La Promenade des Anglais, so I woke up early, took some pictures on the way to the beach, bought the newspapers (El Pais and l'Équipe), sat under the sun on the stone beach with the famous Negresco Palace at my back, took the temperature of the Mediterranean with my feet, and felt great, but really cold :) There is simply no price for that! Then add in the shirtless "nice" guys setting the tables at some of the beach's terraces, and I felt heartbroken to leave the place! in 2009, I will come back again - it felt so good to be there!
Rosangel : The day afterwards, I had to make a train journey to Heathrow, to pick up my car - the last flight back from Nice arrives at Gatwick, which is much closer to my home, and it wasn't worth making the pilgrimage to the other airport so late at night. Fitting in my current live tennis series while dealing with 'real life' commitments is tough (Whose idea was this? Oh, my own!). Another year, I'd love to be able to take the whole weekend - the tournament itself, with its setting, is a jewel among the Masters Series events (I understand that it's keeping its full status after all). But, like the tour, I must keep moving. So far, the Rafa Euro-Spectator Slam has taken in six countries and nine stops, with three more tournaments to attend in the next three weeks. That's right - tomorrow, like the players, I'll be in Barcelona.
Howdy, everyone. Because of the degree to which so many of you enjoy gathering on the cyber-sofa to discuss or call ongoing matches, we will now have a daily thread specifically for that purpose. This is it: Your Call. Think of it as the Crisis Center thread for those weeks when there are no Grand Slams, Masters, or Fed or Davis Cup in progress. Your Call will be your "new" Watercooler, and you can go off-topic here if you like as well. This will also make it easier for you to stay on-topic at "premium" posts. You will also have Monday Net Posts and Deuce Club on a regular basis.
Well, we might as well call this Part 3 of an agreeable and illuminating discussion that began with my post, The Parisian Slide, and continued through Clay: The New Grass? Some comments that went up right around closing time, from Ryan, Todd and in Charge, and others made me realize that our discussion of the nature of clay-court tennis really wasn't finished.
So let's pick up where we left off, after I voice this caveat:
Some people react to an analysis/criticism of the clay-court game a little more defensively than is necessary, because it strikes them as a slight of their favorite surface, or favorite player. I just hope everybody remembers that the discussion takes a place on a pretty high plane. Guys who win or even go deep at Roland Garros and get to quarters or semis on grass or hard courts are great players, period. But there are great players and. . . great players. Sure, we can focus on what everyone does best and call it good. It's not like I enjoy focusing on the negative. What I like to focus on is the distinctions and differences, and finding an answer to why some men or women win eight majors, and others win just two. A guy who wins two majors is a great player, but not as great a one as a guy who wins eight. It's why they play the game.
In the course of helping Pete Sampras write his forthcoming autobiography, A Champion's Mind, we talked a lot about Roland Garros. I think some of that material will be fresh and interesting to all of you, so I'm not giving it away here. What I'll say, though, is that at the end of the discussion and analysis, Pete kind of smiled, shrugged, and said, "We can talk about it until we're blue in the face, but the bottom line is that maybe I just wasn't good enough on clay to win the French Open."
The mark seems especially poignant today, in the wake of Rafael Nadal's win over Roger Federer in the Monte Carlo final. Maybe Roger Federer just isn't good enough to beat Rafael Nadal on clay, although we'll add: unless Nadal is off his game. Steve Tignor and I were talking about that just this morning. The Mighty Fed's fans might have a hard time conceding that this might be true, but it seems to me that the hunt for the magic bullet has been pretty futile, and it's beginning to sound repetitious. But check out some of the remarks made yesterday by Michael Stich on the Federer-Nadal rivalry (I quoted them at my ESPN blog today).
One of the reasons that Nadal can dominate Federer on clay, and one of the most powerful rebuttals to Stich, is that Nadal is a great mover. Hence, he's able to offset some of the versatility, ball control, and rhythm-breaking strategies that Federer needs to employ against him. Which brings us to what Ryan wrote in a late-afternoon post on Saturday: Pete--who are these poor movers that benefit from clay?
Andy Roddick? Lindsay Davenport? You could certainly make the case
for Monica Seles or Mary Pierce, but I'm struggling to think of any
others...
I think excluding Coria from "your" argument is kinda disingenuous.
If this guy isn't the prototype for players who get labeled CCS, who is?
Also, I'd say that people like Costa, Berasategui, etc, your typical
CCS, are great movers, but on hard courts they move (and play) in the
wrong framework (loopy shots way behind baseline), negating their great
movement. Who are the CCS that don't have great movement?
I'm going to open this up talking about three former players some of you may not even have heard of: the Australian former pro, John Alexander, my good friend, the smooth Hungarian player, Balazs Taroczy, and Juan Balcells.
Alexander, an Aussie, was heralded as the "next" John Newcombe because he was tall, strong, and played the "big game" (serve and volley) at a time when it was still the dominant and most productive style. Big "JA" never survived the fourth round at Wimbledon, but he won two of his career seven titles at Louisville and North Conway, on clay. The reason? Alexander was powerful but slow; the clay gave him a little more time to set up his shots and therefore play more aggressively. On days when his unforced error count was low, his wingspan and power were important, productive assests. But they could never make him a better mover; that's one thing that doesn't change, even when you're in the zone.
Taroczy was one of the least able movers on the tour during his heyday, yet he won 13 titles, all of them on clay (or certainly the vast majority; the records are somewhat murky). He won Hilversum six times, a unique achievement in and of itself and, yes, there apparently was something in the water. He also upset Jimmy Connors on clay at Indianapolis (when it was the US Clay Court Championships, and everybody played it).
By any stretch, Balazs was a "clay-court expert" ("specialist" if you insist), and it was because he had rock-solid groundstrokes, including a gorgeous, clean, one-handed backhand (either sliced or driven). He was a force at Roland Garros, losing to Bjorn Borg in back-to-back years, including once in the quarters. But at the US Open and Wimbledon, he reached the fourth round exactly once. He just didn't move well enough to keep up with the pace on faster courts. We used to laugh and joke about it.
Balcells was a Spanish player who won one career title: Bucharest (on clay). I mention him partly because he was one of the most interesting players I've ever seen. Despite his heritage, Juan was a "pure" serve-and-volley player with great hands and touch, but clay remained his best surface. So here was a guy who ought to have enjoyed the best of both worlds, a grounding in clay, an inclination and strokes suitable for rushing the net. But if memory serves, he didn't move well enough, and his best hard court results were similar to his best efforts on clay.
Okay. I'll be the first to admit that there are mold-breaking players and oddities in career results (six Hilversum titles?). Also, any Top 50 pro can catch fire for a week or two and win on. . .anything. But Alexander and Taroczy are good examples of the way the slowness of red clay can benefit less athletic players. I'm going to go to another comment now before I get into greater specifics, this one from Todd and in Charge. So you can win on clay without being a great mover. You can win on clay without being a great server. You can win on clay without being a great returner. And you can win on clay even against "superior" players.
Pete, tell us what you really think!
Actually, if you connect the dots you can easily see exactly what I think, and I think it taps into what I've written above. And here I'll borrow and twist a phrase from former US President Bill Clinton and First Laddie in waiting: It's the groundstrokes, stupid!
Let's pause and look at the National Football League. Can a team win its division, or even the Super Bowl, without a great quarterback, a great running back, or great quartet of receivers? Of course it can; a team can win big with a defense capable of shutting down all opponents' offensive weapons (or something as simple as a muddy [clay-like?] field, as comment poster Robin aptly noted). And consistent, steady ground strokes are tennis's equivalent of a great defense.
This begs the question: does a player needs to be a great mover to have a great ground game? I don't think so. Most top pros are "fast" enough to get to the majority of the forehands and backhands hit by an opponent; in fact, many players with great ground strokes can hide their relatively poor movement because they can control points - just think of Monica Seles - with their groundstrokes. This is the hole card of the clay-court expert.
Of course, a lot of CCEs are great movers - Coria is a fine example. And nobody said that just because a guy has trouble adapting his game to faster courts, it automatically means he's a poor mover (Alberto Berasategui is a good example of a guy who moved well but had other, insurmountable liabilities). Loopy strokes, playing from too defensive a posture, from too far back from the court, things like that also can keep a lethal clay-court player who moves well - a Sergi Bruguera - out of the mix on other surfaces most of the time. But the combination of reliable groundstrokes and the fitness to run east-west all day will produce plenty of wins on clay - and pose more problems for opponents on clay than on any other surface.
The first and still greatest example of a player who won almost exclusively by defense, by playing great east-west tennis and, as an NFL analyst might say, "great tackling", was Guillermo Vilas. He put up his first big win on grass, beating Ilie Nastase in the 1974 Masters final, and while he won two Australian Open titles on grass, he did it at a time when many top players didn't play; he is first win, in 1978, was over John Marks (0 career titles), and he defended successfully against John Sadri (2 career titles). But under the tutelage of his Svengali-like coach, Ion Tiriac, Vilas decided to become the quintessential clay-court grinder. It simply suited his athletic balance sheet to do so, because he was more of a bull than a deer, and saddled with a weak serve despite being lefty. He won one Roland Garros title (1977) title and was runner-up on three other occasions.
Vilas consciously "made" himself into a clay-courter, in a way that it's impossible to imagine a clay-courter making himself into a dominant fast court player (Bjorn Borg was both, partly because of his movement, which is also why he was Vilas's nemesis). This suggests that on clay, Vilas was able to compensate for the shortcomings that prevented him from winning more fast-court events with his fitness and groundstrokes. But the key thing here is that Vilas didn't just end up doing "well" on clay - we aren't talking about a Costa or even a Coria here - he became a Hall-of-Famer and the Open-era's third best player on clay. And more power to him for picking his battles and overcoming some formidable natural obstacles.
Tomas Muster is another good case study. To his credit, Muster never gave up on hard court events, although he has the distinction of being a former No. 1 who did not win a single match at Wimbledon - not in his career (he only entered the event four times). Muster had the heart of a lion; he rebounded from a seemingly career-ending knee injury (a courtesy car backed into him) to dominate on clay and ultimately earn the no. 1 ranking. He won a couple of hard court titles (including Miami and Dubai), but he stands alongside Vilas as a master of the east-west game. Both of them invited opponents to get into rallies, and played in such a way that they were inevitable.
Neither Vilas nor Muster could be called a great mover, and you can throw two-time Roland Garros champion Jim Courier into that company as well. Courier wasn't really about east-west tennis, his approach rested on a determination to get into position to dictate with his explosive forehand, from inside the court, which he did with outstanding success. Courier moved better than it might have appeared, and that was made clear by his two triumphs on Australian hard courts.
The bottom line is that these are three former no. 1s (Vilas was, arguably, no. 1 in 1977, but that was before the official computer rankings went on-line. I voted for him in a major poll that year and heard about it from Borg fans). They're undisputed clay-court titans. But only Courier equaled his French Open results on another surface. And that means that the skills that worked so well on clay either didn't travel well, or some other factor kicked in, to block the grander ambitions of Muster and Vilas. Their mastery of the east-west game is a tribute to specific gifts, but their inability to export a more deadly version of the game to other surfaces is a comment on relatively poor movement, manifested as a lack of quickness, weakness in the transition from defense to offense, bad footwork going north to south, or all of the above.
The clay court honor roll is inscribed with plenty of players who were great movers, but some of the biggest names were not. I can't help but think that means something.
By TW Contributing Editor, Ed McGrogan
Last Week's Tournaments
Masters Series Monte Carlo (ATP - Clay - Monte Carlo, Monaco)
- Singles Final: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer 7-5, 7-5.
- Singles Semifinal: Roger Federer def. Novak Djokovic 6-3, 3-2 (retired).
- Singles Semifinal: Rafael Nadal def. Nikolay Davydenko 6-3, 6-2.
- Singles Bracket
- Doubles Final: Rafael Nadal/Tommy Robredo def. Mahesh Bhupathi/Mark Knowles 6-3, 6-3.
- Doubles Semifinal: Mahesh Bhupathi/Mark Knowles def. Jeff Coetzee/Wesley Moodie 6-0, 7-5.
- Doubles Semifinal: Rafael Nadal/Tommy Robredo def. Jonas Bjorkman/Kevin Ullyett 5-7, 7-6, 10-7.
- Doubles Bracket
Fed Cup (WTA - Various)
- First Rubber: Anna Chakvetadze (RUS) def. Vania King (USA) 6-4, 7-5.
- Second Rubber: Svetlana Kuznetsova (RUS) def. Ahsha Rolle (USA) 6-2, 6-1.
- Third Rubber: Vera Zvonareva (RUS) def. Vania King (USA) 4-6, 6-3, 6-2.
- Fourth Rubber (dead): Ahsha Rolle (USA) def. Elena Vesnina (RUS) 6-3, 6-4.
- Fifth Rubber (dead): Liezel Huber/Vania King (USA) def. Svetlana Kuznetsova/Elena Vesnina (RUS) 7-6, 6-4.
- Russia vs. USA
- First Rubber: Carla Suarez-Navarro (ESP) def. Shuai Peng (CHN) 6-3, 7-6.
- Second Rubber: Nuria Llagostera Vives (ESP) def. Jie Zheng (CHN) 6-3, 6-4.
- Third Rubber: Nuria Llagostera Vives (ESP) def. Shaui Peng (CHN) 6-4, 6-4.
- Fourth Rubber (dead): Jie Zheng (CHN) def. Carla Suarez-Navarro (ESP) 7-6, 6-3.
- Fifth Rubber (dead): Nuria Llagostera Vives/Maria-Jose Martinez Sanchez (ESP) def. Shuai Peng/Tian-Tian Sun (CHN) 6-2, 6-1.
- China vs. Spain
By the Letter
T...ommy Robredo and Rafael Nadal's doubles title at Monte Carlo gave Nadal the distinction of being only the second player to ever win the singles and doubles tournaments at a Masters Series event (the last was Jim Courier at Indian Wells '91).
E...bay finds of the week (again, those Heritage shorts I told you about): Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C.
N...ice result (men): Gael Monfils was one of the few Frenchman to have success in Monte Carlo this past week, upsetting Fernando Verdasco and Ivo Karlovic before losing to Roger Federer in the third round.
N...ice result (women): Vera Zvonareva has played well so far this season, and continued her strong play by taking the deciding rubber for the hometown Russians, beating Vania King in a close three set match.
I...ndividual tournaments they are not - but even when the ATP and WTA combine for a "joint" Rogers Cup in 2011, Montreal and Toronto will still alternate between the men and women each year.
S...hamil Tarpishchev, captain of the Russian Fed Cup team, will play Maria Sharapova in September's final due to a "prior agreement" between the two.
W...TATour.com took a closer look at the career of Clarisa Fernandez, a French Open semifinalist six years ago, after she announced her retirement earlier this month.
O...pen tennis' 40th anniversary coincides with the release of The Bud Collins History of Tennis - due out this spring.
R...oland Garros will be the next - and last - tournament that Gustavo Kuerten will play in. Guga withdrew from Barcelona this week due to a muscle injury.
L...osing streak of 54 matches (and even more amazingly, 108 sets) was ended earlier this week after Robert Dee defeated Arzhang Derakhshani in a Futures tournament in Spain.
D...ocumentary film Unstrung, which takes a closer look at the lives of dedicated tennis youths, will be shown on Saturday, May 3, on ESPN Classic. The film is co-produced by Jim Courier.
McGrogan's Heroes
ATP – Rafael Nadal
It’s the safe pick, but it’s the right one.
Somewhat lost in the Djokovic is rising/Federer is falling early months of 2008 is that Nadal hasn’t won a tournament since July of last year. He’s had plenty of good results since then – finals of the Paris Masters and Miami Masters, for example – but like the long ball, chicks dig titles. Rafa finally got the monkey off his back with a convincing win at Monte Carlo. It couldn’t have come at a better time, because even though clay is Nadal’s preferred battleground, it also brings along added pressure to fend off and piles of points to defend.
Nadal is now an unprecedented four-time defending champion of Monte Carlo (Ille Nastase was champion in three consecutive years, from 1971-73). He can make similar history at both Barcelona and Rome, should he earn the four-peat at these upcoming events. And even though winning the French Open four straight years wouldn’t give him the best run at Roland Garros outright (Bjorn Borg can also tout that, winning from 1978-1981), we won’t think any less of the achievement.
Last year, Nadal accomplished what I called the “Quadruple Trifecta” – he won four different clay tournaments for three consecutive years. If he can defend his titles at Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome, and Roland Garros this year, do I then call it the “Quadruple Superfecta?” I’m not sure I like how that sounds. I’m instead thinking of dubbing it the “Perfect Square,” since Nadal will have 16 titles if he can win four tournaments for four consecutive years.
(On a related note, see the if… question below.)
WTA – Nuria Llagostera Vives
Both the American and Spanish Fed Cup teams faced significant challenges this past week in the semifinal round. Clearly, the United States drew the shortest straw of the two sides. They not only had to face an All-Star Russian lineup in Moscow, but also had to do so with a squad that wasn’t even close to their best potential outfit.
Spain also faced an away crowd, but dodged both Na Li and Zi Yan, China’s two highest ranked singles players. Throw in the fact that this was only the second year in the World Group for China, and the outcome of this tie was not as easy to predict.
It was over by the third rubber – just as it was in Moscow – but not in favor of the home side. Spain marched on to the finals, thanks in great part to the contributions of Nuria Llagostera Vives. The Fed Cup veteran dispatched both Chinese threats, beating Jie Zheng and Shaui Peng, each in straight sets.
Llagostera Vives’ year in Fed Cup has been a memorable one, dating back to February when Spain faced Italy in the opening round. Also in enemy territory, Spain faced a tough test against an Italian side led by the accomplished and battle-tested Francesca Schiavone. Llagostera Vives faced a tall order, but ended up winning in three sets, 7-6, 3-6, 6-2. Thereafter, Anabel Medina Garrigues won the next two rubbers, and Spain advanced with an insurmountable 3-0 lead.
This time around, Llagostera Vives did the bulk of the work, after Carla Suarez-Navarro won the opening rubber against Peng. She’s sure to be a fixture for Spain in September’s final, which will be their first tie of the year played on home soil.
Tennis Theatre
I typed "spain china fed cup" into the YouTube search engine to see if I could find any highlights from this past weekend's tie. Only one video came up, and it was this: I enjoyed watching this clip. Since the shuttlecock stays airbone longer than a tennis ball, there's more time to plan your next move, leading to some very creative shotmaking. Although tennis, ping-pong, and squash are the top three on my list of favorite racquet sports, I still love to play badminton when I can (unfortunately, almost never).
This clip illustrates the speed of the game pretty well:
Finally, some deception: Next Week's Tournaments
***TELEVISION SCHEDULE***
BMW Open (ATP - Clay - Munich, Germany)
- Singles Bracket
- Doubles Bracket
- Website
Open Sabadell Atlantico (ATP - Clay - Barcelona, Spain)
- Singles Bracket
- Doubles Bracket
- Website
ECM Prague Open (WTA - Clay - Prague, Czech Republic)
- Singles & Doubles Bracket
- Website
Grand Prix de SAR La Princesse Lalla Meryem (WTA - Clay - Fes, Morocco)
- Singles & Doubles Bracket
- Website
Beyond the Bracket
The road to Roland Garros is a long one, paved with a mixture of crushed brick and plenty of sweat. It’s been said that clay is the most forgiving surface to play on from a physical standpoint, but try telling that to the many players who are playing three challenging Masters Series events in a span of four weeks. And if you’re Rafael Nadal, the three-time defending champion of [insert name of clay tournament here] four consecutive weeks of play are required (in order to fit Barcelona into his calendar).
Nadal, among others, has aired his thoughts about the compacted nature of this year’s clay season. But as they say, the show must go on. And in Monte Carlo, the usual dynamos of the dirt didn’t skip a beat. The seeds played out perfectly in the last two rounds, with the “real” number one on the surface, Nadal, capping things off by again stifling his closest rival, Roger Federer. To reach this final match, Nadal brushed away the fourth seed, Nikolay Davydenko, while Federer garnered some revenge for his loss at the Australian Open against third-seeded Novak Djokovic, after the Serb abruptly retired in the second set.
While seeing the top four seeds reach the final four of a tournament isn’t that uncommon, having the top eight reach the quarters is definitely a rare occurrence. It almost happened in Monaco this week, with the top six seeds advancing to the elite eight, along with party crashers Sam Querrey and Igor Andreev.
Normally, I wouldn’t make too much out of this. But for a number of reasons, I think there’s a very good chance that what we saw unfold in Monte Carlo is what will also happen at the French Open. The top six seeds (David Ferrer is No. 5, and David Nalbandian is No. 6) are all spectacular players on clay – their lowest clay title count amongst them is four, aside from the still-youthful Djokovic, who has two. As for Andreev and Querrey, they could find their way deep into the second week of Roland Garros, but they represent a specific type of player who will do well in Paris. Andreev symbolizes the (are you ready) clay-court specialist, while Querrey’s presence is emblematic of a wild card candidate who can make waves from time to time (Carlos Moya ’07, Julien Benneteau ’06, Victor Hanescu ’05).
In addition, look at the box scores of Thursday’s matches that sent the top six into the quarters. Except for Davydenko’s three set tussle with Philipp Kohlschreiber, the remainder of the top six seeds crushed their competition – five of the ten sets in these matches either ended 6-0 or 6-1. And even though these matches were in a best of three format, all of these top six seeds have proven they can handle best of five set action. Last year, their combined records in Grand Slam matches were 104-20 (80.7%).
This is the beginning of the arduous clay season, where players – in theory – should be at their freshest. These eight emerged from this playing field, and while they may not all duplicate this result at Rome or Hamburg (due to the congested calendar), I think the same eight will prove their worth at Roland Garros, after everyone has had their fill of clay. I don’t have a crystal ball, although I did get a very clear view of this past week’s proceedings in my cousin’s home theatre, equipped with a stunning 92” high definition projector screen. Will I be able to watch tennis the same again? Like my predictions above, only time will tell.
Before I go, a few words about these competitors:
Nadal – see McGrogan’s Heroes above.
Federer – The start to his clay campaign has gone as well as he could have expected. Retirements by two of his toughest opponents help, but he looked right in form against Nalbandian in the Monte Carlo quarters.
Djokovic – Novak has significant points to defend at the next three Grand Slams, but he also reached the quarters at Rome and Hamburg last year. If there’s one equalizing factor in this three horse race atop the rankings, it’s that Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic were so dominant last year that they each always have points to defend somewhere, so an early loss may not be as punishing as it first seems.
Davydenko – He’s looked a lot more threatening since last year’s U.S. Open (did you know he didn’t lose a set at Flushing Meadows until his semifinal match against Federer?), and his win at Miami should do wonders for his confidence.
Ferrer – It’s going to be a stiff test for anyone to upend Nadal on clay this spring, but in spite of the 6-1, 7-5 defeat he suffered to Rafa, David probably has just as good a chance as Roger, Novak, or Nikolay does of slaying the clay Goliath.
Nalbandian – Steve Tignor had a great description of Richard Gasquet in a recent ESPN.com blog post, where he called him “The Microwave” – as in, he can get hot at any moment. Thinking back to how Nalbandian played at last year’s Madrid and Paris Masters, and then, how mortal he can look at other times, David could likewise be compared to this kitchen appliance. But to give him some credit, he’s a microwave from Williams-Sonoma (he won’t break down as quickly).
Andreev – Ever since Tignor (not picking on you Steve – seriously!) pegged Igor to shine bright in Indian Wells (he ended up losing to Mardy Fish in his first match), he’s been on a tear, reaching the quarterfinals at both Miami and Monte Carlo. Reaching those heights at Roland Garros is not out of the question, but if it’s not him, I could easily see Juan Monaco or Nicolas Almagro taking his place.
Querrey – Sam’s play was a great story this week. Just getting by Carlos Moya in the first round was an achievement, not to mention his subsequent wins over Andreas Seppi and Richard Gasquet. But what I take most out of Querrey’s success is that I can’t help but think about what James Blake or Andy Roddick could do on clay, on a good day.
if...
Rafael Nadal ends up winning Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome, and Roland Garros for four consecutive years each, what name would you invent for this achievement?
(I have suggested "Perfect Square" as per above; best response in the comments below wins a prize.)
By TW Contributing Editor Andrew Burton
Well. How was it for you?
My guess is if "you" are Rosangel or mariej, about as good as it gets right now.
It's early afternoon ET, and Nadal and Robredo have just won the doubles. If Nadal ever figured out how to adapt his game to the singles version of the sport, he might be an interesting player. He could even go deep in the odd clay court tournament. Just a guess.
Anyhow, I hope you enjoy any and all tennis today. Please continue to talk about the tennis here, going (reasonably) off topic if you choose.
By TW Contributing Editor Rosangel Valenti
Good Morning. This will be today's thread for discussing the action in Monte Carlo. By the time you read this, I hope to have met up with marieJ at the Monte carlo Country Club, to see Roger Federer take on Rafael Nadal in the final for the third year running. As we all know, Nadal, the three-time defending Champion, is 6-1 against Federer on clay, and 8-6 in all.
We will also have the opportunity to see the doubles final, featuring Mahesh Bhupathi and Mark Knowles against Tommy Robredo and, again, Rafael Nadal. The tickets were bought well in advance of this week, but I think it's safe to say that we're both happy with the programme for the day. I'll be reporting back on the day's events early next week.
As always, enjoy today's tennis.
With the earlier Crisis Center post groaning under the weight of well over 1000 comments, it's again time to open up a new thread for the Tribe to continue discussing the aftermath of today's action in Monte Carlo, and expectations for tomorrow's final.
There are also draws available for Barcelona and Munich next week to discuss.
BY TW Contributing Editor Rosangel Valenti
Good morning. As usual, this will act as your gathering-place for discussion of the action in today's semifinals in Monte Carlo. Today's Order of Play in singles (after one of two doubles semifinals) begins with Rafael Nadal's encounter with Nikolay Davydenko. The two have met three times, with their head-to-head 2-1 in Nadal's favour. Davydenko won their last encounter, in the final of the last Masters Series event in Key Biscayne, in straight sets, and was also one of only three men to take even a set from Nadal on clay in 2007, during their memorable semifinal in Rome. Their first meeting took during the Round Robin stage at the Shanghai Masters Cup in 2006, and also went to three sets.
Roger Federer next takes on Novak Djokovic, in an eagerly-anticipated rematch following Djokovic's straight-sets defeat of Federer in their semifinal at this year's Australian Open. Their head-to-head stands 5-2 in the Swiss's favour, Djokovic's other victory having occurred in the final in Montreal last summer, over three sets. Of their seven meetings, four have taken place in the best-of-five format. The best-of-three-setters have all gone the distance, including a meeting in the first round in Monte Carlo in 2006, when Djokovic was unseeded, ranked 67.
Today's singles line-up is an echo of last year's Roland Garros semifinals, when the same four men competed for places in the finals, with pairings reversed. On that occasion, Federer achieved a tight straight-sets victory over Davydenko, and Nadal edged out Djokovic, also in straight sets. A lot has happened since then. The world number one and number two are both looking for revenge for recent defeats at the hands of the lower-ranked players.
Following the conclusion of the singles, the second doubles semifinal, incidentally, also features Rafael Nadal, paired with Tommy Robredo.
As always, enjoy today's tennis.
|
