51 posts categorized "September 2009"
by Pete BodoMornin', everyone. This is a Your Call thread so feel free to range widely in your conversation, although tennis, and commentary on this post, the events of the day should take priority. I take the pain to note this because while the Your Call and Crisis Center formats are popular and useful, during weeks when the red meat is scarce a menu of Your Call selections on the home page isn't especially appetizing for new readers who may be unfamiliar with our habits.
So from now on I'll use a standard hed (that's journalese for "headline") for YC and CC posts most of the time, in order to encourage passers-by to visit a while and maybe get into the conversation (not that we don't have a boatload of readers already). Anyway, you all saw that Dinara Safina was ousted from the Japan Open the other day by Taiwanese qualifier Chang Kai-Chen in a bitterly fought, tough three-setter. Last year, Safina dominated the event, pulverizing Svetlana Kuznetsova in the final, 6-1,6-3. You can't help but notice who different a vibe now surrounds Safina.
The Chen match was Safina's first sinice she lost to no. 72 Petra Kvitova in the US Open. That was no disaster, btw; Kvitova is a dangerous, explosive player and she had a great US Open. I watched her squander numerous chances in her match-up with eventual semifinalist Yanina Wickmayer, and on a day when a few more of those stinging volleys and probing forehands land good she's be a handful for anyone. Apparently, Safina broke down in tears while still at the site shortly after the match in Japan, which underscores the pressure that has been building on her since she took the no. 1 ranking without having won a Grand Slam event last year. I thought she's handled that situation extremely well, given what an uproar her continuing presence at the top of the rankings caused in the intervening months, fueled by the semi-jocular complaints and observations about the situation rendered by Serena Williams.
Almost a year has gone by since the outcry began, and it hasn't exactly died. You can blame Safina for that - sort of - because no player in recent memory has gone on a tear anything like Safina in 2008 and '09, only to persistently deliver the crowning touch. Maybe that's understandable, given that her name is "Safin," which we've come learn means "exasperating and complex" in Russian.
Safina came up startling small in the first major of '09; she was crushed in the Australian Open final by her most vocal critic, Serena Williams. Safina rallied somewhat, and had a golden opportunity in Paris, but founda way (which could not have been easy) to blow the final against Sventlana Kuznetsova. Then the Grand Slam wheels really fell off: She was humiliated by Venus Williams in the Wimbledon semis, and went out meekly in the aforementioned US Open.
But through all of that, she maintained her composure and stood up for herself without being too tetchy or becoming overly bitter about the criticism leveled at her. She stayed on message, basically taking the same position as anyone else (myself included) who felt exasperated by the seeming injustice but recognized that you can't cry "fair" or "unfair" when a written-in-stone numerical formula produces a result - the only result, by definition, that such an approach kicks out.
Hate the system - fine. But don't hate the player, and especially not when you can't offer a better alternative that isn't, in its own way, even more wildly prejudicial. And don't go changing the system because of a historical oddity (which I think is the case here). It couldn't have been easy for Safina to have to defend a system that functions very well most of the time, and her own role in exposing it's main fault line - the disconnect between winning Grand Slam events and overall, week-in, week-out performance. Usually, top performers win the majors. But not this time. And remember that Serena has the almost diametrically opposed proflle, and an increasingly unusual one in today's game: She's the player who has more trouble winning the small events and matches than pounding the top players and grabbing the biggest titles. And now? Perhaps the pressure is getting to Safina, particularly with Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin back in the mix, and a passel of young players popping up to garner attention. Safina can't possible ignore or pooh-pooh the struggles of Ana Ivanovic, Jelena Jankovic and perhaps even Maria Sharapova as ominous signs, suggesting that you can only squander so many big opportunities before the crows come home to roost and you find yourself kicking yourself, mentally, for having let your chances slip away. Oddly, and this is the crux of it for me, there was no real reason for Safina to have reacted so dramatically to her loss. It was her first competitive match in a long time, and the most meaningful portions of the year are long past. That she reacted so strongly to the loss may say less about her burning desire to compete and win than about the state of her spirit and mind. She's in a complicated situation, on various levels. Things must seem far more precarious and confusing to her than they ought to for a player who's held the no.1 ranking for long enough to prove that she wasn't merely benefitting from a seam in the system.
You can almost hear Safina saying her prayers at night: Oh godot! Please just give me one more chance to win a major, I promise I'll do better nexts time! There's only thing she can do to right the situation, and if she accomplishes it, the fog will lift very quickly. She needs to win a major, but it's something she can't achieve until the beginning of next year. And that gives the pressure plenty of time to gnaw at her, and promises to make this fall and early winter fraught with anxieties and a repitition of the same tiresome questions.
That's the great thing about tennis - there's always a next time. But it's surprising how few of those next times there really are.
-- Pete
by Special TW Contributor, Guillaume Willecoq (assist to Mariej) Open a map of France - Google maps will do just fine. Now, look to the north along the coast between Belgium and Paris. Welcome to the Baie de Somme! Somme is, unfortunately, famous for being the site of some of the bloodiest battles of all military history: from July to November 1916, during the First World War, 1.2 million soldiers died or were wounded here. Today, military graveyards, where the soldiers of both camps rest in eternal peace, remain a common feature of the local villages.
Now look for these two little towns on or near the coast: Rue, and Le Crotoy. The latter is on the seaside waterfront, or more precisely, in the mud of the bay of Somme. For the past six years, the villages have combined efforts to host and build a tournament in late September, the Open of the Bay of Somme. Neither is an ATP/WTA event; rather, each one is part of the French national circuit, which gives relative unknowns and journeymen ranked outside the top hundred a chance to compete for prize money. The events also draw some top players who want to keep their competitive genes firing. As a journalist, and webmaster of our own French-language web site, 15-lovetennis, I was eager to cover the tournament. Many of you know my girlfriend, Marie Jo (Mariej, in TW patois), who accompanied me. We arrived on the grounds of the Tennis Club Rue-Le Crotoy (an indoor facility) on Friday. It’s a modest place, beside a large parking lot and a soccer field. The club has a bare-bones, metal shed-like structure, with two enclosed courts. There's also a private lounge for players, and a dining hall and cafeteria nearby. The players wander around freely in this casual, friendly setting.
That’s how we came to meet Richard Gasquet, who was with his father, Francis. “Richie” was accommodating; he granted us an interview immediately. “I did not train a lot during the last three months,” Gasquet told us. “ I have come here to find some match play. I want to play, play good tennis without pressure. If everything goes fine I’ll get my ranking back.” It seems that Gasquet’s last-minute decision to enter had suddenly lifted the tournament to another level. Laurent Chaumont, the creator and tournament director of the event, spent most of his time running around, cell-phone glued to his ear. He found time to tell us: “We managed everything on our own the first time we ran the event. We set up tents right next to the club where our wives cooked pasta for the players.” That was back in 2004, and for that first Open of the Bay of Somme the organizers raised 160,000 euros ($235,000) to run the event. The budget has since increased to 270,000 euros ($400,000) - prize money included. Orginally, the tournament was lucky to attract a handful of Top 200 players – below-the-radar names like those of Jean François Bachelot, or Rodolphe Cadart. But Sandrine Testud also decided to play; she was in the autumn of her career, and it was - well, it was a chance to play. The OBS quickly built a modest name for itself, and a surprising number of marquee players signed up. Those included Nathalie Tauziat (2005), Fabrice Santoro (2006), Arnaud Clément (2006), Jo Wilfried Tsonga (2007), Nathalie Dechy (2008), Paul Henri Mathieu (2008), and the first “guest” (or non-native player), Christophe Rochus (2006). Why would such high-value names play such a minor event? Well, there are a number of reasons, starting with timing. “We act like a warm up event for the Open de Moselle”, Chaumont said. “The players are coming from the US Open and a long, hard court season, and the must try to get ready to start the indoor season. We make that transition easier.” The best players entered in Rue will end up in the draws in Metz, Lyon, then Bercy; the others will play the Challenger circuit in places like Orleans, Rennes or Mons, in Belgium. The OBS has a good reputation among the French players. The club may not be much, but the players have good accommodations at a seaside resort just a few kilometers from the club. “The players always leave delighted”, said Emmanuel Mas, the FFT (French Federation) appointed tournament referee. “It's the venue, the ambiance, the background of the region – also, the players talk to each other, word spreads. For example, Arnaud Clément encouraged Sébastien Grosjean to play, and he’s here this year.” The 2009 draw was the best to date – and an unprecedented, if modest, sellout (1400 spectators over the finals weekend). Fabrice Santoro was on his farewell tour, Sébastien Grosjean coming back from a long injury; Josselin Ouanna was hoping for build further on his 3rd round finish at the US Open, and Richard Gasquet, was just looking to hit tennis balls under quality competitive conditions. On the women's side, the drawing cards were Alizé Cornet, Elena Bovina, and local heroine Julie Coin. Julien Obry, a promising junior who last played in the US Open boy’s event, beat a 40-year-old French veteran in his first round on Thursday, and lost in the second round to Jean Christophe Faurel on Friday. Both Faurel and Obry use a one handed backhand. I felt privileged watching them hitting that shot with wonderful accuracy - most of the time. Unfortunately, Obry wasn’t as steady as his Faurel, and he grew frustrated. He berated himself, threw his racquet, and displayed a foul mood. Although he lost, Obry has loads of talent; he's currently ranked 6th in the (junior) world. Keep an eye on him. . . Sebastien Grosjean, who’s shoulder is still aching from surgery he underwent at the end of 2008, has had a frustrating time trying to recapture his form. Here, he met Charles Roche (ranked no. 560) in his first match; a tough assignment, given that Roche has been knocking around at just below the tour level for some time now. “Seb” hasn’t changed much from his days as a Big Name - same white polo, same cap backwards, same three-day beard. . . and same game too. Seb’s forehand has lost some bite, but he still moves extremely well; he still has great touch at the net, but he needs more time to get full power back on his serve. Grosjean’s game may have fallen far from his glory days, but Roche felt he had to be at 120 percent – that’s what reputation, and experience at the highest level, can do for you. And that advantage ultimately helped Grosjean get through. Seb has no illusions about how much work he needs to do in order to recapture his status as a day-in, day-out ATP Tour staple. He sounds almost defiant when he says: “I come back to play - and to win too. I want to get back to a good level, play big tournaments and feel the adrenaline of big matches again. I don’t come back to play the tourist, otherwise I can give the racquets to my kids and play with them in the backyard garden.” The big news in the later stages was the upset of Ouanna, at the hands of crusty French veteran Jerome Haehnel – who has an interesting story of his own. Haehnel had the potential to be a solid pro, but a phobia about air travel kept him from playing international events. Haehnel beat Andre Agassi (do you recognize the name?) in the first round at Roland Garros in 2004, and he won his lone ATP-grade title later that year at Metz. Enroute to that win, he beat Richard Gasquet – whom he would meet again in the semis if the OBS. What a tale of contrasting fortunes those two men have written. It was a hard fought re-match, but in time Gasquet found his range and won. Meanwhile, on the other side of the draw, Santoro rolled through Grosjean, who was consoled by the fact that he was able to play free of pain. So the tournament got the final the organizers had dreamed about: Gasquet vs. Santoro. And nobody could complain about the quality of the women’s event, either, as Elena Bovina and Julie Coin battled through. 
Enroute to the final, Coin’s greatest stumbling block was Cornet. But even in a minor event like this one, Cornet was all nerves, and so anxious about and frustrated by her serve that she won just one game on her own serve – and that barely. Bovina, who was ranked as high as no.14 at age 22 (2002), is coming off two lost years (shoulder problems). But, like Grosjean, she's determined to claw her way back to the top. The final was a two-and-a-half hour battle, with Bovina taking a big step in her comeback by winning, 7-6 in the third.
The men’s final was played in a totally relaxed, almost festive mood. Santoro couldn’t stop smiling – he was like a kid with a new Christmas toy. He bantered with ballboys and threw in dazzling drop shots and lobs – seemingly, just for the joy of it. He could easily have been mistaken for the younger and more carefree of the two players. Gasquet was no grim-faced warrior, either. He looked relaxed, and may have smiled more during that match than he has through this entire, trying year. Gasquet won, and fairly easily, 6-3 6-2. But even that did not diminish Santoro's joy; the game - the sheer joy of it - is in his blood. He told us that he’s tried to play these minor events at least once a year for a decade-and-a-half now, simply because they represented a refreshing change, and reminded him of the years he spent developing his game before he made the ATP grade.
In fact, Santoro, a former champion here, had booked his return seven months ago. He said, “Twenty-one years on the road is quite a lot, but I can’t complain. I was lucky, I met a lot of people, I travelled across the world, I discovered other cultures, other religions. It was very instructive.” Santoro may be prepared to hang his racquet up for good, at least on the world tour level, but his eyes still sparkle and dance as he talks about the sport he loves. We’re going to miss him, that’s for sure. The most striking thing, for us, was the human scale of the tournament in every aspect. For three days, we wandered around, casually, mingling with fans and players – most of whom were enjoying themselves, feeling comfortable. Here was Gasquet, smiling, and Grosjean, hanging on his cell phone. Kids ran around, seeking autographs. Nobody minded. The adults in attendance looked happy, and stress-free. And it all happened because Laurent Chaumont, on vacation in Arcachon one summer, had stumbled upon a similar small event, run at a local club. He remembered: “I was curious to see the local tennis club, and they were running that kind of tournament. I thought it was a cool idea--why not us?” Six years later, the Open of the Bay of Somme has a significant reputation, and Chaumont, when he isn’t savoring the success of his tournament, can only scratch his head and wonder, “What am I going to do for 2010?” Let us suggest bring in Amelie Mauresmo. . .
Howdy, everyone. I'm going to get this Your Call up quickly so that you can start calling matches and chit-chatting. I'll be back a little later with a special contribution that came to me via Marie Jo, a Parisian (and former TennisWorld Poster-of-the-Year) and her journalist/boyfriend, Guillaume Willecoq. They've launched their own French-language weblog, and I think it's terrific-looking. If my French were anything better than tres horrible, I'd comment on the content as well. But knowing Marie Jo pretty well and having met Guillaume, I'm sure there's plenty of good stuff in there. They know their tennis.
BTW, our own Tennis.com website is in the late stages of re-design, and from the templates I've seen, the site in general - and this page - are going to have a much cleaner, more appealing look. I'm not all that interested in a lot of that design-aesthetics stuff. In fact, I think of TW as our old beater pick-up truck; we just pile into the bed, start pulling the pop-tops and hammering the chips, and away we go.
But I'm fired up about the new look and am pretty sure you'll love it, too. I'm hoping that our Typepad interface will function normally, and will be advising you about that, and any related issues, as we get closer to the roll-out date.
Anyway, Marie J and Guillaume recently spent a pleasant week at "the Little French Open," a non-ATP Tour event on the French national circuit. The event has slowly grown to attract many players in the sub-100 category (rankings-wise), but some familiar names also play, mostly as a way to keep in shape and prepare for upcoming events. I know how much many of you love Roland Garros, and France in general, and I was glad when my friends offered to write a guest post that might give you a flavor for a little French country tournament. Just check out the look on the faces of our two French combatants in the photo and you'll see the difference between this event and Roland Garros, and get an inkling about why small, casual events can be so much fun.
There are other things besides majors, right? And I worry sometimes that TW doesn't go far enough afield to explore all the nooks and crannies in this remarkable world game. The guest post will be up shortly, so that's all for now. -- Pete
By Pete BodoWell, I'm no Ed McGrogan, so this will be Monday Net Post Lite, maybe Ultra-Lite - just a way to drop in to say happy Monday (I will be out of the office all day) and give y'all a place to talk. And there's plenty of fodder for that; Gael Monfils won his first title (at Metz) after a four-year drought, Shahar Pe'er bagged her second consecutive trophy (in Tashkent), Albert Montanes won the third title of his career (Bucharest), and Ana Ivanovic continued her plunge into a career black hole, double-faulting 11 times on her way to a first-round loss in Tokyo.
But the biggest news yesterday came out of Seoul, Korea, where Kimiko Date Krumm became the second-oldest woman (after Billie Jean King, which isn't bad company at all) ever to win a WTA event. Incidentally, BJK won her historic title in Birmingham in 1983, at age 39 and seven months. At Seoul, Krumm prevailed over the woman whose name I don't have a snowball's chance of every spelling correctly without checking a reference: Annabel Medina Garrigues. See what I mean? It's Anabel with one "n". But never mind. What a splendid day for Krumm, who turned 39 today, just hours after her triumph. I wrote a post that will be published later today over at ESPN on what all these career resurgences may mean for women's tennis, and nut of it is that they may lead more and more women to contemplate taking a mid-career break - whether it's for child-bearing or rest and recreation. It's safe to do that now, thanks to Kim Clijsters, Krumm, Justine Henin and - lest we forget - Sybille Bammer. It's too early to call this a trend; but in light of Krumm having won Seoul after taking a dozen years off, it's safe to say anything is possible. Tennis generally takes its cues from larger, broad cultural trends. Witness the way women's tennis evolved into the sport it is today in lock-step with the feminist movement. But just as feminism has changed over the intervening decades, and the notion of a "liberated woman" has gone through many and sometimes conflicting permutations, the women of tennis have been changing too - giving vent to desires and discontents they would have been reluctant to articulate, never mind act upon, in decades past.
Until a few months ago, women tennis players didn't entertain the idea of taking mid-career breaks, and that was partly because of the original feminist paradigm. What the hail, the men players with whom the women were trying to achieve and demonstrate parity didn't do that kind of thing; it might look bad if women did. So taking a sabbatical was simply out of the question, it could be read as weakness, it might even suggest that the women doing it are somehow less "professional," Less worthy of equal treatment (never mind equal pay). This concern, and attitude, has taken a huge hit recently.
In retrospect, it was silly of me to get irritated about the way Clijsters and Henin had insisted that they were "retired" while still in their mid-20s. It was an easy thing to ridicule, but that's no excuse. If I had taken a slightly longer view, I might have realized that they declared that they were going into retirement not just because a form of depression made it inconceivable to them that they might come back, but because there was no template for taking a break - no established, viable option. You either were a full-time player or you were out of there. Give the Williams sisters credit here; they too were on the same track when they began to insist on their right to play as often - or as infrequently - as they chose.
But a new career template now exists. The women under discussion have found a career plan B, and who cares that the men don't do it? I'm sure one of you college professors could come up with a name for this, something like post-feminist tennis feminism. Can we say that neither Clijsters nor Henin, no matter how the latter's comeback eventually works out, is truly liberated? It's one thing to break out of your chains and disappear; it's quite another to realize that those shackles were imaginary, locked in place institutionally as well as personally and - most of all - that you don't have to run and hide once you escape. You can go right back to where you were held captive, free to do a as you wish with a reasonable shot at being not just as good, but maybe even better.
Bammer, Clijsters, Henin and Krumm might have conspired to bring about a sea-change in the mentality of women pros. Only time will tell. But the long-standing notion that women must be in thrall to career, especially as it's defined and practiced by men, now lies in smoking runs.
by Pete Bodo
Mornin', everyone. I'm coming up for a little air after a pretty intense day of moving. I won't bore you with the details. Checking the scores today, I noticed that the the fall routine is kicking in: with the exception of Gael Monfils in Metz, the finalists in Bucharest, Tashkent, and Seoul are an assortment of solid, hard-working journeymen and established veterans, a group longer on staying power than star power. The only marquee player to make big news this week was Roger Federer, and it had more to do with not playing than playing. Fedrerer, citing fatigue at the end of a year during which he played all four Grand Slam finals and won two of them, is taking a pass on Tokyo and Shanghai(despite that status of that event as a Masters 1000). "After consultation with my team and doctors, I decided to take the difficult decision to withdraw from both tournaments," Federer said in a statement. "This will allow me a chance to give my body a chance to rest, rehabilitate and recover from a physically challenging year.
"I'm disappointed that I have to withdraw from Tokyo and Shanghai as they are two of my favorite cities, The fans have been great to me over the years."
You have to be out of your mind to criticize Federer for that decision, but that won't make the promoter of those events - or the ATP - feel better about things. I feel for those promoters, but I feel even more for The Mighty Fed. The guy just shattered the Grand Slam singles title record, he had his first two children (twins), and he just backed up his run at the US Open with a successful Davis Cup tie. And now he's got to issue formal statements, and stroke the disappointed fans (although I have no doubt he's sincere)?
The two words that every tournament director sucked into buying a date on the fall ATP or WTA calendar is: caveat emptor. The people most likely to show up to play are those who can use a late-season infusion of ranking points and disposable income. Good for them: they're willing to chase the rewards. But given the state of Rafael Nadal's banged-up body and Juan Martin del Potro's "to do" list, I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of them dropped out of the Asian events as well. For most players, traveling to Asia after the US is a little like getting home after a long day at work and realizing you forgot to stop at the store for milk.
Shahar Pe'er is in the final at Tashkent (facing Akgul Amanmuradova), and in some ways it's a perfect symbol of the season. Shahar has been knocking around some pretty exotic path places this year, including Fes, Pattaya City, Bad Gastein, and Monterrey, as well as the outpost where she reached her only final of the year until this week, Guangzhou. Well, there's one for the record books, or in any event for Trivial Pursuit: Who was the last person before Pe'er to make the finals at Guangzhou and Tashkent, back-to-back! Give Pe'er points for her work ethic, and let nobody say she's ducking the competition. This portion of the calendar is interesting in an esoteric, for-diehards-only kind of way. If you're one of those fans who's going to stay up all night because you simply must know if Albert Montanes is going to win Bucharest, you're in hog heaven. And lets face it, don't you just have to smile when you read that Kimiko Date Krumm has upset Maria Kirilenko the achieve the final in Seoul? Krumm is coming off a 12-year break, which in many ways is an even more staggering accomplishment than the one turned in recently by Kim Clijsters at the US Open. Thats a full career's worth of time off; in fact, most of the women in the WTA can only hope to have a continuous career of that length. So hats off to Kimiko Date Krumm; it would be great to see her win the event . It's great to see journeymen get their day in the sun and make a little rankings progress at the expense of their peers, and I would feel less conflicted and prone to criticism at this time of year if that were the express purpose of the the fall tour. But the two player organizations cling to a dogmatic desire to have a year-round tour in which the late season events are on equal footing with earlier ones. They try to accomplish that by leavening the mix with some officially big events, which also has something to do with the desire to develop the emerging Asian market. Local, on-the-ground conditions may suggest that Fall is a great time to stage an Asian leg, and recruiting promoters who aren't afraid to have a Pe'er or Montanes in the final involves some wizardry. But my gut feeling is that the promoters of the ostensibly big Asian events are already wondering what kind of relief they can get from the ATP for Federer's withdrawal. The ATP hopes that a fall tour in Asia could eventually flourish like, as, say, the Spring clay-court events in Europe (They'd better hope that, or we'd be dealing with de facto fraud). But I don't see that happening. Ever since
they were formed, the ATP and WTA hoped to create tours that might
ultimately be strong enough, week-in, week-out, and country by country,
to level the playing field among the tournaments. But the pre-eminence of the majors, and their every-growing prestige, is one of the main themes of the past decade in tennis. In fact, it seems that as the tours get stronger, the Grand
Slams gain rather than lose cachet. Now more than ever, the Grand Slam events write the tennis calendar. It's not supposed to be a seasonal sport (in the big picture), but it is.
A Grand Slam-event contender - a Novak Djokovic, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Federer or Serena Williams - just isn't going to have much motivation left at this time of year. He, or she, can't be expected to, either. Having premium grade events in the fall serves only purpose: it makes the tours seem more like a horse race than they really are. If Tomas Berdych (don't laugh) wins Shanghai and Paris, he catapults right back into a conversation where he probably doesn't belong. I guess you can say there's nothing wrong with that, at least not until you pretend to be offering something you know you can't deliver. I don't know how much these ostensibly big events in the fall help the game in general, but everyone might be better off if the tours adopted the philosophy - endorsed by public opinion - that the tennis year begins with a major (The Australian Open) and ends with one (the US Open).
Keep the calendar full to allow the Pe'er and Davydenkos and Monacos and Zvonarevas jockey or postion, but don't set yourself a mission that you can't possibly fulfill.
By Jackie Roe, TW Social Director
Hey there, TWibe! Many thanks to those of you who wished me well as I was battling bronchitis. Thankfully, I'm feeling much better; your thoughful messages played a role in my recovery, no doubt.
Today's Deuce Club is jam-packed to make up for my absence last week, so I'm expecting lots of participation from you guys!
First off, I never got around to sharing my US Open experiences, as promised, so I hope you won't mind if we backtrack a couple of weeks and return to USO mode. (Apologies to those of you who would rather forget those two weeks.)
I didn't think I'd make it to the USO this year since it was coming on the heels of a fairly exhaustive Cincinnati Masters trip, but a confluence of fortuitous circumstances led me to NY, where I'd be able to enjoy Grand Slam action for the very first time! I attended the tournament from Wednesday through Saturday of the first week, and each day was more thrilling than the last. I'll recap each day in just a bit, but I can't continue without mentioning the highlight of the visit - meeting so many TWibers, including Pete!
I spent time with several TWibers, both on the grounds and at the TW gathering Saturday night, and it was a thrill to see these folks in the flesh and get to know them better. As I noted after my trip to Indian Wells, everyone was just as I'd imagined, true to their online personalities ... except even more charming! A list of the TW all-stars in attendance at the Open (and if I forgot you, please let me know - and throw in a slap for good measure): jb, lpb (Susan), Tari, Sam, Arun, linz, jbradhunter, ptenisnet, Or - all the way from Israel!, MissTari, knownaim&, Bobby, GVGirl, ndk, Asad, Andrew F., Ed, and of course, Pete.
I didn't get many photos of the group, unfortunately, but we did manage a terrific one on the first day; to your right is a shot of Pete, me, lpb (Susan), and Andrew F. (from L to R), taken by Susan's husband Alex. That's definitely desktop wallpaper-worthy.
Back to the tennis. On Wednesday, the first match I caught was Safin-Melzer on Armstrong (with jb). Funny enough, we watched only the first set - and it was the sole set Safin would win in the entire tournament. And his last in a Slam. (Maybe we were his good luck charm and should've stuck around, huh.) Then I moved to Grandstand for Zvonareva-Chakvetadze. After a slow start, Zvonareva ran away with the match, breadsticking Chakvetadze in the second and third sets. I noticed that while Zvonareva is such a skillful mover, the movements themselves often look labored ... like she's constantly off-balance. Maybe her knee ailment had something to do with it.
The rest of the day, I watched bits and pieces of Ferrero vs. Santoro (oldies but goodies!), Bartoli vs. Clijsters (I was over the moon to finally see Kimmy live - thought the day would never come), Simon vs. Gimeno-Traver, and Fisher/Kerr vs. De Voest/Ram. During that doubles match, jb and I noted that doubles players execute overheads far more consistently than their singles counterparts. Interesting, we thought ... or maybe obvious.
I ended the day watching Federer-Gruel - but on the big screen, since I didn't have Arthur Ashe tickets. Not that I minded; catching the match by the fountains among loads of other tennis fans and with a warm Indian dinner on my lap was the perfect cap to an exhilarating day.
The next day (Thursday), I was fortunate enough to get my hands on tickets in Ashe - and in a box, no less. Being that close to the action was surreal; I thought players were supposed to look like ants in Ashe! I was present for the stunning upsets of Dementieva and Jankovic, and while both results were surprising, the matches themselves couldn't have been more different. Dementieva-Oudin was a spirited bout, and you sensed that both were playing their hearts out, while Jankovic-Shvedova was an error-laden, who-will-implode-first rollercoaster. Still, I enjoyed them both, especially that first match, what with the electricity pulsating through the stadium. I can't adequately describe it - but I'll never forget the feeling.
By the way, my perception of Ashe has changed a bit, having actually been in it. When you're close to the court area, as I was, it doesn't strike you as being different from any other center court; I expected the grandeur of a Court Philippe Chatrier and instead, it felt like the center court in Cincinnati. The minute you look up, though, you're distinctly aware that this stadium is like none other in the world.
Other matches I attended that day: Youzhny vs. Chiudinelli; Kuznetsova vs. Sevastova (the match was over so quickly I never got a decent pic of Sevastova!); Blake vs. Rochus (I was pulling for the diminutive Rochus, who had numerous chances to take the lead in the match but couldn't capitalize); Djokovic vs. Ball (Djokovic seemed a little edgy and actually received a fair amount of boos, which surprised me - but he won everyone over with his post-match interview).
Moving on to Friday, I continued my quest to catch as many different players as possible, particularly the gals, as I'd already seen most of the boys in Cincinnati. First on my agenda was Pennetta vs. Wozniak, which was over in a heartbeat. Then, del Potro vs. Melzer. del Potro started off slowly in that one, if I remember correctly - and then I left before he was able to sink his teeth into the match. I regret not seeing more of the eventual champion, especially since I missed him in Cincinnati (he didn't play).
Azarenka vs. Schiavone was next (the ladies next to me were avidly cheering for Schiavone on the basis that Azarenka was too noisy!), followed by Simon vs. Bellucci (Simon played aggressive, confident tennis, so his retirement in the next round caught me off guard). Then came Li vs. Kirilenko, Lapentti vs. Istomin (this one ended in a 5th set tiebreak!), and Ferrer-Acasuso (another gut-wrenching 5-setter).
The last day (Saturday), I decided to camp out on Armstrong, since the other TWibers warned me that hopping around could mean I'd miss out on a decent seat and/or be denied re-entry into the stadium later on. Not a problem, as the line-up included Djokovic vs. Witten and Verdasco vs. Haas - how lucky was I?! I feared the first match would be a blowout, but Witten put in a valiant effort and refused to fall away. While Witten was a delight, the "J-DUB!" chants weren't. (Were they as loud on TV as they were in person?) Verdasco vs. Haas, despite going the distance, was actually underwhelming. I noticed Verdasco's abdominal tape during the warm-up and had a feeling it'd be a factor during the final stages of the match. Turns out, it was (he had to take a MTO before the 5th set) and it wasn't (he won anyway).
And that was it! Four whirlwind days and memories to last a lifetime.
Some final reflections:
- Having only attended Masters-level tournaments, I found the USO experience to be vastly different. I can't speak for the other Slams, but the USO certainly "feels" large. In terms of size, crowds, and even energy. Not getting into a match on an "outside" court after waiting in line for 20 minutes was certainly a foreign experience! Yet my friends who had been to both Slams and non-Slams warned me that there would be loads more walking, and really, I didn't find that to be the case. Perhaps it's because I stayed put in one spot for longer, but I wandered far more and logged many more miles at both Cincinnati and Indian Wells than at the USO.
- Another important difference - at the smaller tournaments, I spent nearly as much time on the practice courts as I did watching matches. At the USO, however, I don't think I witnessed a single practice session. Logistics weren't in my favor - it's difficult to get a good view of practices, with how the courts are set up - and the abundance of exciting matches at all times meant there was never a moment where I even considered strolling around the practice area.
I hope I haven't missed anything important; if you have any questions, feel free to ask! And you can check out my USO photos here.
I know plenty of TWibers were also at the USO, so now's the perfect time to tell us about your experiences. Stories, pics, anything! This should help you get started - linz has already sent me a link to her smashing photo album (click here), and I encourage you to follow suit!
While we're on the subject of photos, pay a visit to our Facebook group, TennisWorld > Real World, too, where MissTari and SilentP have made some fantastic contributions to the photo album.
Whew. I'd wanted us to do a "2009 Grand Slams" recap, but I think I'll save it for next week, given all of the above. Stay tuned ...
Have a terrific weekend, everyone! It's great to be back!
Okay, so I'm about to dive into this big move to a new apartment early today, so that means I won't have much for you for the next few days. But since you know how to move the ball forward on your own, and our Social Director Jackie-Oh will be back in action at the usual time tonight, I know the conversation will roll on, and on.
A little later today, you might want to check out ESPN's tennis home page
for some thoughts I posted on the return of Clijsters and Henin to the
fray, and what that might portend for a few of the other players
currently hovering near the top. I'm out of the office until Tuesday, but I will be around, and you can rest assured that you'll have a fresh post for Sunday morning. I'm counting on this post and Deuce Club to tide you through until then, so have a great weekend everyone.
-- Pete
PS - And yes, that is the old but reliable Your Call couch potato logo, above.
Mornin'. Let me apologize first off for not providing more red meat this week; it's been a bear, with a few magazine obligations and preparation for the move to our new apartment, which will take place tomorrow. If I get my Devin Britton story done later this afternoon, I may pop back in.
Yesterday at the water cooler here at Tennis, we had a lively debate about whether or not Roger Federer will play Davis Cup for Switerland in the first round of the 2010 World Group competition, not long after the end of the next Australian Open. This is a tricky one, and how the Australian Open works out may have a lot to do with Federer's decision. In a way, it's better to for the Swiss to have to deal with Spain at the very beginning or very end - a quarterfinal or semifinal meeting in Spain might make Federer question the wisdom of dedicated two, three weeks of time and effort to a very risky proposition. And as much as sports is all about the competition, I think the prospect of a final against Spain might be a little discouraging for a guy to whom nothing less than a final-round victory can be taken as a net gain, career-wise. Not that Federer doesn't enjoy playing for his nation - he does. Not that Federer is an "it's all about me" kind of guy, except to the extent - which, realistically speaking, is pretty high - that he's a champion in an individual sport and is thus obliged to watch his own back. And let's be clear about something else: I don't think Federer's decision will be shaped by his state-of-mind vis a vis Rafael Nadal. I think it will be driven by a calculation of the Swiss team's chance to advance, an issue on which the events of the next few months might bear heavily. Stan Wawrkina needs to show that he can keep up level of play that earned him top 10 status, and it's no sure bet he can do it. If he doesn't, the prospect of Federer entering the bullring diminishes. Initially, I thought, No way Federer plays this year. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that apart from spectre of anti-climax (wouldn't a Federer vs. Nadal battle on the ultimate day of Davis Cup competition, with the title on the line, be a sensational event?), this is the best possible draw for Federer. If he decides to play and the Swiss lose, it gets Davis Cup duty out of the way for the entire year, and he gets points for taking it on. If the Swiss manage to beat Spain on Iberian ground, the prospect of carting off that giant gleaming birthday cake of a trophy grows significantly brighter - probably enough for Federer to make a full commitment for the rest of the year. I don't think we'll know what he decides any time soon, and much can change before he does. But I also think he knows the legacy-value of clashing with Nadal on a Davis Cup battlefield.
Okay, got to run to 10:15 meeting. Feel free to greet each other, and clear your pipes for another day of enlightening conversation leavened with aimless but always fun chit-chat. -- Pete
by Pete Bodo This may seem like an odd headline for a few brief thoughts on Justine Henin's return, but it's more than an attempt to avoid a dull greeting of "Welcome back." For numerous players (most lately the Belgian Babolettes, Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin) have proved that you can say the same of tennis players as you can of stage actors - tennis, like the theater, is their second home. In some ways, that second home is a more exciting and challenging, if not as stable and comfortable, a place. Tennis players who leave the game by choice, at a relatively young age, are few and far between; stars who do it are basically non-existent, now that the two Belgians who took the plunge recently have hightailed it back to their second home after a period of rest, reassessment, and an exploration of that mythic "normal" life that seems so fascinating to the abnormally gifted or successful. It's hard to fault the players for fantasizing about a normal life built around activities like waiting in line at the post office, showing up at your really boring cousin's snoozer of a cocktail party, helping your neighbor wrestle the new mattress off the top of his car. How can facing Serena Williams, break-point up late in the third set at the US Open, possibly compare to those things? Give the Williams sisters credit; they've never forgotten where their bread is buttered, even during bouts of lost appetite.
Clijsters, at least, had a thoroughly good reason for leaving the tour, if you're unwilling to accept that fatigue, boredom, and the lack of a satisfying social life are acceptable reasons (after all, those are frustrations that people who wait until 65 to retire have dealt with for something like 40 years). Clijsters went and made a family, and we all know that mommies (and their motivations and actions) are untouchable. I just wish Clijsters had been a little less haughty about it all. Instead of trashing the game and whining about how tough her life was, she could have cheerfully told us that it was time to experience some hot monkey love and undergo the joys child-bearing, epidurals and all.
We see now how tough her former life was; she leaped back into it with both feet in a little over two years, played three tournaments late this summer and earned a few million bucks - with a windfall of endorsement opportunities falling currently raining down on her. Because, you know, everyone, including diaper and cereal makers, loves a famous mommy. While Clijsters' and Henin's career decisions are similar enough to make you chuckle and roll your eyes - if you didn't know better, you'd swear they weren't tennis players but rival cheerleaders in some cheesy reality show - the backstories are notably different. This will sound condescending, but I kind of feel sorry for Henin. Clijsters went away and got a lot of stuff done, including furnishing a nursery; Henin went away and, while presumably enjoying her break, seemed to discover that a "normal" day contained just a few too many hours to keep her content. When Henin retired, 16 months ago (the first reigning no. 1 ever to make that call), Henin talked of going back to school and sinking her teeth into life. I don't know how big a bite she took, but I suspect that had she been named Belgium's ambassador to France, she might have found the joys and challenges of the job enough to keep her from thinking too much about tennis. That's something that always blindsides tennis players - the discovery that people out there in Normalville - even the ones who attended your matches and cried your name until they got hoarse - don't really care that you were a fantastic tennis player. They have other fish to fry and other obligations to consider when they're hiring, or seeking partnerships. I feel badly for players that way, and only the shrewdest and most talented, when it comes to "people skills," successfully navigate those waters (see "A" for Agassi).
Granted, given the history of Henin's once dysfunctional but now reconciled family, she may have dedicated a lot of her down time to rebuilding and re-connecting, and getting all those relationships really squared up. That's admirable, but isn't that something many people do while keeping their day jobs? Tennis isn't a "typical" day job by any stretch, that needs to be said. Still, quite early in her retirement there was already talk about Henin running her own academy (devoted to the discipline of tennis, not astronomy). Great, I thought at the time, I can just see Justine, still theoretically the finest woman tennis player on the planet, yelling at some plastic surgeon's snotty, no-talent kid: Get those dogs moving! Make sure you get that racquet back right away!
One thing that doesn't seem to have changed in Henin's world is the extraordinary gravity with which she approaches most things, particularly herself. When she officially declared her comeback the other day, she said: "I am moved, and very relieved as well, because it is true that I have wanted to share this with the public for a few weeks. It is a decision which makes me happy. It is a big decision in my life." This begs the question: has this girl ever made a "small" decision on behalf of her "life?" You can forgive her all these quirks and perhaps even whatever illusions she had because there's a purity about Henin's experience; in a way, hers is a simple story of realizing that you are exactly who you and most everyone else thought you were, but you wanted to flee from. Besides, what's so bad about walking away from the game, and realizing that you miss it dearly?
This brings us back to another big difference in the parallel narratives of Clijsters and Henin. Clijsters comeback is signficant in the extra-personal way because it also gives her a second chance to create a record worthy of her talent. The naked truth is that in her first go-round, she established herself as a genuine contender at the most important events, but a champion at surprisingly few of them. She only got over the hump separating the great from the good on one occasion (when she won the US Open in 2005). Henin has her own "second chance," despite having climbed much higher in the firmament than had Clijsters. Before she quit, the 5-5 sprite with the 6-6 backhand won seven Grand Slam titles (to Clijsters one), held the no. 1 ranking for 117 weeks (6th best in WTA history), and posted one of the best single-year records ever in 2007 (she had a 64-3 match record, and won 10 of the 14 events she entered). To see how tall she stood in comparison to her peers, check out the last graphic our friends at Core Tennis produced to illustrate her superiority before she quit the game. But while Henin is a four-time French Open champion, she's never won Wimbledon. It's ironic, because her sparkling game, built around that drop-dead gorgeous one-handed backhand, is a classicist's dream. Carlos Rodriguez, Henin's long-time coach, confidant, and loyal enabler, has admitted that adding Wimbledon to her collection of titles, and thereby completing a career Grand Slam, is at the top of Henin's list of priorities. "I've been down a long personal road," she told Belgian television, "And then the flame has been rekindled. I thought it had been extinguished."
Having another crack at the Wimbledon title is a legitimate, logical ambition, and as good a reason as any for Henin to jump back into the shark tank after 16 months. Like many other fish in the vast sea of tennis, Henin must have realized that it doesn't make sense complaining that the only thing wrong with the ocean is all that water. She's back where she belongs, in her second home.
Howdy. I've got a few chores to do here at work this morning and I have to write a story on Devin Britton for the magazine (I'll soon write a post about him here as well). Since the ATP and WTA events going on this week are hardly critical, except to those involved in them, I also want to take a last look back at the US Open, which I'll do later today if I have time - or tomorrow.
Meanwhile, TennisWorld's poet laureate, Madame Highpockets, reports that she struggled with her muse this time around, but still managed to limp to the finish line with yet another paen to a Grand Slam. So here's her ode to the 2009 US Open, and if anybody can figure out what she means with those last two lines, please write. My own reaction to those last two lines is, This must be great poetry because I don't understand it! Isn't that how it works these days? Okay, I'm being a little coy here, but one of the reasons I'm fond of Robinson Jeffers (Roan Stallion, Hurt Hawks, etc.) is because I understand what I'm reading and just. . . read it. Carefully, perhaps. Even savoring the sound of the words, maybe. But there's no head-scratching, no halting at an intellectual red light to try figure out what the hail the guy or lady is talking about.
Of course, our poet laureate's verse is almost unfailingly vivid and clear as a bell, so enjoy! This is a Your Call post.
- Pete
Flushing Memories
by Highpockets
I have to confess I’ve been feeling befuddled;
My synapses aren’t firing; my mind is all muddled.
I want to say something; I want to be clear,
But all I can think of is “Yikes, what a year!”
I’ve considered retiring and then coming back
With my mind sharp and fresh and my mojo intact,
But I can’t give up, though I’m feeling uneasy,
So here is my poem and it will be cheesy:
I’ll remember this Open for a girl full of heart,
Who ambushed three Russians, showing grit from the start.
I’ll remember this Open for it gave tennis a spot
In the twenty-four hour, news-cycle plot.
I’ll remember this Open for a mom with a smile,
A steely resolve and a beautiful child.
I’ll remember this Open for Earley’s tough job,
And Federer’s tweener to Djokovic’s lob.
I’ll remember this Open for a buff, shirtless Spaniard,
Whose fan was ejected by a dude with a lanyard.
I’ll remember this Open for a tirade gone viral,
A champion’s rage and a media spiral.
I’ll remember this Open for Americans winning,
Until the fourth round; then they started the thinning,
I’ll remember this Open for Robin’s resilience;
He stood up to Roger and challenged his brilliance.
I’ll remember this Open for Gonzo’s deflation,
And Murray succumbing to stress and frustration.
I’ll remember this Open for foot faults and fuming,
Glorious weather and clouds ever looming.
I’ll remember this Open for Novak’s redemption,
J-Mac on Ashe, and NASCAR’s preemption.
I’ll remember this Open for an Argentine star,
Whose speech in his tongue was eclipsed by a car.
I’ll remember this Open for that dark day of gloom,
When everyone mourned, play would not resume.
I’ll remember this Open for Del Potro’s tears,
He slew two great dragons,impressing his peers.
But of all of my memories, the one that won’t wane
Are those two beams of light through that curtain of rain.
|
