Live by the Serve	01/30/2010 - 1:00 PM

Well, everyone. I couldn't resist getting up to watch the women's final, and the point that summed up the match for me occurred with Serena Williams serving a game point to go up 4-2 in the final set - a lead that would conclusively put her back in charge of the match.

Serena hit a massive serve down the middle (how often do you see a ball actually curve away from a receiver in a women's match?) for an apparent ace, and the game. Justine Henin called upon Hawkeye, and the electronic linesman reversed the call. Serena stepped back up to the service notch, her resolve evident in the grim set of her mouth. And she delivered a carbon copy of that first-service fault, but this time with no doubt that the ball was in.

After she cracked that ace, Serena jumped for joy. Did anyone else see something touching in the way she landed so clumsily, flat on both her feet? That shot put Serena in charge for good; and it confirmed what I had tweeted not long before: Can the Shotmaker beat the Server? I don't think so. . .

I also felt that the way Serena let Henin back into the match in the second set, with that uncharacteristic 0-30 double-fault, is relevant here. You live by the serve, you die by the serve. It's as basic a rule as you can find in tennis, and I was glad to see it re-affirmed in such stark terms.

Both women played impressive tennis, but I keep returning to the same thing (as I have ever since I started writing this blog). The serve is the foundation of the game, and as it's the only shot over which a player has complete control, even if he or she is at a disadvantage when it comes to naked power. All the pretty backhands and lovely touch volleys in the world aren't enough to ensure that you'll get the job done if you can't take care of your own serve -  or take away your opponent's. And when you can do neither, you're fighting a battle you're destined to lose.

That torrid streak Henin put together to win the second set was truly impressive; it was insuperable shotmaking. But very few matches are won on shotmaking skill, and the disparity between Henin's shotmaking and the quality of her serve is striking, and it keeps me from feeling overly sorry for her. It's a hard, harsh game sometimes; it will punish you and deny you the ability to get away with anything, provided your opponent is of sufficiently high quality. And there's no better player in the world these days, and for some time now, than Serena.

Some of you may not agree, but I don't just think Serena won; I think some measure of tennis justice was served.

Enjoy the men's final, everyone!

-- Pete

Winners & Winning	01/29/2010 - 1:45 PM

by Bobby Chintapalli, TW Contributing Editor

We knew from the start that, even though it’s not 2002 anymore (look up if you don't remember those days), the players to watch were Justine 2.0 and Serena 92K. For me they were the two main questions, yet with the Australian Open women’s singles final here, I find myself surprisingly… surprised.

Maybe it was all the yellow, big Maria’s “Powerade blue”, little Maria’s quarterfinal berth, Kim’s “disheveled” play, Ana’s still-crazy toss, Dinara’s denial about her back, Jelena’s un-JJ-like errors, Svetlana’s dozen tweets, poor Elena D. and Flavia, the breadsticks and bagels, the heads in towels, the towels in weird places, the Chinese, the Russians, the line judges and, yes, Pam Shriver. For some reason, for some time, I stopped focusing so much on Serena Williams and Justine Henin.

Luckily the numbers fill in part of the parts I missed and also foretell some of the story that hasn’t been written yet. Many key stats aren’t tracked of course – Justine’s number of aces following an ‘allez’, Serena’s winner-to-bandages ratio, Justine’s break-point conversions based on number of glances at Carlos Rodriguez, Serena’s number of service holds based on number of late-night tweets. Many key stats are tracked - let’s look at those here.

Serves

Women’s ace leader – Serena Williams
Women’s double fault leader – Justine Henin

Total aces for Henin – 23
Total aces for Serena – 53
Average aces/match for all – 2
Average aces/match for Henin – 4
Average aces/match for Serena – 9

Total DFs for Henin – 33
Total DFs for Serena – 9
Average DFs/match for all – 4
Average DFs/match for Henin – 6
Average DFs/match for Serena – 2

Call her Servena, goddess of the serve, because that serve is heavenly. Serena uses it to go for the kill when things are good and to stay alive when things aren’t. Imagine how comforting it must be for her and how demoralizing for her opponents that she knows (and they know) she always has “a couple of aces” up her sleeve. After her semifinal loss against Serena, Na Li said, “I mean, like if she want win the point, just ace.”

Like at the US Open and Wimbledon before that, Serena served the highest number of aces here. Her serve is no-frills – there’s no underwear-tugging pre-serve ritual, no tossing and retossing… just a few quick bounces, a reliable toss and, more likely than for anyone else, an ace… out wide, down the middle, wherever. As usual Serena managed to reach the top of the ace leader list while staying off the double fault leader list. 

Justine, on the other hand, was the double fault leader. We’ve heard the commentators enough to know that’s not as bad as it may seem. For one thing Justine usually double faults because she goes for more on her second serve than others do and not because she gets tentative. While most of her opponents had a faster average first serve speed, only one of them (Yanina Wickmayer) had a faster average second serve speed. Justine’s double fault ‘leadership’ also owes to her retooling of her serve in preparation to hit the green, green grass of Wimbledon with a motion that propels her into the court and toward the net, which is where she wants to finish off more points now.

Volleys

Net approaches won by Justine – 84/127 (66%)
Net approaches won by Serena – 69/97 (71%)

% Points on which Justine approached – 14%
% Points on which Serena approached – 12%

Justine 2.0 is all about Wimbledon and, thus, all about volleying. In preparation for her trip to London, Justine spent some quality time at the net in Melbourne. She won more net approaches than all her opponents. Maybe practice makes perfect, because she also approached more than all but one of her opponents (the once-again-feared Nadia Petrova).

Because of all the talk about the Wimbledonization of Justine’s game, I expected her impressive net stats but was a wee bit surprised by Serena’s, which weren’t too shabby. She approached only a little less than Justine but more than all of her opponents except Victoria Azarenka. When Serena did approach, she won points a little more often than Justine.

Winners & Errors

Winners by Justine – 164
Winners by Serena – 191

Unforced errors by Justine – 225
Unforced errors by Serena – 147

Winner-UFE differential for Justine – Negative 61
Winner-UFE differential for Serena – Positive 44

Serena’s positive winner-to-error differential always makes me smile. (That may say less about Serena’s skills than my lack of a real, non-tennis life.) Watching her play sometimes rough-and-tough tennis, you don’t expect such prim-and-proper numbers. The positive differential owes partly to the fact that aces are included in the winner count. But the rest of it? The rest of it is why she’s Number 1.

Justine is no slouch herself here. She hit more winners than all her opponents except Alisa Kleybanova. Henin also moves and defends well, so Serena’s not likely to hit as many winners against her. If Serena tries to go for more as result, her unforced error count could climb too, making that differential less prim and proper on both ends.

Numbers Schmumbers

As much as stats tell you about aces, winners and volleys, there’s more they can’t tell you, especially when it comes to big matches. How players fill in the gap between what numbers can and can’t show is what separates the great from the Grand Slam champions.

Consider this: Victoria Azarenka was two games away from the match in her quarterfinal loss to Serena and, in the end, lost just three fewer points (102 to 105). Yanina Wickmayer actually won three more points (96 to 93) in her fourth-round loss to Justine. Eventually three points here and there can add up seven Grand Slam titles (Justine) or even 11 (Serena).

Serena already has the most Grand Slam singles titles of any active player, but a win here would take her to a dozen, tying her with Billie Jean King. A win for Justine would extricate her from her tie with the older Williams sister, putting her in a lone second-place spot to the younger Williams sisters (among active players) and one away from Monica Seles’s nine titles.

When Serena and Justine start their 14th match, playing for their 19th combined Grand Slam singles title, with Serena leading the head-to-head 7 to 6, you can forget these numbers and all the rest. Serena for one isn’t manipulating Excel pivot tables as she waits in the locker room, and she isn’t thinking about percentage of net approaches won against Petra Kvitova (100 percent) once she gets onto the court: “I just go out and do whatever I can. Whatever happens, it’s all I can do at that time.” When it comes to the greatest champions on the biggest stages, even the number of winners can’t tell you who’ll do the winning.

The Deuce Club, 1.29	01/29/2010 - 11:00 AM

By Jackie Roe, TW Social Director

Justine's got pipes: http://tinyurl.com/qamdc5

Andy M. takes on a whoopee cushion: http://tinyurl.com/lrh6bo

Roger catching a case of the giggles: http://tinyurl.com/y869acu

Running Serena	01/28/2010 - 2:51 PM

by Pete Bodo

Okay, I give up. I can't find a single additional caveat to attach to the comeback of Justine Henin. A few weeks ago, I wrote that Henin was a Ferrari, to Kim Clijsters' pick-up truck, and suggested that her high-performance game will require more fine-tuning and more of break-in period than did the rugged game of Champagne Kimmy.

Tune-up? Check!

I also suggested that given her diminutive stature, Henin might be out-muscled by the increasingly fit, physical, large-framed women surging forward in the WTA (see: Yanina Wickmayer).

Beat the big girls? Check!

And who could forget (or will let me forget) that I declared for Jie Zheng before her semifinal meeting with Henin last night. That wasn't because I felt Zheng had more game - I just thought that Henin might be running out of gas, and in Zheng she was going up against an opponent physically and mentally tough enough to ask Henin all the difficult questions, on all the awkward places on the court.

Ace the TW pop quiz in Chinese? Check!

Well, I'm out of bullets. Nothing much has changed in the WTA over the past two years, other than that Dinara Safina was given good reason to feel like dog poop, and Jelena Jankovic and Ana Ivanovic got to toss a coin: heads you get your name on a Grand Slam trophy; tails, you don't get the major, but you get to be No. 1, at least until Dinara comes sniffing around and demands a piece of the action.

Serena Williams, Justine Henin, and Kim Clijsters rule. Again.

But Henin deserves a lot of credit for showing us how far a versatile and pretty game, coupled with a nun's devotion to the god of competitive fire, can take you, even among that forest of bigger, stronger players. It's almost as if the Sister of No Mercy has been saying: Look, if that Roger Federer can go out there and demonstrate that a game based more on brio than bang-o can prevail, why can't I?

However -

There's still this matter of unfinished business with Serena, an issue that will be resolved tomorrow in the women's final. This one has all the ingredients of a pick 'em - the playing field on which these two will meet having been leveled by on-the-ground circumstances in Melbourne. I don't know how healthy and fit Serena is, but I'm pretty sure that the more time goes on, the harder it is for her to throw her body around the court with the abandon to which she's accustomed.

Serena is strong, but she's lugging a lot of flesh around the court, and that puts a lot of strain on her pins. In the best of all worlds, she would get a little more recovery time. But I felt something like a flash of intuition watching Serena's ragged semifinal with Na Li yesterday. Everything about her these days, including the size of her bust and that school-bus colored dress, fairly shouts that she isn't made for the hairpin turns and chicanes that litter the track of a typical match. Yet she not only moves extremely well and changes direction deftly, she's at her most dangerous when the attempt to run her ragged, east to west along the baseline, around opens up the court. For this is a lady who can punish the ball and crack a winner from even a seemingly desperate position.

Running Serena is a perfectly reasonable strategy, but only if you're prepared to end the point, instead of expecting her to do it in your favor. Open up the the court and give her a look and you deserve what you get.

Henin has no trouble pulling the trigger on the putaway, so I'm expecting a lot of spectacular shotmaking in this one. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if Henin tries to set up her placements by jerking Serena north and south, instead of east and west. Henin's backhand slice, especially that tricky, short slice, may be a significant factor.

This is a very tough one to call, although for some reason I've kind of enjoyed making the predictions this time around. Despite my reservations about Serena's all-around fitness, I have to fall back on the fact that her serve is head and shoulders above that of her peers and rivals, and that's the one shot an opponent simply can't deny you with athleticism, strategy, or tactics.

And just as important, Serena is a bold returner. The outstanding weakness either player has shown at this tournament is Henin's serve. If she tees it up for Serena, run for cover. Those are formidable disadvantages for Henin to carry into the match. This final probably will be won or lost at the service line, and that demands going with Serena. 

Or is that just another task, requiring a final Check!?

It's Always Something. . .	01/27/2010 - 1:19 PM

by Pete Bodo

I've always been a big believer in that old bit of folk wisdom: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. . . and it was particularly applicable in a reversible-image way yesterday in the highlight matches of the Australian Open featuring Roger Federer and Serena Williams.

Nikolay Davydenko has had us convinced more than once that he may have a Grand Slam title in him, and Serena Williams has tempted us to write her off. They've both done their best do demonstrate that there really is a sucker born every minute.

Serena, however, takes her lure to a new, almost taunting level. You can't even write her off in an "on any given day" match, not until the last ball is hit. Down a set and 0-4 to Victoria Azarenka, a girl who's playing like a house on fire? Go ahead, flick off the television. I dare you. Serena will make you pay. . . and pay. . .

Maybe for Serena they ought to amend the second half of that old saw to read: Fool me seventeen times, and I still won't learn. I believe the word I'm searching for is "extraordinary."

But a word about Davydenko first.

The little fella has been playing great tennis; he's had a great run, and a great major in Melbourne. Let's remember that the guy he didn't beat happens to be the greatest tennis player ever to swing a racket or use a protein-and-seaweed-based hair conditioning agent. But the important thing to remember is that there's a karmic dimension to every career, Federer's as well as Davydenko's. Missed opportunities are like taking out bad loans; they sit there and collect interest, and the higher the debt mounts the more you have to repay.

Opportunities taken and converted successfully are like money in the bank; they collect interest, and the bigger the nest egg gets, the more interest the investment yields. Federer has now extended his Grand Slam quarterfinal winning streak to 23 consecutive matches. Kolya (and everyone else), you'd better figure out a way to avoid this guy until a stage where the odds skew more in your favor. He's got serious quarterfinal karma. I believe the word I'm looking for is "extraordinary-squared."

I didn't stay up to watch that match, partly because I didn't feel it was necessary. And if Davydenko had won, no problem - it's a game. Strange things can happen, but not often enough to make us throw our hands up and say: I give up, it don't make no sense no-how.

And now for Serena.

I don't think the commentators on ESPN miss very much, even if I don't always agree with them. But I felt they missed something critical in that second set. In fact, right around the time that Victoria Azarenka led Serena 4-1, I tweeted this line: 'Renka taking her foot off the gas? For that was what I saw - a subtle but very real reining in of her game.

She was still hitting the angles, but with just a smidgen less abandon and go-for-broke determination. And that seemed to give Serena just a little more time to regroup, to get back on the balls instead of the heels of her feet. I'm not even sure I'm right  - it would be helpful to see the videotape. But I had no doubt that the ground shifted a little under the feet of both women, and it was enough to get Serena back on track. The rest, as they say, is history.

Beyond that, I was once again disappointed by the rush to bring real or perceived injuries into the discussion. When Serena was down in dumps, you might have thought, listening to some of the commentary, that she was playing with a leg blown off. But when she regained her form and began punishing  Azarenka, the theme melted away. What gives? Not long after I sent that first tweet, I followed with this one: Uh, what happened to that snowballing injury theme? Miracle cure for Serena?.

I wasn't being flip, and I'm not criticizing Serena. But when you start finding an injury to explain every shanked overhead or surprising break of serve, you demean the action and cast doubt on the legitimacy of what we're watching. It's always something, right? Let's remember that old Aussie standard: If you're fit enough to go out there and swing a racket, you leave injuries out of it.

It's bad enough when the players declare or plant injury themes and motifs, but worse when the commentators fall back on them. So is Serena (or Roger, or Jo-Willy) hurt or not? Did Azarenka miss that forehand because she may have a twinge in her wrist? How far are we willing to go down the road of linking performance with apparent physical condition, and if we go a significant distance do we just drop the issue like a hot potato when someone suddenly begins playing better? How do you explain Serena coming back, after a close examination of how she hit a certain overhead seemed to suggest a mild upper hamstring strain?

It's a tricky issue, because injuries are real. But focusing on them, as seems to be the growing trend, only encourages us to question the one thing that ought never to be questioned - the legitimacy of the scoreboard. And don't think for a moment that the players are unaware that when they're stinking out the joint, they can always soften the impact by rubbing a thigh muscle or flexing a wrist after making an unforced error. It's a cue for commentators to introduce the injury theme (although judging from last night's match, no cue is needed).

I don't blame Serena, or anyone else,  for wrapping herself in as many bandages as she feels she needs. The elastic Ace bandage can be a legitimate precautionary accessory as well as a security blanket. And while it's a commentator's job to remark upon how well a player is performing, physically, I'd stop short of linking that to a real or perceived debility unless the situation demands it.I didn't think Serena's form called for it. Mention it once and let it go at that.

This unfortunate trend links to a larger one, a cavalier attitude on the part of the tournament when it comes to enforcing clearly articulated and agreed upon rules. My colleague James Martin has an excellent column on the flagrant disregard of rules against on-court coaching. Carlos Rodriguez hasn't even bothered even trying to hide the fact that he's coaching Justine like crazy (I actually give him credit for that), and yesterday Azarenka was seen telling her coaches to speak up, because she couldn't hear the pearls of wisdom they were casting her way from the friends' box.

And what was up with letting Serena Williams take that extra-long bathroom break, toting a handbag big enough to carry one of those old Osborne computers, never mind some smart phone? Did the warden accompany Serena into the booth in the toilet, or hold her bag while Serena used the facilities, to make sure she didn't do a little texting?

Personally, I don't believe that Serena did that - but I sure would like to know if she could have gotten away with it. And the lax way the Aussies have treated the rules makes me think that the only response she would have gotten for such shenanigans is a lusty, No worries, mate! 

BTW, I'm not a big fan of the present coaching rules. What I would call small-scale, casual coaching has been around in tennis a lot longer than has the ATP or WTA rulebook. I have no problem with players and coaches communicating indirectly (via hand signals, etc.) I just have a problem with the fact that there's a rule against it, that it's enforced selectively, if at all, and that it leaves matters in the hands of the players and coaches, meaning that those who have the integrity to follow the rules get the short end of the stick.

Can we pause for a moment and genuflect to a poster of Roger Federer, on these issues?

My attitude right now is, allow indirect (hand signals and gestures, mouthing words, etc.) communication - or enforce the rule against it. Put a tournament official in each player's box, or assign one to monitor each box. Problem solved, or at least alleviated.

The time-violation rule has also been flagrantly abused. The solution for that is simple: eliminate the rule or install clocks at both ends, as in basketball. If the player exceeds the allotted time, the buzzer goes off and the player surrenders the point. The chair umpire operates a button that resets the shot-clock, and then he watches and disables the clock the moment both players are in position to play. I don't have a problem with a player choosing to bounce the ball 20 times before he serves, or a receiver stepping out of the de facto batter's box with the shot clock turned off. These players aren't machines. But get them back into position to play after every point.

One other thing: the U.S. Open justly gets a lot of grief for departing from the alternate-day playing schedule, and I think was a mistake for the Aussies to follow suit. Serena and Na Li ought to get a day of rest before they meet, and Serena will suffer even more for not getting it. But I'm not enough of a naysayer to predict that Li will win, and I still like Jie Zheng's chances against Justine Henin, although after my Grand Slam of predictions yesterday, I feel like I'm due to be bought down a peg or two.

10 Feet Tall and Bulletproof	01/26/2010 - 1:01 PM

by Pete Bodo

Howdy, folks. We just wrapped our latest podcast, covering a fair amount of territory. It should be live on the home page by this afternoon, and available via this link.

I'm putting it all on the line by picking Zheng Jie to take out Justine Henin in the Australian Open semifinals. I really liked what I saw of Zheng last night; does anyone recover from a shot and get prepared for the next one as quickly as her? Some of you will undoubtedly accuse me of underestimating Henin, and in that you're right. Hail, I've been underestimating her for weeks, so why stop now?

But seriously, Zheng seems capable of presenting big problems for Henin, and unlike Petrova, who squandered plenty of chances against Henin yesterday, she's got sand. I think much will depend on how Henin handles Zheng's serve -- if she can attack it and take charge, she'll be in good shape. But if this becomes a hitting contest, I think Zheng will more than hold her own. Maria Kirilenko is no Justine Henin, but she had a great tournament to this point, and Zheng handled the pressure of playing a winnable match with a semifinal berth at stake beautifully.

I'm inclined to go with Zheng for another reason; I'm not eager to see Henin win this title. I went into it a little earlier in the event, when I said that a Clijsters-esque return by Henin would really add credibility to the charge that, with the exception of Serena's accomplishments, you may as well throw out the past two years of WTA results (especially at majors). The only thing that could make that even worse is Henin winning after Clijsters came up small. It raises the question, Has nothing changed? 

And let me be clear about this -- I really would like to see Henin win Wimbledon; it just seems "right," although you can't question the integrity of the scoreboard. The better player always wins, and Justine has the capacity to be the better player -- the best player, over a seven-match stretch as Wimbledon.

On the men's side, I was disappointed for Andy Roddick, who lost to Marin Cilic. It's funny, I understand why so many people still are left cold by Roddick. He's a huge star, from a rich nation where that status yields enormous rewards. He's won only one major, yet he has a way of attracting attention. He walks with a swagger, enjoys life, has a wide irreverent streak, says what he thinks, and he does nothing to cull anyone's favor. But he gets beat up and knocked out, time and again, only to jump up off the mat, jaw thrust forward, inviting the next Nadal, Federer, del Potro, Murray or, now, Cilic, to take his best shot.

Roddick may not deliver the best shot in tennis, but he sure takes a "best shot" better than anyone, and that's curiously at odds with his persona. I'd like to see him join Justine as a Wimbledon winner. One lousy stinkin' Wimbledon title. It would go a long way -- all the way -- toward making it all have been worth it. Not that it wasn't, as is, but. . . you know what I mean.

I also think Cilic is going to pay a price for the long matches, which means that Andy Murray is facing a great opportunity to demonstrate that he's figured out the Grand Slam-event challenge. In their last meeting at a major, Cilic tuned a distressingly lackadaisical Murray at the U.S. Open -- a loss that underscored the emerging suspicion that Murray was a one-week wonder. I've always felt that Murray is better than that; he just needed to figure it all out. Now it's time to put this presumably gained knowledge to work. Things are never that pat, in a form-of-the-day enterprise like tennis, but these larger themes are valid.

And what can I say about Rafael Nadal, unable to finish his fourth consecutive major?

Only this: I sympathize with his plight. It's a terrible thing when the injury theme overtakes a player and becomes the lens through which he's viewed. It begins to play tricks on everyone, including the player in question. Somehow, the aura of a player is diminished when injury becomes a recurring theme (Roddick is also in danger in that regard, but he doesn't have as far to fall); it's an even greater signal of basic vulnerability than the occasional ugly performance. So much of this game is driven by intangibles -- confidence, image and self-image, the ability of an athlete (never mind his trainers and fans) to feel and act as if he's 10-feet tall and bulletproof. The best players, and some merely darned good, shrewd ones, are like predators on the veld, ever alert for signs of vulnerability or weakness in their prey.

Roger Federer understood this, and the way he's kept his injury/illness issues of the past on the down low was wise; it kept his opponents guessing. Rafa's injuries seem far more serious, of course, which is why we're more focused on them. But a part of me thinks it would have been a better play for Rafa to just let those last three games slip away and say to Murray, "Well done."  Keeping people guessing (without being coy or evasive) is always preferable to allowing your struggles to play out on center stage. I understand that Nadal didn't want to sustain further damage to what now has to be seen as a clearly a career-threatening debility, but the relentless focus on his physical state will be a real drag on his free spirit.

In today's matches, I like Li Na (she's playing Zheng as well as Venus Williams, so her motivation is bound to be extra-high), Serena, Roger and Jo-Willy.

Enjoy the tennis, everyone!

Same as the Old Boss	01/25/2010 - 12:04 PM

by Pete Bodo

Yesterday, fans of the Australian Open saw Serena Williams and Roger Federer deliver great lessons in the art of taking charge. We also witnessed an equally enlightening tutorial on what happens if you don't, can't, or won't -- and that's why Serena and Roger are nicely positioned to win the singles titles.

Leading up to yesterday's clash between Serena and Slammin' Sammy Stosur, everyone in Australian had been force-fed the fact that the Australian half of the equation won the last match: Stosur beat Williams at Stanford, during last summer's U.S. hardcourt season. And Stosur, with her big serve and athletic, attacking game, is one of a select handful of players who, all things being equal, actually has a game to take to Serena.

It was a propitious moment for Serena to take charge. To show Stosur who the boss is (Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, as some hoary old rocker once said). To inform all those green-and-yeller clad dreamers: I'm Serena Williams, and she's not.

BTW, does anyone else think it's a gloomy omen that there's so much yellow on display when those festive-minded Aussies parade their patriotism? Note to all you wallabies: Play up the green -- yellow just doesn't send the right message. Besides, green is the new black, right?

Anyway. . .

You couldn't fault Stosur for lack of courage; just lack of game. But that says more about Serena than it does about Sam. The match lasted a mere 1:05; where did Serena find the time to club 10 aces? It was more than 50 percent better than Stosur's output and she's a proficient dealer of aces herself. And how about 30 winners to a mere eight by Stosur? Serena never seems to tire of making statement matches, although there's a real chance that by the time Saturday rolls around, she'll be wrapped in more bandages that Queen Nefertiti.

Afterward, Serena said: “It's important when you're playing a local girl to not let the crowd get too involved or else they'll kill you,” Williams explained (Uh-oh, there she goes again!). “That was the plan: to not let them (the Aussie faithful) get involved."

And let's not forget the more placid Roger Federer. All he does is win tennis matches. Contrary to what you might suspect, people like me didn't give people like Lleyton Hewitt a shot at winning that fourth-round tussle because we "hate" Roger, or have nothing to better to do with our lives than sit around waiting for Roger to lose.

Hewitt embarked on this Australian Open with a good vibe. He was healthy, he looked sharp, and he's always played pretty well in Melbourne, coming close to a title a bunch of times, including one final. He's been on a terrible skid against Federer, but he's a player of quality, vast experience, signature determination and cool nerve. Hewitt putting together a Cinderella run in Melbourne would make a hail of a story, because the best stories of all are the ones that have just enough internal logic to end up making you think: Well, I might have seen that coming. . .

I sympathized with Brad Gilbert when Cliff Drysdale put him on the spot, and Gilbert stuck to his guns: Hewitt, he said, had a "puncher's chance."

Okay, I'll admit it. We have nothing better to do with our lives than sit around waiting for Roger to lose.

Both men served right around the 60 percent mark, which is nothing to write home about. But Federer averaged a 70 percent winning rate on the points he served (both first and second), while Hewitt managed just a shade over 50 per cent. That's the number of a guy on the run, not that Hewitt hasn't lived that way in the past with considerable success. And Federer's tally of winners nearly tripled those produced by Hewitt. Those numbers add up to one word: mastery.

By contrast, Tsonga dominated Nicolas Almagro -- not the worst guy you can draw in the fourth-round of a major -- but took his foot off the gas and then brain-cramped. As a result, he ended up going five hard sets and into overtime (he won, 9-7 in the fifth). It's always unnerving to fall asleep at the wheel. Even if you're saved by the guard rail, the rest of your drive isn't exactly going to be a relaxed journey. Tsonga will pay a price in the legs as well when he meets Novak Djokovic, who, in the same situation as Tsonga, kept his eyes open and on the striped line, turning Lukasz Kubot into road kill.

And Davydenko? Well, he's a speedy, durable little fella. But there were times in the third and fourth sets yesterday when Fernando Verdasco might just as well have slipped on that punk-rock era T-shirt that said: Will Somebody Please Kill Me?  You know it had to be pretty bad when a guy as shy of confrontation as Davydenko speaks this plainly about an opponent: “He's strong physically, but not mentally ... I know he have power in the fifth set, but he can make mistake.”

But not mentally...In tennis, those are fighting words; Verdasco's huge appetite for competition kind of makes up for his inability to navigate its mental demands.

Verdasco hit one serve that landed on the wrong (his) side of the net yesterday, and enough double faults to earn an honorable membership in the WTA (Not to be outdone, Davydenko almost blew off his big toe with an easy smash). It was that kind of match, but I'll say this much for Verdasco: you've got to smile when he whacks a big, ugly shot -- and then going for another one on the next point. It's not the worst of mind sets in today's game.

When a Verdasco is begging you to take the lunch off his place and all you do is nick a french fry or two, someone with more of a possessive streak is going to leave you hungry. Davydenko will be under less pressure when he meets Federer; he clearly enjoys playing David to tenniss Goliath, and never moreso than in the past few months. But I think we're going to see a very different Goliath, come Wednesday.

Big arenas are for big players, as Serena and Roger demonstrated yesterday.

Sunday Viewing	01/24/2010 - 10:35 AM

Well, it's going to be hard think about tennis for at least a few more hours today, what with the New York Jets playing for the AFC Championship against the Indianapolis Colts this afternoon. But how about those performances by Nadia Petrova and Marin Cilic yesterday?

In my last post, I said the Juan Martin del Potro vs. Cilic match would be a good yardstick for measuring Cilic's progress over the last few months. If this win can be taken as representative, we have another legitimate contender at the Grand Slam poker table. I thought it impressive that Cilic won despite having made a boatload of errors (71), but the thing that got me juiced was that he made just four fewer winners -  won 41 points at the net. 

All that tells you that Cilic is playing very positive tennis - going for his shots, attacking and taking the game to his opponent. 

Real quick, the matches that catch my eye for today are the clashes between Vera Zvonareva and Victoria Azarenka, the coach swappers, and Serena Williams and Slammin' Sammy Stosur. And Lleyton Hewitt is up against it, judging from the gears Roger Federer has been finding.

Anyway, enjoy the tennis and hurry sundown!

-- Pete

The Bottom Half	01/23/2010 - 5:00 PM

by Bobby Chintapalli, TW Contributing Editor

You know the women’s singles draw is interesting when the half we’re really watching isn’t the one with the Williamses or even the Radwanskas but the one with the Bondarenkos. It’s gotten so much attention you’d think it has everyone but Venus, Serena and that line judge. You could still call it the Belgian half, but the Russians might laugh at you. If the Belgians are showing they’re back, the Russians are showing they’re still here. Here now are some big and small thoughts on the week that was, especially for the eight women left in the bottom half of the draw.

The Belgians

Let’s start with Kim Clijsters. And Pam Shriver, who saw it coming. In the second game of the Clijsters-Petrova match, Shriver commented that “Clijsters looks a bit… disheveled”. It’s hard to really understand what happened, because it went so fast. (The first set of the Dementieva-Henin match lasted almost five times as long as the first set of this one.) Petrova hit deep and hard, volleyed well and didn’t miss. Clijsters didn’t move well, wasn’t aggressive and couldn’t find the court. Perhaps it’s partly that Petrova didn’t allow Clijsters to play good tennis and partly that Clijsters couldn’t remember how. Recreational players know that some days you literally forget how to hit the ball; maybe the pros do too.

Justine Henin though is still front and center with the emphasis on ‘front’. During her win over Elena Dementieva in what Martina Navratilova called “the best-played second-round match ever”, Henin approached the net 43 times and won the point 35 times. (In all the two approached on more than a third of all points.) Not everything in Henin’s game is better, at least not yet. Her serve clearly faltered. She had trouble with her toss and threw in one more double-fault than Dementieva. Off court Henin seems more open. When asked about a new diamond ring she’s wearing, she helpfully explained that “it’s not coming from a lover, if that’s the question”.

The next big question for Henin is fellow Belgian Yanina Wickmayer, who Henin’s never played before (and whose most-admired player is Clijsters). Wickmayer is ranked Number 16 in the world but had to play the qualifying tournament to make the main draw. Not surprisingly she’s playing like she’s mad. (Heck, she’s walking to her seat during changeovers like she’s mad.) Maybe that’s good for Wickmayer: Happiness may make your insides feel warm, but anger is likelier to win you Grand Slams. (Just ask Serena, who partly attributes the Serena Slam to a guy who dumped her.) Hopefully the back issue that caused Wickmayer to pull out of doubles won’t flare up, so we get some Belgian ball-bashing (and variety) to remember.

The Marias

In what may have been the most aesthetically-pleasing first match ever at the Australian Open, Maria Sharapova lost to That Other Maria. But just barely – Sharapova actually won one point more than Maria Kirilenko. In retrospect the result shouldn’t have been too surprising. While Sharapova’s played 10 tournaments and won one since she returned from shoulder surgery last May, she’s not yet the same player who served up a bagel or breadstick to Lindsay Davenport, Elena Dementieva, Justine Henin and Jelena Jankovic on her way to the Australian Open title two years ago. She’s not serving as well, and her movement’s still not that good. You have to think she’s struggling with her confidence too. What’s great about Sharapova is that she doesn’t let it show on her face – on court or off. In post-match interviews she’s often insightful, articulate and, yes, defiant. After her loss she said, “A bad day's not going to stop me from doing what I love… I'll be back here on a Saturday of the second week… you watch.” I for one believe her.

All this talk about Sharapova isn’t to take anything away from the other 22-year-old Russian Maria, who beat Sharapova once before. Kirilenko may not do anything unbelievably well, but she also doesn’t do anything really badly. She didn’t hit with Sharapova’s pace, but she went for her shots, stayed calm and hustled better. (The hustling can’t be too hard when you’re as fit as she seems to be – you could bounce rubles off those abs.)

The (Rest of the) Russians

We’re talking here about Svetlana Kuznetsova, Dinara Safina and Nadia Petrova. Some of you wouldn’t need names if I called this group ‘Russian Headcases’. Yet the phrase isn’t fair since we’re talking about a two-time Grand Slam winner (Kuznetsova), a former World Number 1 (Safina) and a former World No. 3 (Petrova). While I may have used the phrase a few times myself, I actually have a fondness for, uhm, underachieving Russians. (Especially the one the draw gods sacrificed at the altar of Justine Henin.) The thing is, they’re great, but we know they can be even better. With most of the attention elsewhere, now may be their best chance.

Kuznetsova’s quarter of the draw is the craziest quarter we’ve seen in a while, but she’s managed to make it all the way to the fourth round. After playing two ‘ova’s she’ll face another, the newly-scary Nadia Petrova.

If Sharapova hasn’t called Petrova to thank her yet, she should. Because of her surreal, blink-and-you’ll-miss-it win over Clijsters, Petrova may be the Russian getting the most attention this week. Kuznetsova’s ahead 5-1 in their head-to-head record, but Clijsters was up 4-0 and look where that got her. Kuznetsova may not be scared, but she’ll likely keep the jovial soccer-with-a-tennis-ball fun to a minimum all the same.

Then of course there’s Dinara Safina. Remember her? The player who, based on her ranking, should beat every woman in the world but one at the sport we love so much? Many of us probably haven’t seen much of her at this tournament (I know I haven’t), and that may be why she’s doing well. She hasn’t dropped a set yet. Maybe this year she’ll follow the Serena 2009 approach by hanging onto the Number 2 ranking while grabbing a Grand Slam title or two.

The Others

And , oh yeah, Ukrainian Alona Bondarenko and Chinese Jie Zheng are still around too. Thanks to them you can count on one non-Russian, non-Belgian player making it to the quarterfinals.

Up and Down (Under)	01/23/2010 - 1:21 PM

by Pete Bodo

Why is it that every time I criticize someone, a few outraged voices accuse me of "hating" my subject, or having a hate-filled soul? Not that it troubles me, I just find it baffling. You'd think that by now readers of this blog would know that I love the game, the play -- not (necessarily) the players.

Sure, I have my likes and dislikes. But hate? Fanboy love? Are you kidding me? I've lived and worked among these people for over 30 years, forgive me for seeing them as normal human beings subject to the same stresses and challenges as the rest of us, and prone to the same habits, behaviors, and triumphs and failures. Oh, I know, it's all about shooting the messenger, and that's fine by me. I'm bullet-proof because I don't inordinately hate, or love, any tennis player (but if it makes you feel better to think so, feel free). It's the game that counts. Just the game. It's a liberating attitude that I highly recommend.

Anyway, on to today's matches of interest:

Ivo Karlovic vs. Rafael Nadal (2) (Nadal leads H2H, 2-0) 

You can count on the fingers of one hand the men who are capable of serving an opponent off the court, and Ivo Karlovic is one of them. Note that in their head-to-head meetings, Karlovic won a set each time. Furthermore, Roger Federer's willingness to engage Rafa on his own terms, even on clay, shows just how ill-advised that approach can be. It isn't like you're blowing a potential opportunity if you just try to keep Rafa from playing -- if you try to get under his skin by leaning on him and taking away his greatest asset, his legs, and the thing he most loves to do, run.

So this match could be interesting -- certainly much more than the disparity in their rankings indicate. (Ivo is No. 39, Nadal No. 2.) But unlike most of the 37 men positioned between them, Ivo has something that can hurt Rafa. It took on-fire Nikolay Davydenko two tiebreakers to beat Karlovic in Ivo's only previous tournment of 2010, Doha. And you know how it is with tiebreakers; anything goes.

Granted, Karlovic's Croatian mate, Davis Cup-hating Ivan Ljubicic, stinks the joint out at Grand Slams, but that four-set win had to do a lot for Ivo's confidence, as I imagine did Ivo's five-set hero moment against Radek Stepanek. This one could be closer than we think.

Svetlana Kuznetsova (3) vs. Nadia Petrova (19) (Kuznetsova leads, 5-1)

Petrova's lone win in the H2H occurred in Stuttgart, way back in 2006, and it was a hard-fought three-setter. So Kuznetsova should have an easy time of it, right?  But as we saw the other day, Petrova has hit a new level -- or she just hit the lottery and managed to get into the mythic Zone on a day when had the most to gain from doing so.

I'm going to assume it was the former; is there any WTA player who's in such sore need of a little respect? Anyone whose performances have elicited so many guffaws and comments like, When it comes to crunch time, she folds up like a cheap jacknife? It can't have been easy being Petrova these past few years, so why not exact a little payback? And she's been around long enough to know that if she can't build on the kind of licking she gave Kim Clijsters, the significance of that victory diminishes. She was 0-2 coming into the Australian Open, but Nadia hasn't lost a set here.

If Kuznetsova were half as demonic as she looks in her picture at the WTA website, I'd rate her higher, simply because of her athletic ability. But she sometimes gets caught asleep at the wheel (as she did in that 6-4 in the first-round squeaker here), even though she's played well in her two subsequent matches. Petrova will need to end points quickly and take care of her serve if she hopes to survive; Sveta will have to...stay awake and be ready to run.

Justine Henin vs. Yanina Wickmayer (no previous meetings) 

The other night, Alisa Kleybanova blew a big chance to go Petrova on the other famous Belgian, Henin. But she demonstrated that Henin will always be vulnerable to big, strong, physical players -- if not to big, strong, physical players who run out of steam after a set and a half. Wickmayer is (there's no polite way to put this), a beast. And that ought to cause plenty of problems for Henin, who appeared to hit the wall, physically, in her last match.

Does anyone doubt that Wickmayer will steal a page from the Nadal playbook, and pound Justine's backhand with high-bouncing topspin shots, preferably off the forehand wing? That's just the trouble, the set-up is a little too obvious -- and it discounts Justine's ability to put Wickmayer out of position, and use that tricky slice to keep Yanina from getting under the ball with sufficient lift. The decisive factor is likely to be Henin's fitness, and/or Wickmayer's ability to handle the most diverse game in women's tennis.

The fact that this yet another "Battle of the Belgians" just adds a little extra spice.

Juan Martin del Potro (4) vs. Marin Cilic (14) (Del Potro, 2-0) 

On the surface, this match has the makings of a nail-biter, but Delpo's two wins over Cilic were at Grand Slam events last year (one of them in Melbourne), and the Tower of Tandil won both in four sets, but going away (Cilic won a grand total of three games in those two fourth sets).

All things being equal, this match will be a great yardstick for Cilic's progress -- or lack thereof. He passed a real test in his win over Stan Wawrinka; he'll be under much less pressure in this one. Delpo has hit rough patches in Melbourne, but Cilic's big problem is that Delpo plays a similar game to his own, only better. It's hard to imagine Cilic -- or anyone -- out-blasting del Potro.

Enjoy!