The Deuce Club, 4.30	04/30/2010 - 5:00 PM

By Jackie Roe, TW Social Director

While I've been to several other concerts, the only ones that compare in terms of emotional involvement are my sister's. Recall that she's a pianist, and her rendition of Wagner/Liszt's Isoldens Liebestod is so swoon-worthy that I experience a physiological response every time I hear it: Heart clenches, eyes close, tears flow. Yeah, yeah, I'm a softy. Or maybe she's just that good. Ha!

Atmosphere has a lot to do with what one gets out of a concert, too, and I couldn't have asked for a better one on Sunday. The small venue made it feel like a private concert, and who wouldn't prefer that to sitting in the last row of a giant stadium, relying on the JumboTron because the musicians are but teeny specks miles below you? (It's why I don't care to watch any matches in Ashe!) The diverse, older crowd was an added bonus.

I'll halt my random concert musings now so that you can do some sharing of your own. Tell us about your concert experiences. What do you like/dislike about concerts and what's been your favorite? If you haven't attended very many, or even if you have, which artist(s) would you like to see perform live but haven't yet?

That's all for now. Have a restful weekend, guys - and Ali C, if you're around, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

The Dangerous Luxury	04/30/2010 - 12:29 PM

by Pete Bodo

Mornin', everyone. It looks as if Fernando Verdasco isn't going anywhere any time soon, a development that will surprise those of you who, like me, always considered him a lightweight. These days, 'Nando is finding all sorts of leathery qualities in his game and, even more important, his heart. Today, he beat Novak Djokovic in the Internazionale D'Italia, which continues a trajectory that might have him facing his pal Rafael Nadal in the finals.

But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves here. Did you also see that John Isner and Sam Querrey rassled down Roger Federer and Yves Allegro in the doubles? This guy Federer is becoming a regular punching bag, eh?

Alright, we can dismiss the doubles result easily enough. It's a busman's holiday for Federer, and if anything he deserves credit for being game and open-minded enough to take part in those best-of-two affairs. But I think it's also a mistake to dismiss Federer's recent struggles as irrelevant because of his obvious focus on Grand Slam events. Losses, in singles, doubles, checkers or rock-paper-scissors are like a virus. They get into your system and you never really know just when, where, or how they're going to express themselves.

For that reason, I wrote a post this morning for ESPN on the five things I feel Federer needs to do in order to enter the French Open with the kind of confidence and serenity you need to endure two grueling weeks of clay-court tennis. The idea that a guy (or girl) can absorb puzzling losses left and right and then simply delete them from his hard drive is nothing more than whistling as you walk past the graveyard. I wouldn't say that Federer is in big trouble. But he's in trouble. And he's in more trouble than he would be if the French Open were played on any surface but clay.

The main problem I see for The Mighty Fed is inconsistency, which can result from anything anything from a lack of mental focus to serious technical problems in his game (of course, the two are more closely related than we sometimes assume). It's a good sign that TMF isn't exactly losing three-and-four to the likes of Ernests Gulbis or Marcos Baghdatis. I've always said that once you've held a match point, you can feel entitled to assume that you pretty much won a match but failed to advance.  But his inability to close out opponents is borderline alarming. Unless the other guy is hitting stone-cold winners, the failure to close out a match - especially if you're serving - is a nervous condition.

Unfortunately, inconsistency is also  a shortcoming you can ill afford on clay, in either the micro or macro sense. In the former, it causes you to lose matches, not just matches you should win, but matches you could win. And as strong as Federer is on clay, there's at least one guy of whom you have to say, Roger could beat him on clay. . .

But the macro context is more troubling than the micro one. A player has to toned and conditioned, mentally as well as physically, to keep winning best-of-five matches on clay, and while Federer may be toned physically, he seems nowhere near where he needs to be, mentally, with the big events looming (Madrid and Paris). Spinning out early is as much a habit as staying in the hunt to the late stages; for a player like Federer, being in, say, the fourth round ought to be a given, not a accomplishment (although it is that as well).

Federer is too smart a guy to give himself up to denial. But even for so cool a customer, external forces and pressures ultimately come to bear. The losses Federer suffered in recent events, taken one by one, amount to a hill of beans. Taken together, though, and with the inevitable questions they beg dancing like shadows on a wall, they can take a toll. TMF is good at dealing with pressure, although he's even better when none exists.

But that pressure exists now, and I believe Federer feels it. Having crossed to the far side of his career, he can just up and walk away from it all without ever feeling like he's blown or missed an opportunity. And that's a dangerous luxury. At this juncture, only an idiot would treat a Federer loss during the first week of Roland Garros as a cataclysmic event. Over the recent months, Federer has been training us - inadvertently, of course -  to accept his accelerating mortality. A tennis player can be something like a god, but even he can't be that forever.

For those reasons, that splendid little event in Estoril, which begins next week, represents an interesting and tricky turn on the road to Roland Garros, and my feeling is that TMF needs to dive into it and come out leaving the smell of burning rubber in our nostrils. He may be able to put off his re-grouping until Madrid, but that would represent betting an awful lot on a lone roll of the die, and at any event where the price on his head will be high.

For all I know, though, Federer would chuckle upon reading this and say, But dude, don't tell those nice folks in Rome, but my whole game plan was to start my clay campaign in Estoril. . .

And even if that wasn't Federer's master plan, it could certainly become that, now that we're at this point in the season. Estoril as a warm-up for Madrid, Madrid as a warm-up for Paris, Paris as a warm-up for another victory lap, this time wearing a jacket with gold epaulets, lace cuffs, and a big honking no. 17 embroidered on the back. Now we're talking!

The one thing I'm pretty certain about, now that I've had a few days to think about things, is that Federer needs some Ws. Anything is possible; we all know that. But tennis players are better off trafficking in probabilities than in possibilities, and that means TMF has to roll up his shirt sleeves and get ready to begin grinding before sooner becomes later.

The Occasionally Terrible	04/29/2010 - 11:04 AM

Just as a follow-up to yesterday's post, I see that John Isner and Sam Querrey won their doubles in Rome today, taking about the powerful Bhupathi-Mirnyi squad. The draw at the official Internazionale D'Italia website won't load for me, but I assume the Americans are still on track to play Roger Federer and Yves Allegro in their next match.

BTW, Isner told me last week that shortly after he returned to the tour last summer after a bout of mononucleosis, he found himself feeling sluggish and out of sorts at the Cincinnati tournament. Craig Boynton, Isner's coach, reached out to Severin Luthi, who assists Federer. He was hoping to get some advice on coping with mono.

The next day, Isner was killing time playing some arcade-style golf game in the Cincy player lounge, when Roger Federer approached him and told Isner he'd heard about his struggles with mono. They had a conversation about mono.  "Roger told me to listen to my body," Isner said. "He said if I felt spent, I shouldn't be afraid to pull out of a tournament, or even a match. 'Don't be afraid or ashamed to do it,' he said. For Roger to take the time to do that, I thought that was pretty cool."

So put another gold star next to Federer's photo on that employee-of-the-year contest chart. I see a reserved parking space near the main door for a month in this guy's future!

Rafael Nadal won't be in action until tonight (night sessions at a spring clay event, and "not before 8:30 pm" - is nothing sacred anymore?) But Ivan Ljubicic is playing Feliciano Lopez later today, so it's Mr. Baldy vs. Mr. Gel. Looks like Ivan is reprising some sort of On Golden Pond thing - until you take a close look at his upper back and body in the photo above. It's a winnable match for Ivan the Occasionally Terrible.

Well, I've got some magazine work to take care of here today, so I'll let y'all take it from here.

-- Pete

Federer Wins Thriller in Rome	04/28/2010 - 4:56 PM

by Pete Bodo

This is no April Fool's joke, held up for 27 days in your spam filter. If you check today's scores from the Internazionali D'Italia you'll see that Roger Federer won his match, 10-8 in the third. He was helped in that effort by doubles teammate Yves Allegro. They beat a pretty solid doubles team, too, in Simon Aspelin and Paul Hanley.

This was an especially good win when you consider Allegro's track record. I don't want to trash the poor guy; like most of us, he's working hard and unlike some of us he's working hard at something he loves. But when you say his name you don't even think, "journeyman." You think, "FOS." Friend of Superstar. He's one in that fairly long line of players whose friendship with a top player has paid off with unexpected benefits on the tennis court. More power to him. And maybe it was a good thing for Federer to get back on the court in Rome as soon as possible after that herky-jerky performance against Ernests Gulbis in singles. Never underestimate the balm of a W, even when it's in doubles.

The result is also interesting in a representative way, especially when you look at it in light of the Federer vs. Nadal rivalry. It has not gone unnoticed that Rafa won the doubles at Indian Wells with his own personal Yves Allegro, Marc Lopez. They won that title 10-6 in the super-tiebreaker the ATP now uses instead of a third set. I presume the truncated format is also being used in Rome, slightly diminishing the dramatic flavor of that 10-8 performance by Federer and Allegro. It's too bad Nadal is passing on doubles this week; I sure miss those Federer vs. Nadal finals.

I'm not sure how much doubles those rivals plan to play this year, but any is better than none. And their participation reminds us of a fact that tends to undermine the credibility of the doubles results and rankings. The skills of a top singles players travel well; almost every great Grand Slam singles champ is a regular hellraiser on the doubles court - if and when he chooses to play. But let's remember that the doubles specialist is by no means a recently evolved subspecies; he/she has been around forever. This just happens to be a boom time for guys who are capable of going two, three rounds in doubles, week-in, week-out.

However, a great doubles team, like the Bryan Brothers, can pose questions that more modestly gifted specialists, or a  pick-up team consisting of a superstar and FOS is often hard put to answer. For that reason, it will be interesting to see how Federer and Allegro handle their next match, against either of two notable teams: John Isner and Sam Querrey, or Mahesh Bhupathi and Max Mirnyi (that foursome meets tomorrow).

Federer and Allegro are already in the third round. And they made their doubles money the old-fashioned way - they earned it. The team didn't have the free pass (a first-round bye) awarded to Aspelin and Hanley, as well as Bhupathi and Mirnyi. And when was the last time Roger Federer played in a tournament awarding byes and didn't get one? You show 'em, Roger!

As an American journalist, I have a vested interest in Isner and Querrey, both as singles players and as a doubles team. Granted, they presently aren't in the same league as Bhupathi and Mirnyi, but that could change. Isner told me the other day in Tampa that he and Querrey are committed to playing a full doubles schedule this year, with the stated goal of making the ATP Tour year-end championships in London as one of the eight elite doubles squads. I like that decision; it sends the signal: We're young, we want matches, we'll take them any way we can git 'em!

Neither of these kids has adopted all the habits and prejudices of a singles guy ranked 20 or so places above him- something that's always a temptation to a young buck all puffed up with an inflated opinion of his own talents. Some developing make the mistake of embracing the approach of an elite pro, as if imitating someone puts you on the fast track to becoming that someone. It's a slightly more grown up version of going out and buying the Kobe Bryant sneakers, or Johnny Damon signature baseball mitt. Taking cues from a great player is a good idea in many ways, most of them having to do with due diligence when it comes to practice, fitness and nutrition. But when the urge to Roger diminishes your on-court time, you're flirting with disaster.

One of the nicer developments in recent years is the greater disposition shown by top players to playing doubles. It wasn't all that long ago that John McEnroe was playing 100 matches a year in singles and a good 50 or 60 in doubles; in 1983 (okay, so it was that long ago), he played 18 singles tournaments and 16 doubles events (I'm including Davis Cup in both). And Mac more or less played a comparable schedule through most of his years at the top. Some will argue that it was a different, less demanding game back then, but I don't really buy that, at least not as the main reason that McEnroe was able to compete the way he did on two fronts. The main reason Mac was able to play so much singles and doubles is because. . . he wanted to.

And that's the best reason of all.

Neither Isner nor Querrey has compiled an early singles or doubles record to compare with John McEnroe's, but playing doubles can help both those youngsters in much the same way McEnroe said it helped him. It eliminated what might be called "irrelevant" practice time (Patrick McEnroe tells some funny stories about John's contempt for standard practice and drilling in his forthcoming book, Hardcourt Confidential). The young Americans can't afford to be cavalier about practice in the same way as certified genius John P. McEnroe, but there's a lot to be said for match-play (as opposed to practice and drilling). The other day I wrote about the degree to which Isner believes his excellent competitive temperament was shaped by the sheer volume of college matches he played, and there's a parallel to be drawn there.

Now here's the really intriguing thing. Isner and Querrey have the potential to be a superb doubles team - something the U.S. already has in Bob and Mike Bryan. As the Bryans make their final push to shatter the all-time doubles mark currently held by Todd Woodbridge and Mark Woodforde, wouldn't it be ironic if Isner and Querrey proved to be a major stumbling block to their ambition?

Note to self: pay a little more attention to doubles in the coming months.

Note to Roger and Rafa: Get with the program and join up as a doubles team.

Glutton for Punishment	04/27/2010 - 12:29 PM

by Pete Bodo

Mornin' everyone. We're returning to Crisis Center mode for the Rome Masters, so feel free to weigh in on the on-going matches or events of the day in the Comments, below.

I much prefer the Italian name for the tournament, Internazionale BNL D'Italia, although - no offense to the sponsor - I could do without the insertion of the sponsor's acronym.  The word "internazionale" lends an aura of gravitas to any event; how come it sounds so much more forceful and authoritative than the English equivalent, "international?" I put it down to the muscularity of the letter "Z," which I'd describe as a "power" letter in a way that goes beyond its value in a game of Scrabble. In any event, I'm glad the sponsors didn't cave to the marketing esperanto and call the event BNL Roma Masters, or something similar.

The prospect of a Roger Federer vs. Rafael Nadal semifinal seems to dominate the discussion of the Internazionale D'Italia, and for good reason. Federer's unexpected losses in the big hard court events this spring pulled the rug out from under that familiar story line. Who would have guessed, two years ago, that Federer vs. Nadal would seem so. .  . fresh. I'm sure the Kool-Aid drinkers in both camps are rehearsing their bon mots and bon justes, although there's one thing that seems to me to stand in the way of Federer and Nadal squaring off in a few days time. And that's the surprising inconsistency Federer showed toward the end of last year and so far in this new one.

It's funny, but as I said in our new podcast, looking forward to the Euro-clay circuit a few weeks ago, I tended to be dismissive of Federer's losses in the U.S. hard court Masters events. Now, looking  back on those two events, I don't read any more into them  - but I feel they might prove more meaningful than many of us wanted to think. You know, it's like developing a small blister at the start of a long race. It's no big deal when it happens, but the longer the race goes on, the more likely it is to become an irritant. And in the long run, it might even prove a critical handicap.

Of course, this is Federer we're talking about, and we ought to note that somehow whatever was on his mind at Indian Wells or Miami was conspicuously absent from his mindset in Melbourne. He looked fresh as a daisy and utterly on the scent at the Australian Open. Unfortunately, the Internazionale is neither the Australian Open,nor any other major.

That's why, thinking about The Rivalry, Cont., the main job I see for Roger is actually getting to Nadal - slicing and blasting his way through a succession of players to reach his arch-rival. As I write this, Federer and Gulbis have split lop-sided sets which, in some ways, is beginning to look like a sign of the times for Federer. And Nicolas Almagaro, another fella who could give Federer trouble in a later round, has come back from losing a first set tiebreaker to Lukasz Kubot and appears to be in charge of things.

It was easy to forget, during the hard-court season, the importance of grinding, the talent for playing relentlessly focused, consistent, patient tennis day-after-day, round-after-round. Nadal has an extraordinary facility for grinding - you'd think that after winning Monte Carlo 16 times, a guy would go into the 17th meeting in a somewhat distractable state. But Nadal showed us in Monaco (alright, he's only won it six times in a row) that he's not only good at grinding, it may be what he most loves to do. As much as he likes that tournament, I've got to think that his record there is less about that specific event than about what it represents. There is about Nadal something of the glutton for punishment, which is a useful vice on clay.

I can't honestly say I feel Nadal similarly threatened when it comes to his ability to be on time and present for an appointment with Herr Federer. Oh, he might be beaten; only a fool takes anything for granted on the ATP Tour these days. But somehow, I believe Nadal has hit his stride and settled in; with the finish line at Roland Garros so far off, it's hard to imagine anything throwing him off. 

If I were a hardcore Federer backer, I'd be more concerned with him getting to the semis than how he'll do once he makes the bracket. Which, of course, is the same thing I might have said to Nadal fans in years past at any major other than the French Open.

Going Over the Cliff	04/26/2010 - 1:22 PM

[[Although tennis has had a good run of high-profile autobiographies in recent years (John McEnroe, Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi are among the contributors), tennis has produced a consistent stream of "small" books, often by relatively obscure publishers, to help advance the official record and history of the game. The latest addition to that bookshelf is Acing Depression, but early Open-era star Cliff Richey.

Granted, the title of the book isn't exactly up-beat, but this is a true and at times moving story of one man's struggle against an illness that is both widespread and debilitating; that the author of this confessional volume was a high-performance athlete is somewhat remarkable.

The social value of a book like this is obvious, while perusing it I also came across numerous passages that ought to be of keen interest to any tennis fan for the light they shed on what the tennis life was like in that early Open era, so there's a straight historical value to the book as well.]]

- PB

by Karen Pestaina (@GVTennisNews on Twitter)

Cliff Richey was one of the original “bad boys” of tennis.  Nicknamed “the Bull” he reached the pinnacle of his 26-year career in 1970 when he led the United States to the Davis Cup  championship, finished atop the first-ever Grand Prix standings (the precursor to the modern ATP rankings) and ended the year as the No. 1 American player. His new book (full title:  Acing Depression: A Tennis Champion’s Toughest Match, from New Chapter Press, April 2010.

The Richeys became the first brother and sister ever to top the US rankings. And they recently agreed to do a short question-and-answer session with me via email.

Spoilers	04/24/2010 - 11:08 PM

Mornin'. Just thought I'd swing by to say hi and give y'all a place to post as the critical day of Fed Cup plays out - and let's not forget Barcelona, where we have a really intriguing match-up between Robin Soderling and Fernando Verdasco. Soderling is the first Swede to reach the Barcelona Open final since 1995 (Magnus Larsson) and he's gunning to be the first Swedish winner (Spaniards have won this tournament a staggering eight consecutive times) in 22 years (last Barcelona champ who wore jeans, clogs and white sock: Kent Carlsson).

The intriguing thing about the Barcelona final will be the mental game; Solderling has shown himself to be a leathery, salty competitor, while Verdasco's ability to keep his cool, especially when he's presented with big opportunities, has always been questioned. The surface certainly favors Verdasco - or does it?

For that reason, I have to go with Soderling even though the set-up is perfect for Verdasco. But the flip side of the recent history of Spain in this event and the advantage Verdasco enjoys on this surface is that he'll certainly be favored, and under pressure to win. The noun "spoiler" seems to have fallen out of vogue, but something about Soderling's personality and temperament seems to scream out for that label. Every generation of players has that certain someone who's expert at raining on the other guy's parad; the guy who brings the pin when everybody else is toting the red or yellow balloon.

In Fed Cup, Melanie Oudin acquited herself well in Birmingham, and even though Elena Dementieva (her opponent in today's reverse singles) is tough we saw at the last U.S. Open that Oudin can be rough on Russians. And how about Francesca Schiavone giving up just two games to Lucie Safarova of the Czech Republic? Given that this is the semifinal round, the Italians are - again - one win from securing another final berth.

Granted, the Italians are at home, but once again we see how the squad morphs into Coliseum-grade lady gladiators in Fed Cup (Flavia Pennetta also won her singles in straights, albeit with a little more difficulty). The Italians have built a terrific Fed Cup tradition, and the support they receive from their countrymen helps explain why they consistently perform above standard in Fed Cup. Sure you can say Fed Cup doesn't matter, but be careful when you say "nobody cares." Psychologists call that projecting, and it's certainly leavened with a fair amount of I  ethno-centricity or, to put it more bluntly, myopia.

I took my shots over at ESPN for calling out the Williams sisters and the stuff they pull when it comes to Fed Cup, but that's to be expected. It would be great to see the U.S. team pull this one out, but the more intriguing result was in the World Group playoffs, where Belgium secured a 2-0 lead over Estonia. Should Belgium win, they'll be back in the World Group, and with Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin and Yanina Wickmayer on board, they ought to be as strong a squad as anything we've seen in Fed Cup since the Williamses last played in 2007.

The Deuce Club, 4.23	04/23/2010 - 5:00 PM

By Jackie Roe, TW Social Director

I think that's enough from me. Now it's your turn to tell us your sign, your perspective on astrology, whatever you see fit. See you in the Comments ... and make sure to wish GVGirl a very happy birthday!

The Articulate Bulldog	04/23/2010 - 1:19 PM

by Pete Bodo

Mornin'. Been a hectic week for me, but it looks like a sunny weekend and I'm straining at the leash. But I wanted to update you on my visit with John Isner, whom I met up with on Wednesday for a big feature that will run in Tennis magazine (September/U.S. Open issue).

I knew this would be a smooth process (for it isn't always) when John showed up in front of the fitness center at Saddlebrook (where he trains, while living in nearby Tampa) about eight minutes late for our 10 am date. He walked right up to me, stuck out that big paw of his (his fingers, by the way, are as elegant and delicate as those you might expect to find on a concert pianist), called me by name and apologized for being late.

What we have here, I thought, is a kid who wears his baseball cap backwards and his manners forward.

We covered a lot of territory in our subsequent, lengthy conversation, and I didn't need to use the spurs, even once. Isner has a degree in a Speech Communication from the University of Georgia, so it only figures that he's an articulate Bulldog. He's also a focused interlocutor; ask him a straight question and you get a straight answer, without a lot of hemming and hawing or rambling.

Isner never had a moment's doubt about staying in college for four years. I got the sense that he enjoyed being a BMOC (Big Man on Campus), literally as well a figuratively, because at Georgia, tennis matters. In fact, he sheepishly admitted that he would have remained a Georgia Bulldog for another year (or two, or three, or seven) but for this inconvenient mandate that once you put in your four years and earn a degree it's time to move on (the nerve!). I think the preponderance of pretty young things at Georgia had something to do with John's reluctance to leave. Take heed, ladies, this one may not be wholly as innocent as that choir-boy face, good manners, and soft-spokeness suggests. 

But I mention Georgia for a specific reason - having stayed so long in what has to rank as one of the most highly pressured and competitive environments seems to have played a significant shaping role in Isner. Many observers, including Isner's Davis Cup captain, Pat McEnroe, have remarked on what a terrific competitive temperament Isner possesses. They love his easy sense of command and the way he reacts to a challenge. If there's one noun I'd apply to the way he appears to handle stress and pressure, I'd use "unfazed."

Isner told me that he thinks that sangfroid was bred by the enormous volume of tennis matches he played in college. "I wouldn't say I'm surprised at my ability to step up and perform, because I believe college made me that way. Some of it may be innate, but I think most of it was learned. College matches can be very tough, they make you tough. You get into situations where the whole match is riding on the outcome of your match, the whole team is depending on you. . . That's when you have to be strong. One thing I gained in college that some of my peers didn't when they went on the pro tour is that kind of experience. I was playing 60, 70 matches a year in that four-year span. I was lucky enough to be winning a lot, and winning breeds confidence. Even today, in tight situations, I can always call upon that experience."

Sure, nobody is going to confuse college matches with ATP tour head-buttings. But this notion of the intrinsic value of playing - and winning - many matches is worth keeping in mind. I've certainly harped on it often enough in this space, most recently by touting Rafael Nadal these past few weeks. The four or five matches Nadal played and won were worth more to him for the upcoming weeks than would have a singles title, if he had found a way to take one without having to play those matches.

I think this also helps explain how in 2007 Isner managed to win the very first pro tournament he played (a Futures, which he got into only because he was awarded a wild card). Not long thereafter, he won a Challenger event (making him the winner in two of the first three pro tournaments he played) and then y'all know what happened next: that amazing run that carried him to the finals at Washington (the Legg Mason Classic), and overnight stardom in his own nation.

Isner ultimately paid a price for so astonishing a breakout, but this is the important thing: While all those 17 and 18 year-olds were out hammering their heads against the Futures and Challengers walls, learning to lose matches, Isner was gorging on Ws. Were they more winnable matches? Of course. So what? We all know the roles that experience and confidence play in tennis. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that this approach is some sort of magic bullet - it takes the right kind of kid, in the appropriate environment to make it work. But Isner convinced me that he earned his recent success because of, rather than in spite of, his unorthodox background.

One other element in this discussion has to be Isner's personal background. He comes from a very stable, comfortable home. His father is a builder, and his mother, according to John, "cooked me three meals a day for all of my life." Isner grew up with two brothers and various dogs, and despite always being fairly high in the US junior tennis rankings, he played for his high school team for four years. He was a popular, happy, "normal" kid and makes no bones about it. A big fish not named Mardy in a small pond. And it was good preparation for swimming with the sharks out in the open ocean.

Since Isner developed outside the tennis bubble, his game is different, almost old-school. Because he's 6-9, lean as a whippet and flexible as strand of rope, he has a fierce serve. He backs it up with a big forehand, and a game plan designed to make the best use of those two assets. And while the conventional wisdom has been that his backhand is his Achilles heel, he may surprise some people with it in the coming months. As he said when we talked Xs and Os, "If you're playing and winning matches, your weaker shots are going to be getting better all the time because that's where everybody goes."

The major obstacle for Isner is likely to be mobility; he's got a lot of body to lug around the court, and the further the ball is from the command center of your neurological system the more things can go wrong. And in a broader sense, a big man tires more easily than a small one. There's an ideal efficiency equation in the marriage of the human body with any sport, and in tennis big men pay a price for some of the obvious advantages their reach and leverage provide. The trick is for them to put together a game - and game plan - that is most conducive to neutralizing their liabilities. It's unrealistic to expect Isner to be able to, say, transition from defense to offense as expertly as some of the top ATP players (that facility being a premium asset these days). As Isner put it, "I need to play the points on my terms as much as possible."

Isner will have his work cut out for him over the coming weeks,  but he won't just be going through the motions on clay. He ought to be able to hold serve, even on the slower red clay courts, and the court speed will give him a better look at returns. In a way, his problem is similar to Andy Roddick's: the clay plays just slow enough to put either man's survival in jeopardy if he's not playing very consistent, error-free tennis (something which isn't a signature trait for either player, even if Roddick has take great strides toward rectifying that). By contrast, these two can get away more on hard courts. Isner said,  "If you look at the record, I've lost some very close matches on clay - and on hard it's almost the reverse."

But Isner also knows he's playing with house money up and through Wimbledon. Last year, he was diagnosed with mononucleosis two days before he was to depart for Paris and he was off the grid through Wimbledon. Think he'll have a chance there in London come June?

Can We Talk?	04/22/2010 - 11:31 AM

Howdy. Just wanted to jump on to say hi and give you a place to schmooze because I have a quick story to turn around here. If I have time a bit later, I'll tell you about my trip to Saddlebrook and my visit with John Isner. It was a pretty hectic trip, time-wise, but it worked out very well (partly because John is a co-operative subject and a regular jasper. But those 7 scotch on the rocks on the flight home were well-earned and satisfying, if I say so myself. If I don't get to write a trip report today, then tomorrow for sure. John is leaving for Rome today, along with his coach, the eternally upbeat Craig Boynton. I could tell in the day I spent with them that this one solid player-coach relationship, and John credits Craig with having a big hand in his success in 2009. But more about that at the appropriate time.  Well, I'd better go hole up in the writing bunker, have a good 'un.

-- Pete