The Deuce Club, 7.30	07/30/2010 - 5:30 PM

By Jackie Roe, TW Social Director

Evening, TWibe! I feel the need to tell you that I'm writing this in a half-concussed state, following a work-sponsored whirlyball excursion. Have any of you played? It's a combination of lacrosse and basketball ... in bumper cars. I'm like a fish out of water in amusement centers, but I was a good sport and gave the game my best effort (which was still pretty laughable). It was surprisingly fun, but now I'm reminded of why these types of activities aren't my cuppa tea. I can't move! I'm so sore, it feels like I just survived a minor car crash. Your Social Director's a weakling.

Back to business. After a bit of a lull in tennis news, we had some major coaching developments this week, with Paul Annacone signing on to work with Federer and Murray axing Miles Maclagan. (Wait, but that's not all: Benneteau is now working with Thierry Champion, after splitting with Loic Courteau, who's now coaching Kuznetsova. Got that? UPDATE: Or is Loic Kuzzy's new coach? Just today on Twitter, she said that they were still "in process of final decision." Hmm.) We've beaten the Annacone and Maclagan topics to death by now, but since I'll take any excuse to chat about relationship dynamics, this space is open for further discussion regarding the changes. Who would you want to see coaching these players - or any other players, for that matter? What makes a player-coach relationship successful, and how have your own experiences with coaches, teachers, or mentors informed these ideas?
 
Surprisingly, I'm pretty ambivalent when it comes to Federer coaching decisions, so I didn't have a reaction, positive or negative, to the Annacone news. We'll see what happens, I guess. I was more taken aback by the Murray-Maclagan break-up (it feels a little like that, no?). Miles, Jez, Treacle, Andy ... I always saw each as an indispensable person in Muzz's life. I won't be able to see Team Murray in the same way, and I'll miss spotting Miles and his bucket hat in the stands.
 
Maybe that's what we should talk about instead - our favorite Miles memories. (jewell and gauloises, if she's around, would appreciate that!)

Moving along ...

Before I start my tale, let me begin by saying thanks to our beloved Social Director, Jackie, for giving me the chance to be a guest writer this week. I must also give some credit to a fabulously talented photographer, Scott Winer, whose photos you see here. Check out his website here.

Let me begin by saying that it has been quite a few years since I last wrote a “what I did on my summer vacation" essay, but this sounded like fun. First, let me explain that Tavarua (in Fiji) is a resort world famous in the surfing community for its surf breaks. Big waves and surf contests happen here. It is the dream of most serious surfers to go to this mecca of the waves. To go, you must be an invited guest, as the resort is run like a timeshare with a group leader who contacts any friends who might be interested in going. About 12 years ago, my husband Mark met up with a surfing medical group who does some mission work in the islands, and through his work with them he got included in one such group. The doctors surf and provide a bit of medical care in the area during their stay.

For the first few years, Mark went alone because until about ten years ago, the “resort" was little more than a surf camp with a sun shower. But now that indoor plumbing has made it to Tavarua, Princess Beth (yes, I really am that high maintenance) is happy to join in on the fun. By now, the island has every amenity that you would expect at a world class resort. It truly is a dream vacation.

This year marked the return of the entire family; the last time we were all together there was four years ago.

At its core, Tavarua is still a surf resort. And this is not surf for beginners, as you can see by the above photo. (And yes, that is my son Jake!) Keep in mind, when you look at the photo, that Jake is just a few inches under six feet tall – and that monster coming up behind him is at least twice as tall as he is. A wave like that packs quite a punch, can hold you under water for at least a minute, and has been known to snap a surfboard in half, so you better be in good shape and know what you are doing before you head out on the boat to Cloudbreak! Mark and Jake surfed every day from sunrise until happy hour, with a long lunch break. Let’s just say they got their fill.

My daughter Missie and I spent our days lounging by the pool, reading in a hammock, playing a bit of beach volleyball, snorkeling, yoga, tennis ... you name it, we tried it! We even tried the latest craze in surfdom – stand up paddle boards with oars. The surfers call it “sweeping." But I can tell you that flatter is better where that sport is concerned, at least for me. The least little wave and I was tossed into the water! Missie was much more of a natural.

Post-happy hour – where 2 for 1 Fiji Bitters rule – the island staff serves up a feast. And then, after a full and exhausting day, most folks turn in early. A few of the young ones stay up and party – guess you know whose kids were in that group.

The best part of the whole vacation was the island people. Fijians have to be the friendliest, happiest people I have ever met. Once you have been a guest at the resort the staff remembers you by name. You are welcomed like a long lost family member. I will never forget the look on Illiessa’s face (the bartender/mayor of the island) when he saw Missie for the first time this year. As I mentioned earlier, it had been four years since he last saw her, and well, let’s just say she has really grown up from the little girl who used to beg him to crack her a coconut with his machete so she could try the milk. He could not believe his eyes when he saw the beautiful young woman she has become.

On Thursday nights, the island staff puts on a Fijian equivalent of a Luau – called a Lovo – complete with roast pig, fresh caught fish, traditional song and dance (Fijian meke warriors are a fierce group, even when they dance) and, of course, kava, the traditional Fijian drink. This is the highlight of the week. The chief, Druku, comes to welcome the group, and there is always a special thank you for the Buniwai (doctor, in Fijian).

That about sums up my week! And now I struggle with jet lag and getting back to reality. But at least I'm left with the memories of the beauty of this island paradise and its people. And I cannot wait to return to my island in the sun.

(If you are interested in more about Tavarua Island, click here.)

Wow, Beth, that's the epitome of paradise, huh. Where do I sign up?! Thank you for allowing us to partake in your vacation experience!

I think I've given you enough to work with this week, but if you're in need of a topic, give this one a go. It came to me as I read the parts about surfing in Beth's report - and no, much as I'm tempted to, I won't ask you to describe your favorite moment in Point Break. Rather, it made me think about risk-taking! Do we have any daredevils in our midst? What's the most adventurous thing you've ever done? Or would like to do?

We're running long, so I'll share my own responses in the Comments. See you there, and have a relaxing weekend, TWibe!

Reading Between the Lines	07/30/2010 - 10:04 AM

by Pete Bodo

Howdy. Isn't in nice to have the Bank of the West Classic at Stanford to kick around, in a good way? It's always good news when the WTA produces a sub-major tournament with story lines that crackle and sizzle like a downed power line. Any number of interesting happenings are developing out there, and suddenly Stanford seems. . . important.

The main draw, down to the quarters, has some compelling match-ups, starting with Elena Dementieva vs. Maria Sharapova—a recently out-of-form Russian (Dementieva) vs. a recently healthy if not match-hardened one (Sharapova). We could do worse than have a Sharapova vs. Victoria Azarenka final—or a Slammin' Sammy Stosur vs. Dementieva match-up for all the marbles.

Comment worthy: Kimiko Date Krumm lost in the 16s to Dementieva in possible the least favorable match-up for the thirty-nine (let me write that again, 39!) year-old Japanese paragon. But Date Krumm gave the athletic, former Olympic singles gold medalist all she can handle.

Date Krumm consistently punches above her weight. She has evolved into something like the ultimate rec player, and I mean that in the best sense—that breed being notorious for competing and/or winning at a much higher level that anyone expects, usually because nothing about her game suggests the consistently high quality of tennis, and sheer number of wins, that she accumulates.

Melanie Oudin has emerged from intensive training to test the waters as the U.S. Open, where she made such a big splash last year, bears down on us. The other day, she produced another signature warrior moment when she recovered from a set and 1-5 deficit against Alexandra Wozniak. Oudin won it, 6-3 in the third. Who says lightning doesn't strike the same place twice, three, four or six times? (And can you tell which girl is which, from these top two images?).

Oudin then lost to surging Victoria Azarenka, who's usually in a snit over something or other, unless she's busy being in turmoil, which appears to be the state in which Azarenka spends way-y-y-y- too much time.

Maybe I'm drinking the Kool-Aid here, because I'd surely love to see another young American of either sex punch through (do you know that, strictly speaking, "gender" is a noun used only in reference to the written word?), but I love Oudin's attitude. Azarenka won, 6-3, 6-1. That's a beatdown, right? A trip to the woodshed. A blow-out. A spanking.

But that isn't how Oudin chose to see it. That's no big deal, "DeNile" is a river that flows through Melbourne, London, Paris and New York—and numerous villages along the valley. What's important is how Oudin analyzed it.  "I had a game point almost every single game," Oudin said. "I don't think she overwhelmed me."

Spank that!

Azarenka has now won eight of her last 10 matches. She said: "For me, it's important to play every single point the same, no matter what the score is." Azarenka has to avoid blowing up. Because sometimes it's like these wins, strung together, are the equivalent of a long fuse—and you know what happens when the fuse burns down to meet the powder. . .

Gosh but you have to feel for Ana Ivanovic, that is if you can slay the green-eyed monster that demands that Ivanovic be humiliated for being given so much, so soon, in no small part because she's such a wholesome and pretty girl. Asked about the decision of the Montreal tournament to deny her a wild card, the struggling former world No. 1 and French Open champion was so honest you almost wanted to look the other way when she said, "I do feel a little hurt and disappointed by their decision."

Ivanovic was put out of Stanford by Marion Bartoli, 6-3, 6-4 the other day. It was Bartoli's first win in four meetings with Ivanovic, whose recent record dropped 3-6. Bartoli is riding high, having won 10 of her last 13 matches, and she's the the No. 4 seed at Stanford (she gets Azarenka today, and that promises to be a head-on collision of two trains hurtling down the same track). Thus, you can excuse a bit of strutting and crowing on Bartoli's part. But she said during her press conference, "When I played Ana before she was on the rise to becoming No. 1 in the world. Now, I finally passed her. Having a higher ranking helped me have confidence and gave me the mental strength to play the game."

Okay, Ivanovic is a big girl. And tennis stardom is always a here-today, gone-tomorrow proposition. Wild success and awful disaster are always separated by just a few swings of the racket. But somebody should pull that Bartoli aside and explain to her that while you should always strive to be honest, you should also always take into the account the impact that plain-speaking may have on the feelings of your subject. Part of being a grown-up is learning how to couch potentially hurtful things in a way that causes the least amount of damage—without withholding the truth. Bartoli might just as easily have said: "I'm a better player now than the previous times we played, and that gave me a lot of confidence and mental strength."

It isn't that I want to be a goody-two shoes here, folks. But let's remember that the opposite is also true: Ivanovic is a lesser player than she was those four times she beat Bartoli. So if she chose to be as tone-deaf as Bartoli, she might have said: "Yeah she beat me today, but I'm playing poorly and that kept me from feeling confident and mentally strong enough to beat her like I have so often in the past."

It's a game two can play, and it gets us nowhere.

A Reaction Party	07/29/2010 - 10:23 AM

by Pete Bodo

Howdy. A sneaky little smile crept across my lips when I opened up our home page today to find it loaded with news suggesting that tennis is alive and well, recovering from the inevitable post-Wimbledon lull. The headlines tease us: Andy Murray cuts loose his coach as he begins the run-up to the U.S. Open (okay, that's "old" news by today, but this story has legs, and is likely to pay the bills for a dozen British reporters for at least a few months), Sam Querrey prevails in a bitter, lengthy duel with Kevin Anderson. . .The Bryan brothers take another step toward the all-time doubles title record. . . Ree-shard Gasquet busts through to the Gstaad quarters. . . Slammin' Sammy Stosur vaults to a career high No. 5 ranking and celebrates by making the third round at Stanford.

So let's stage a reaction party to the news of the day:

Murray: While this news was hardly a surprise (as soon as Murray was out of Wimbledon, strong speculation, supported by on-the-ground intelligence in London, suggested that he was unhappy with his coach, Miles Maclagan), the timing here is interesting. It doesn't seem all that wise to sack your coach and invite the inevitable, transitional turmoil (and deny yourself all those little things that a coach brings to the court on a day-to-day basis to make your life easier—like bottles of your pre-mixed energy drink) with just a few weeks to go in the Grand Slam season (as you can see in the photo above, Jez Green, Murray's strength and conditioning coach, is still very much part of the Murray team).

But let's face it, a player-coach partnership is above all a relationship. And if you've lost faith in it, sustaining it for practical or strategic reasons is a real drain on your mental and emotional energy (ever spend a few days in a hotel room with a girl/boyfriend once you knew it was over?). If you want to look at the bright side, Murray may be thinking it's gut-check time. Time to be a big boy, grab hold of his destiny, and put the knowledge accumulated through the past few years to work. Better to go it alone than with someone in whom you've lost confidence. Maybe it's time for Murray to get in communion with himself, see what he can do relying on his own instincts and accumulated knowledge.

It's easy to make a coach a scapegoat, and hard to work with one in whom you've lost faith. So this move may have a liberating effect on Murray. Let's face it, Murray is not a guy who's ever needed a lot of coaching in the X's and O's department. He's got a real, native, natural feel for strategy. As for technique (I've felt he needs to really sort out his serve), that stuff can wait until the off-season.

So maybe this is less a sign of turmoil than another step in the process of maturation. Another problem to solve and navigate on his way to completing a mission that's proven more complicated than it may once have appeared. I have faith that he'll manage that, because Murray is a born problem-solver (isn't that what video games are all about?). So I'm going to look at the upside and speculate that the liberating effect on Murray will outweigh the negative aspects of going without a coach.

Querrey: Surviving a two-and-a-quarter hour first-round match is always a good thing, but especially so for a defending champion (Querrey is the title-holder at Farmer's Classic in Los Angeles). Tennis is a one-step forward, two-steps back drill for all but the very top players. Let's face it, there's more failure than triumph in tennis, because as many as 127 of 128 players at any given event ends up a loser.

But the benchmark for Top 10 players is consistency, which is not as glamorous a concept or facility as coming up with a hot hand to win the entire shooting match now and then. But it produces a better long-term payoff. This was a good effort by Querrey, it will help his confidence. This is the kind of match you need to survive to become a regular contender at all tournaments.

Bryans: Bob and Mike are on the verge of reaping the rewards for the remarkable fidelity they've shown to the game of doubles, and for how much they've done to keep the game alive, period. Let's not forget that it was just a few years ago that the ATP was seriously considering so emasculating the doubles that the event would become meaningless. And it was the Bryans who led the charge, raising hail with the ATP and threatening a player revolt. The upshot was an organizational re-dedication to doubles. These guys deserve to win that record 62nd title in Los Angeles, near their home, and unless they get so jacked up that their heads simultaneously explode (which is always a possibility with these two), I believe they'll close the deal.

Gasquet: This is a wayward, erratic player and personality whose window is beyond the fully-opened stage and beginning to close. A tournament win would go a long way toward getting him on track to do some damage during the hard-court summer tour, even though Gstaad is a clay-court event. I like tales of redemption, although I'm not entirely sure this guy has enough positive virtues to merit one, or the character to write one. That's okay, though, those virtues aren't obligatory. In tennis, hitting the ball well is the best revenge—and all the justification any player needs.

Stosur: Frankly, I was a little surprised that Stosur melted away so quickly after the clay-court season, but it confirms the counter-intuitive theory that although her game is big, and her bloodlines are Aussie, she's saddled with too many shortcomings to really do well on grass. She must be glad to find herself on hard courts, where she'll find herself on firmer footing. Given that she's emerged as perhaps the quintessential WTA "professional" (it's refreshing to take a break from the diva narrative now and then), I think she's going to pick up right where she left off at the end of the clay segment. Watch out for her as the U.S. Open Series rolls out.

A side note/non sequitor: for about the 1,234th time in my life, I rewrote a paragraph (above) because I realized that in the original I used the gerund form of verbs (as in, headlines informed us of Murray "cutting loose," Querrey "prevailing," the Bryans "taking" and Stosur "vaulting." I'm not sure that it's technically "wrong" to use the gerund when the simple past (or present) is an option. I just know that the gerund is ugly and ungainly and should be used with utmost discretion, only when its absolutely necessary to describe an ongoing action (The Bryans are making progress toward . . .). Journalists are by far the worst gerund abusers. Feel free to join me in the SGH, or Society of Gerund Haters.

With that, I turn it over to you. I have a big weekend, with three of Luke's PS 87 classmates (and parents) coming up for a camping weekend here at the farm. Any idea how many marshmallows I have to buy for making that campfire staple, s'mores?

Courtship Ritual	07/28/2010 - 11:01 AM

By TennisWorld Contributing Editor Andrew Burton

Half a lifetime ago, I came to the US to study International Relations at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.  One of my focus topics was Security Studies, which was run by a group of professors who we'd call neo-cons today.  I think my lasting contribution to Fletcher culture was a verse in a song I wrote for the second year talent show, which highlighted the practice of handing over a neckwear memento to a visiting speaker:

Security Studies brings in the Generals,
To tell you 'bout the Bomb and the SDI.
So the best dressed men at Armageddon
Are bound to be wearing their Fletcher tie.

It was pretty hard to get useful information about our Cold War adversary in the 1980s. If you studied the Soviet Union, you were familiar with the phrase Kremlinology: a practice of looking at the arrangement of figures on the podium during a May Day Parade, and trying to work out who was up and who was down by assessing whether a minister was three places to the right of the General Secretary, or five.

Roger Federer also enjoys a reputation for tightly controlling the information about his future plans - it was just over a year ago that we learned that his wife had been nurturing a future WTA doubles team rather than a potential future ATP singles champion.  So Monday's announcement that Federer has begun exploring a working relationship with Paul Annacone was true to form - a brief "Dear Fans" note on the website, a few eMailed tidbits from Tony Godsick, then radio silence.  I spent much of my day lurking at RF.com, where there was general contentment but very little additional information.  (BTW, the "Next Coach For Roger?" thread there was closed last November at 261 pages, and its replacement is already up to 67.)

Someone at RF.com suggested that things were probably further along than they had been with Darren Cahill in March 2009, since Federer had made an announcement on his own site this time, while the Cahill "demo coach" visit to Dubai had just been leaked to the press (then confirmed by Godsick).  This seemed to fit the bill of Wikipedia's comment on Kremlinology: "In popular culture, the term is sometimes used to mean any attempt to understand a secretive organization or process, such as plans for upcoming products or events, by interpreting indirect clues"

So is Annacone three places to the right of the key man, or two, or one?

Blowed if I know.  I was tipped off the other morning by an eMail from one of TW's regulars, and when I came online to TW at 8am Calgary time Caroline had already posted that Pete had discussed a potential Federer / Annacone pairing as early as June 2007, in a post titled "The Deity's Apprentice."

"Mulling over Roger's options, I made a short list, and then I whittled that one down, too. Who would be the ideal coach for TMF? The answer I came up with is, Paul Annacone."

Beyond just plucking a name from the air, Pete found Annacone's number in his Rolodex and dialed the guy.  It's a fascinating interview - if I had had a chance to talk with Annacone I'd likely have asked about technical stuff, but Pete gets some lovely insights into the psychological dimensions of a player-coach relationship when the player is one of the greats of the Open Era.  The post forms the basis for Pete's follow up yesterday, so if you haven't gone to either piece, well, do take the time to do so.

Since Pete's interview with Paul Annacone three years ago, Federer has mostly relied on his Davis Cup captain, Severin Luthi, for technical support.  Luthi's never quite been seen as the full meal deal, either by the media or by fans.  Federer has had relatively brief dalliances with Jose Higueras in 2008 and Cahill in 2009, but the official line on both is that long term engagements weren't possible because of the time commitments required.  What was a bit odd is that they're supposed to have fallen apart for exactly the opposite reason: here I have a kind of lolcats vision of the conversations:

Higueras:  Roger, I turn down fantastic offer from the USTA to work full time wiv yu!

Federer: Oh noes, I can only work wiv yu for 12 weeks!

Higueras:  Kthxbai.... (sad face)

Six months later:

Cahill:  Roger, I give up TV and adidas for part time work wiv yu!

Federer: Oh noes, I needs full time coach!

Cahill:  Kthxbai..... (sad face)

So Luthi kept his position as consigliere, with Federerologists analyzing snippets from press conferences like Federer-Falla, Roland Garros R64 2010, for signs that Luthi was now The Official Coach.  With the news about Annacone, that possibility seems more remote than ever, but you can expect to see Luthi with Federer in warm up drills over this summer.  Tony Godsick suggested that Annacone might travel to North America for some of the USO Series tournaments if he can work out his LTA commitments, but the Federer organization has taken pains to underline that Luthi hasn't been sent to a re-education camp.

If you just go by the stats, the Luthi Era has been pretty successful.  One YEC in Shanghai, three Masters Shields, and six majors (Wimbledon *2, USO *2, AO and - mirabile dictu - a Roland Garros).  On Majors alone, that puts you in Becker/Edberg territory.  But Federer fans feel there should have been more - more titles, certainly, but more improvement, more of a response to the emerging Land Of The Giants era in the ATP.

I'd count both Jose Higueras and Paul Annacone among these fans.  Both men have talked about how a different set of eyes could help; both have stressed the need to keep improving; and both have conveyed a sense of seeing a supreme talent at work, yet one which wasn't quite fulfilling its potential.  In an April 2009 interview with the New York Times, Annacone mused "He may choose to keep doing what he’s been doing and not tweaking, and that’s his choice as a champion.  But for me it would be a shame. If you have a lot of weapons in your arsenal and choose not to use them, what’s the point in having them?  It’s a matter of managing them a bit differently than he did a few years ago."

When Paul Annacone was talking about Federer's game in 2007, he - like most observers at the time - was asking "how to play Nadal?"  Three years on, he - or anyone else who works with Federer - faces a different set of challenges.  

Nadal is, once again, the main rival - one of the unquestioned greats of the Open Era, a threat on all surfaces.  There are the new Big Hitters - Del Potro, Soderling, Berdych and (maybe) Gulbis.  There are structural holes in Federer's game that weren't there in 2007 - there are long periods in matches where the flattened forehand, the moneymaker shot, falls apart, and the backhand topspin passing shot is now seen as frequently at Federer's matches as the twins are.  Some fans point to the new family travel arrangements as a fatal distraction.  And then there's the question of hunger - a 25 year old player with 10 major titles to his name is competing against history, and a 28 year old player with 16 is competing with - what?

The what, in the end, isn't a number - it isn't a ranking, or a record, or set of records, or a collection of miniature trophies.  It's an honest assessment that Federer made the fullest use of all his talent, not just for a few years, but to the end of his career - however far out in the future that is.  In the mythology of Federer's rise, there's the suggestion that the death in 2002 of his first coach, Peter Carter, both acted as a spur to greatness and a psychological warning not to invest emotionally in another coaching relationship.  Pete Bodo is much more attuned than I am to the psychological forces that shape the way players behave, but it may take a significant shift on Federer's part to genuinely benefit from a top flight coach - to honestly accept that his own considerable talents and knowledge of the game has helped to steer him into a cul-de-sac, albeit in a very fancy neighborhood.

For my part, I think this is a very positive move: when Paul Annacone announced that he was leaving the LTA in May of this year, the chance that he might join Federer became a real possibility.  I knew, of course, that Annacone worked for years with Pete Sampras, and since 2007 Federer has worked hard to build and deepen a relationship with Sampras.  But I had forgotten until Monday that Annacone also worked with Tim Henman, who for many years was one of Federer's closest friends on the tour.  So the chances that either Federer or Annacone goes into this trial period with little knowledge of the other's personality, style and approach to the business of tennis seems pretty remote.

Federer's losses to Soderling, Hewitt and Berdych in the two months after Annacone's announcement have only highlighted the urgency of the situation.  After Federer lost to Berdych four weeks ago, I wrote to one of my TW buddies "I sincerely hope he snaps up Annacone when he becomes available."  I hadn't expected Federer to make his move before the US Open, but I'm not complaining in the slightest. 

How will we know if this move is successful?  Well, we'll know for sure that it's been a failure if the trial ends the same way the Cahill session ended - with warm words sometime in August, and an eyebrow raising story about how things slipped through their fingers ("I had no idea that Roger wasn't ready to switch to a two handed backhand.  After years of trying to persuade Pete and Tim to change, I'd promised myself never to work with a one hander again.  Still, Roger's a class act.")

But most Federer fans are telling themselves to give it time - one promised, tongue in cheek, not to get too distressed if Federer failed to win Toronto, Cincinnati and the US Open this year without dropping a set.  I'll be watching two things in particular - well, three.  The return game, Federer's choices on transition plays, and that blasted backhand pass.  If we see positive changes in any or all of these by the end of the year, my prediction is that the results will start to follow.

I am going to disagree with Pete (and some of my good friends on the InterTubes) on one possible change:  I don't foresee Federer travelling without Mirka and the twins for the next three years.  In fact, I'll make a friendly bet with Pete that Federer will still be on the tour three years from now, and Mirka will still be courtside for the majority of his matches, Blackberry or IPhone 6 in hand.  Whether Paul Annacone is sitting next to her is the question du jour.

Even Superpowers need to change, but (ask Mikhail Gorbachev), reconstruction, or perestroika, is a tricky business.  We're likely to see, over the next few months, how much change Roger Federer is prepared to embrace: for the last three years, on court at least, the answer has been "not much."  The possibility of change is exciting, but it's also scary.  Any attempt to bring about major reform carries with it huge downside risks as well.  Be careful what you wish for.

-- Andrew

Room Service for Two	07/27/2010 - 1:44 PM

by Pete Bodo

The pool of specialists at the apex of any field is relatively small, so it's hardly surprising that Roger Federer has made an aggressive move to address his declining fortunes by hiring Paul Annacone, the coach best known for shepherding Pete Sampras through his glory years. I felt this was a good fit two years ago (feel free to check out my original post on the subject, based partly on an extensive conversation with Annacone), and I still believe that if there's a right guy for Federer, it's Annacone.

A lot can change in tennis in a few years. Annacone finished with Sampras not long after Pete played—and won—his last major in 2002. Annacone went on to coach Tim Henman and work in the developmental trenches for both the USTA and British Lawn Tennis Association. But developing youngsters and dealing with bureaucrats never seemed to be the best use of Annacone's talents, among which the most valuable one might be his grasp of a thoroughbred tennis champion's way of thinking. As he told me two years ago:

"I honestly felt Pete was the best player I ever saw. I felt like the biggest thing I could do was figure out what I wanted to say, and find the way he needed to hear it. Because the great ones are tricky that way. They need the support and reassurance, because they live with a tremendous amount of self-inflicted pressure. But they also like to have that pressure alleviated, without feeling that someone else is doing that for them."

The aspects of Annacone's personality and methodology that ought to make this a good fit aren't based on evolving theories of tennis technique or strategy. Federer is a fully formed player and a consummate professional, closer to the end of his career than the beginning. He's done the heavy lifting of career already (16 Grand Slam singles titles). Clearly, he wants to squeeze the last drops of juice out of the orange, a task that ought to be a relatively easy undertaking. But it's never that simple for the Federers and Samprases of the world, because of the pressure they feel—can't help but feel—as the chorus of critics grows more and more voluble. And as the currents of age erode the bedrock of their talents.

It drove Sampras nuts, near the end of his career, when all anyone wanted to know was, "When are you going to retire?" Sampras was convinced that his well of greatness had not run dry, but he grew quietly desperate. He couldn't banish the voices of those critics and pundits from his head. He ended up firing Annacone and thrashing around with a few other coaches (ironically, Jose Higueras, a former part-time coach of Federer's, was one of them) before he swallowed his pride and re-hired Annacone to make a final, successful push.

Federer isn't in such desperate, late-career straits. But we can assume from his decision to revisit (for what, the third, fifth, ninth time?) the issue of whether or not he needs a coach that his recent inconsistency and failure at the last two Grand Slam tournaments has cut deeper than he originally let on.

So, does Federer need a coach? Absolutely not.

Will Federer's life be easier and the frustrations and obstacles be made more navigable if he has a coach?  Absolutely.

Annacone was not a coach cum travel agent cum bag carrier cum pizza runner. Pete Sampras was not a player who needed or wanted a valet masquerading as a coach. Theirs was a relationship of mature men, committed to a common purpose—Sampras's pursuit of greater glory (I'm confident saying that, having been Sampras's co-author on his autobiography, A Champion's Mind). Annacone's job could just as appropriately be termed "wingman." It's valuable to feel like you've got someone watching your back when untold legions are trying to stick a knife in it.

The independent-minded, self-starting, semi-control freak Federer never really needed a wingman when the times were good. Oh, he had plenty of help along the way early in his career, starting with the late Peter Carter, who coached Federer through his formative teenage years (Carter was killed in an automobile accident at age 37 in August of 2002). But Federer achieved greatness and fulfilled his potential as something of a savant and loner. And once the times became good for Federer, they stayed good. That helps explain why none of his coaching relationships after Carter's death really seemed dynamic, or especially productive. Now, his smooth road has become bumpy.

Great players often have to re-invent themselves, in their own minds if not in a way that's conspicuous to most fans. Federer's new identity is likely to have a slightly harder edge; he won't be seen as floating above it all, but as a veteran grappling with the assorted frustrations, challenges and setbacks that accompany the aging of a player. Annacone will certainly help him understand and deal with those; he'll prop him up in those moments when Federer will be tempted to feel bitter, or self-doubting. What Federer is really saying, with this hire, is that he's in it for the long haul. We should all be glad for that, because he could just as easily have decided to play out the string quietly, thinking, Who needs this? Who needs to keep hearing, Federer is finished, or, What's wrong with Federer?

It's somewhat eerie that Annacone himself was hired after Sampras lost Tim Gullikson, who, like Carter, died an tragic and untimely death (Gullickson, who brought Sampras to the threshold of greatness, died of brain cancer in 1996). It's one of those things that will bond coach and player together, even if it's discussed rarely, in a quiet moment over a room service dinner for two.

Which brings up another, slightly mundane aspect of Federer's decision: His children will be toddlers soon, and I doubt that Federer's wife, Mirka, will want to be dragging them around the globe, dropping them off at the tournament day care center while she sits in the player guest box, playing with her Blackberry. Federer seems dedicated to spending a fair amount more time on airplanes, and in hotel and locker rooms. He's likely to become a dad who goes to work every day and travels a fair amount, while his wife and children build a home life. It will be good for him to have a companion on the road.

It used to drive Annacone slightly batty when Sampras would choose to play on an opponent's terms, rather than his own, just to show that he could do it and still win. Before Pete played a guy like that, Paul would gently remind him, "Just go out and show him you're Pete Sampras, and he's not. Shut him down."

In the coming months and years, Federer will likely need to be reminded from time to time that he's Roger Federer and the other guy is not. Annacone is the right man to do that reminding, for he knows what words to use, and what those words suggest Federer do when it comes to the X's and Os of the game. About which Annacone also knows a great deal. 

Check in tomorrow for more on this development by TW contributor—and Federer expert—Andrew Burton.

Wanted: An American Renewal	07/26/2010 - 2:22 PM

by Pete Bodo

It was a pleasure to see American players make their presence felt at the ATP event in Atlanta last week. The hard-court season is an eight-week affair ending with the championship matches at the U.S. Open, which makes this a two-month celebration of the game in the U.S.—a pleasant mission that goes well beyond merely seeing, or wanting to see, U.S. players do well. It's about hosting and showing the rest of the world what you've got, talent as well as spectacle-wise.

Of course, any party is less successful than it ought to be if the host is shrinking violet, or doesn't figure prominently in the festivities. I'm hoping that Atlanta, while a "minor" ATP 250 event, sets a good tone for the summer, and that the American boys and girls can can make their mark over the next few weeks now that the U.S. Open Series has kicked into high gear with significant hard-court events in Stanford (WTA) and Los Angeles.

If you want to see just how big an undertaking this USO Series is, just check out the television schedule. We're talking over 50 hours of coverage for the eight events that are sub-Masters or Grand Slam events. That's good for tennis.

Unfortunately, the USO Series subdivision at the U.S. Open website is sorely lacking a historical or archival section, which it makes it that much harder to assess the situation. But I've always felt the USO Series, the brainchild of former USTA CEO Arlen Kantarian, was a stroke of genius. It created a logical, easily understood template for the entire post-Wimbledon summer of tennis, despite the flurry of clay-court events just coming to an end. This series-style approach is possible at only two majors, the U.S. and French Opens. The opportunity to build momentum from week to week to a grand (slam) finale is a tremendous asset at every level.

The length of time and number of events in the USO Series may seem like overkill, especially when the U.S. can no longer seed the events with top American players. But that's only because this is an enormous country; if the major clay-court meetings of spring took place mostly in France (let's not forget the important role of Canada in the USO Series) it would be a lot easier to pull together a comparable Roland Garros Series. It's also fair to wonder why anyone would really feel a desire or need to do that, to get all maniacal and stressed out about templates and systems. The answer is simple: the USO Series approach was predicated on the idea that a rising tide lifts all boats. Link all the tournaments together in a compelling way and everyone benefits. 

Anecdote: Bill Oakes, the director of the Atlanta tournament, told me a few days ago that he was delighted that his new (although "resurrected" might be a better word) tournament was part of the USO Series: "We're automatically part of something bigger than ourselves, part of a longer, ongoing story, and we become part of the U.S. Open Series integrated broadcast schedule, plus we get Hawkeye—all of which are valuable to us as we try to build this event."

I confess I'm not sure how the Hawkeye angle works (does the USTA provide Hawkeye, as part of it's constituents' package?), but the rest of Oakes comment is self-explanatory.

The wisdom of this Series approach has been confirmed by better overall television ratings, even though the past four or five years haven't exactly been boom years for U.S. tennis. But one of the more disappointing failures of the USO Series is the relative lack of support its generated among top players. Thankfully, some diligent tennis geek has gathered the historical and statistical information that the USTA ignores and posted it in a Wikipedia entry (there's a good reason to donate to the Wikipedia cause).

In 2004, the first year of the formal USO Series, the top three male finishers, respectively, were: Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick and Andre Agassi. On the WTA side, they were Lindsay Davenport, Amelie Mauresmo and Elena Likhovtseva. Last year, the corresponding top three were: Sam Querrey, Andy Murray and Juan Martin del Potro; and Elena Dementieva, Flavia Pennetta and Jelena Jankovic.

In 2004, the top finishers among men owned a total of 11 Grand Slam titles (eight contributed by Agassi) The three best women had a total of three (all won by Davenport, although Mauresmo was on the cusp of her best phase). Last year's top six finishers (male and female) have exactly one major title between—the one del Potro earned at the U.S. Open.

Sure, it's crass to talk about money, or reduce everything to least-common denominator commercial terms. But the "Bonus Challenge" offered to players who perform well through the USO Series is noteworthy, and the players ignore it only because they're spoiled, and beyond the reach of the kind of financial incentives that even on a far smaller scale drive so many of our lives.

The male and female singles champions at the U.S. Open will earn a record $1.7 million this year; with the USO Series bonus incentives, those champions could walk away with an extra million ($2.7) by finishing atop the USO Series standings. And that's above and beyond the money they'll earn at the individual series events.

I know, it's funny money. Crazy money. Dough that makes you want to scream, But children are starving in Ethopia! But let's set that aside for now. It's also "who cares?" money to the Rafael Nadals and Serena Wiliamses of this world, because they're more careful about not doing things for "just" money, while the rest of us schmoes find ourselves doing all kinds of things just for money. Lucky them.

But the fact that the money is there is encouraging, and vital to the health of the game we've created and supported. If and when that money goes away, the players will dissolve into the woodwork, too. And pretty soon we'll have another one of those "Is Tennis Dying?" crises . . . Nobody cares about money when they've got it, and those who have it don't like talking about it, often for reasons that aren't particularly noble. I hope the investment in the USO Series (Olympus has been the main sponsor) continues to be considered worthwhile.

Roger Federer reaped the rewards of the Bonus Challenge in 2007, taking home $2.4 million. In 2005, Kim Clijsters was the successful double-dipper, carting off $2.2 million after she won the singles. Nice work if you can get it, but I'm not sure enough of the most eligible candidates are applying for the job anymore.

All of this leads me to take a slightly altered view of the tennis landscape today. It seems like we now have a year that's fundamentally divided in halves. The first half of the year ends, figuratively as well as literally, with the final day of Wimbledon. That concludes a competition-dense schedule featuring three Grand Slam events, and the majority of Masters Series events on a combination of the two most common surfaces, hard and clay courts. More and more, it seems, the players do the heavy lifting of career in the first half of each year.

The second half is dominated by a major event (the U.S. Open), and three lesser ones: the respective year-end championships, and the Davis and Fed Cup finals. The USO Series represents a brave and in many ways visionary attempt to invest the second half of the year with the sense of importance that exists continuously in the first half. Were it a complete success, it would certainly constitute a bold bit of entrepreneurial maneuvering and meet anyone's definition for maximizing the potential of the sport. But it's pretty clear that despite the professional, well thought out template provided by the USO Series, it's getting more and more difficult to recruit top players and build momentum—not just for the U.S. Open, but for the entire second half of the tennis year. I wish that could be different.

The downstream effect of the divided year probably is signficant. The respective WTA and ATP year-end championships have lost traction (at least until the ATP division moved to London) in the ongoing drive to convince the public that they're tennis milestones no less significant than the Grand Slam events. The amounts of money earned by the top players also hurts this effort, because it blunts their incentive in the second half. If you were a Nadal or Justine Henin, you probably wouldn't be all that eager to go out to break rocks under the hot August sun in the U.S. and Canada, either.

The situation is unlikely to change until such time as the U.S. begins to produce great champions again. English speakers, like Murray and Hewitt, are a pretty good stand-in (and they've shown pretty strong support for the hard-court circuit), but one of the great hidden byproducts of an American tennis renewal would be the impact it might have on the USO Series. Incidentally, Venus and Serena Williams have pulled their weight, although the Olympic Games schedule for 2008 pulled them off the USO Series courts. In 2009, Venus and Serena both played Stanford, Cincinnati and Canada leading up the the U.S. Open, and that's a respectable duty sheet. But it's a mind-blowing statistic that neither Williams sister has ever finished among the Top 3 in the USO Series standings going into the American major.

John Isner, Sam Querrey, Mardy Fish and Andy Roddick may energize the U.S. base this summer, but those other boys—Roger and Rafa, Andy and Novak—sure cast a long shadow.

Small Pond, Big Fish	07/25/2010 - 8:04 AM

by Pete Bodo

Now that you've forgiven me the pun, can we move on to the order of business for today?

Well, it's pretty clear that short of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal falling to their knees and begging the Atlanta tournament for wild cards, the newest ATP Tour event got almost exactly what it wanted: a warm and friendly homecoming to Atlanta, and a pile of U.S. players to keep a classic, conservative audience happy. Sure, it's a small-pond kind of tournament that's bound to churn out an order-of-merit considerably different from the one produced by a Masters 1000 event, never mind a Grand Slam meeting. But that troubles the local fans in Georgia, denied professional tournament tennis for about a decade, not at all.

You probably couldn't have scripted a better story line for the promoters in Atlanta.So maybe the wrong guy did end up in the final. It seemed less egregious an offense because the "wrong" guy happened to be an American as well. Mardy Fish took Andy Roddick's place in the final (reservations for that show are not taken; it's strictly first-come, first-served), prevailing over his countryman in the semfinals, 7-6, 6-3.

Fish will play John Isner for the title today. I wouldn't be surprised if Fish scooped up the win: Isner had to play during the peak of a very hot yesterday (the temperature on court was reportedly as high a 147, and at that point what's the difference, fahrenheit or Celsius - either way it's hell fire), whereupon he conducted another of his typical campaigns, which can best be described as a strategic combination of aerial bombardment and bitter, see-sawing, inch-at-a-time trench warfare.

But Isner ultimately prevailed over Kevin Anderson, who's one measly inch shorter than Isner at 6-8, has a similar playing sensibility, and whose name sounds American enough to have fooled most casual spectators. Anderson is a South African, although you wouldn't know it from his CV, which includes a stint at the University of Illinois, where his most dangerous and bitter collegiate rival was - yep, John Isner. So you could almost say Atlanta had an all-American semifinals, little matters of passport aside.

Isner won that battle in the vicious heat,  6-3 in the third, and what would a match involving Long John Isner be without the obligatory "critical tiebreaker?" Well, it occurred in the second set, and losing it prevented Isner from closing out the match neatly, 6-3, 7-6. His consolation is that he showed great reserves of stamina - and patience -  in climbing back up the hill after sliding all the way to the bottom. But now Isner must face Fish in a fairly drained state, a condition with which he's had some recent experience (just ask Thiemo de Bakker).

And let's not forget that Fish is no slouch himself in the big-and-tall department (he's 6-2, but no longer quite as impressive in the "big" department, having shed 30 pounds of bacon, cheese and hamburger since last year at this time). And he's on a bit of a roll. This is the third time he's made a final in his last four tournaments (he's 1-1 for in those championships), which is a great omen as the U.S. hard court season rolls out.

Fish lost the final at Queens on grass to Sam Querrey, but that was still a major success for Fish, because while he has the massive serve and adept net game that, in combination, can still pay off on grass, he doesn't really have the requisite quickness on turf. He's a hard-court guy, and a pretty good example of the kind of asphalt player whose versatility and familiarity with the net  can threaten even the most adept of the baseline huggers.

And before I go, I must say that if Serena Williams or Maria Sharapova got as much mileage out of their successive Grand Slam fashion statements as Mardy Fish gets out of that "sockless wonder" look, the folks at Nike or wherever would be doing handsprings. I mean, only Ashley Harkleroad has gotten more mileage out of baring portions of her anatomy that are generally covered up, albeit we're talking about different body parts here. The roadside sign in Fish's case appears to say: Metrosexualville: 123 Miles. Maybe I've got too much time on my hands, but I have thought about this. Why would wearing shorties instead of standard-issue socks seem so. . . odd. . . so noticeable?

The truth, I must say, is that we associate those anklets with women's tennis, in which they are de rigeur - going all the way back to the day when teen-agers seemed to be in competition to see how many of those tiny colored pom poms they could leave dangling out of the heel cup of their tennis shoes). I don't know that I would particularly call this anything like "sexism." The issue just doesn't measure up as one with significant repercussions - or any other kind of repercussions. I guess Jelena Jankovic would seem just as much a curiosity if she decided to wear the typical male pro's regular-length sock, and thank God that Princess of the Steppes hasn't thought that an option.

In fact, I remember one or another WTA pro who did wear standard socks (can anyone help me out?), but nobody said too much about it, at least not in a voice loud enough for others to hear. Double standard, or politesse? I'll go with the latter, being more comfortable than many with the idea that men and women needn't be treated equally in all ways.

Well, enjoy the tennis today, everyone. I'll be back with y'all tomorrow.

And, oh yes, hat tip to Jurgen Melzer, the 29-year old Austrian who's in the final on red clay in Hamburg, a tournament one rung higher on the ATP food chain (Hamburg is an ATP 500; Atlanta is a 250). Melzer is 29 and playing the best tennis of his life. He was in the semifinals at Roland Garros, and quarters at Wimbledon (where he also won the doubles, with Philipp Petzschner). He' s 16-6 on clay, which spells trouble for his opponent today, Kazakhstan's Andrey Golubev, who's won just eight tour-level matches this year before Hamburg, but hasn't dropped a set this week and upset Nikolay Davydenko enroute to his date with Melzer.

The Deuce Club, 7.23	07/23/2010 - 6:30 PM

By Jackie Roe, TW Social Director

• Not a memory, but summer's my favorite season, by far; I'm convinced our favorite seasons coincide with our birthday months (mine's June). High heat - even high humidity - rarely fazes me.

• When I was a kid, summers were spent playing outdoors with my sister. We'd ride our bikes, dance through sprinklers, playact, pet the neighbors' dogs, run furiously from bees.

• I recall a memorable summer vacation with my family to Jamaica, where I did nothing but swim, eat (jerk chicken, memorably, back in my carnivorous days), and hoard aloe vera.

• Another erstwhile summer highlight - going to the annual Beatlefest. I wrote about this briefly in a DC post in 2008 and figured I'd just reproduce the text here: The convention was a paradise for Beatles followers, and our favorite spot was the studio where fans could record their own demos. My parents were thrilled that my sister and I would have the opportunity to perform somewhere besides the backseat of our station wagon. I remember stepping up to the stage with my sister and reviewing the lyrics to "You're Gonna Lose that Girl" while the recording engineer prepared the backing track. Then, the music hit, and we were transported to that backseat, belting out the song as if we'd been doing it our entire lives. At that point, we sort of had.

• Still others: Buying our cocker spaniel, trips to the Art Institute and the Ravinia Festival, daily doses of ice cream.

• Then there were the years when summer meant uncertainty, when I craved structure, when I wasn't working but should've been, when I looked forward to freedom but felt guilty for taking advantage of it. Summers at this time felt too removed from my "normal" life, wherein I was productive and motivated.

• Later were the summers defined by work. Back in grad school, I spent a summer as a research assistant for the head of the Communication department. No vacations for me ... but I did get into a routine of lugging my comm journals to the campus rec center and doing "research" poolside, under the sun. That counts?
  

• And now summers spell tennis. I stockpile my vacation days during the first half of the year (let's disregard the week in Indian Wells) so that I can soak up as much tennis action as my pocketbook will allow in August. It'll be hard to imagine a summer without live tennis - I hope it never comes to that.

Take care, TWibe!

P.S. Happy birthday to the Federbabies!

Another Shot at Glory	07/23/2010 - 3:05 PM

by Pete Bodo

Howdy. The good news for today is that according to the USTA, Juan Martin del Potro is hitting tennis balls again. Can't you just hear those poor fuzzy yellow tennis balls' reaction when Delpo pulls back the pop-top on a plastic cylinder of balls with an audible hissss?

Oh, no! It's Juan Martin! We're going to be living in a world of hurt, boys! Why oh why can't this be...Kimiko Date Krumm or someone!

Of course, the USTA has a vested interest in Delpo punishing Mr. or Miss Wilson, as the tall, long-muscled del Potro is the defending champion at the U.S. Open. This morning, I posted some thoughts on the subject over at ESPN. I'm of the opinion that Delpo is the U.S. Open "X" factor. Whether he plays or not, and how well he plays, could have a decisive impact on the outcome.

After all, Delpo set the parameters for the men who have given Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and others a load of trouble over the past 18 months. In some ways, he made Robin Soderling and Tomas Berdych possible. I have no doubt that those two equally tall, rangy pros took note when Delpo produced his (thus far) career-defining match, that win over Federer in last year's final at Flushing Meadows.

I have to assume that del Potro is burning to defend his U.S. Open title. He's just 21, an age when young men going places don't particularly like sitting back with their feet up. But that's just what del Potro has had to do since he injured his wrist in January. I imagine he remained in shape and has continued to work on his still developing body, but there's no substitute, satisfaction-wise, for playing live matches. Nor any kind of training that prepares you for the real-time stress of competition.

Of course, we're assuming that if Delpo continues to make progress and experience no further complications with his wrist, he'll want to be ready for the U.S. Open. And that almost demands that he play at least one event before the big show in Queens. Or does it?

It's also possible that Delpo is looking at his title defense in New York as the warm-up for his primary goal—helping Argentina, the best nation never to win the Davis Cup, survive the semifinals and thus earn yet another shot at the most coveted team prize in tennis, the Davis Cup. It sounds zany, but that's how it is for some people in some nations. And Argentina is full of proud folks who put a lot of stock in how well their athletes represent the nation.

David Nalbandian, one of the most maddeningly inconsistent of all pros, put Argentina in the position to earn another shot at Davis Cup glory with a truly heroic performance on a hard court in Moscow a few weeks ago, when he won both his singles (despite having to skip ATP tour and Grand Slam play most of this year). His straight-sets win over Mikhail Youzhny in the decisive fifth rubber is one of the best clutch performances in recent memory. Once Nalbandian did the heavy lifting, helping Argentina get the Davis Cup monkey off its back became a realistic possibility for Delpo and company. And I believe that's a piece of unfinished business that means a great deal to this group of Argentine players. You don't have to take my word for it; Delpo himself has said that his goal is to be ready for the Davis Cup semis. Note that he said nothing about defending his U.S. Open title, although I assume that's on his to-do list as well. But not in the top spot.

Remember, here's this little matter of atonement in play, too—another incentive for Delpo to make a contribution in the semis, and for Nalbandian to build the rest of his year around this singular mission. For Argentina's loss to Spain (which was without Rafael Nadal, and thus a heavy underdog) in the 2008 final, in Guillermo Vilas' hometown of Mar del Plata, was nothing short of a disaster for the baby-blue-and-white.

Granted, del Potro had just turned 20, and while he was already 4-1 at the time in Davis Cup singles, and coming off his breakout run (he won four consecutive tournaments, two on clay and two on hard, leading up to the 2008 U.S. Open), the occasion seemed to overwhelm him. Rampant rumors of silly bickering and turf wars on the Argentine side made the failure against Spain seem that much more embarrassing, and had to leave a bad taste in the mouth of the Argentine players.

Argentina will go to France for the semis, and that's by no means a gimme tie. But the French are likely to choose a hard-court surface and an indoor arena (an enclosed space only increases the unnerving effect a home crowd has on a visiting team), and that plays as much into the stylistic strengths of Delpo and Nalbandian as the French one-two punch of Gael Monfils and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga.

But Tsonga is a big question mark—in more ways than one—for the French. Even if he overcomes his injuries and can play, he just doesn't seem like Davis Cup timber. Tsonga is erratic, for one thing (so is Nalbandian, but much less so in Davis Cup), but more important, he doesn't seem have the kind of focus and stamina that seem so valuable in Davis Cup. Would you trust him in a five-set, no-fifth-tiebreaker format, on clay? And would you trust another singles player, besides Gael Monfils, to step up and challenge the veteran Nalbandian and a fit and eager del Potro?

If Argentina gets by France, it gets to host the winner of the Czech Republic vs. Serbia semi. Just a year ago, Argentina lost a squeaker to the Czechs, 2-3—through no fault of Delpo's. He won both of his singles, but Juan Monaco was overmanned and Tomas Berdych and Radek Stepanek proved too tough in the doubles for Leonardo Mayer and Jose Acasuso. This time, the Argentines would host, so even if recently-married—and recently injured—Stepanek is in the mix, Argentina will be the favorite.

Should Serbia beat the Czech Republic, Novak Djokovic and company would also have to travel to Argentina for the final (the two teams haven't met since 1964, when Serbia was still part of Yugoslavia, and a 5-0 winner at home over Argentina). Again, you have to like Argentina's chances in that one, although Djokovic is the only top player who still seems to have Delpo's number. He's 3-0 against Delpo, but they haven't played since Rome in 2008, back when Delpo was still wet behind the ears.

The upshot is that Argentina has a great chance to redeem itself and secure that first Davis Cup final win, and my feeling is that Juan Martin del Potro really wants to be a part of that. I know that Nalbandian, as he approaches the twilight of his career, does.

So as far as del Potro is concerned, maybe we'll be looking at the U.S. Open as a tune-up tournament for the Davis Cup semifinals. It's just crazy enough to be possible, which ought to make many of the contenders more focused on the final major of the year breath a little easier.

Party Like It's 1979	07/22/2010 - 3:28 PM

by Pete Bodo

The Atlanta Tennis Championships is well underway, and it's an appropriate way to ease into the summer hard-court season. This is the way it used to be back in the day—a significant club (the Atlanta Athletic Club, which has over 2,000 members) opening up its doors, its courts, its Olympic-sized pool and its nachos concession to the itinerant tennis pros and fans in a setting that is casual, intimate and conducive to a great spectating experience. That's what you get when the capacity of your stadium is 5,000 and you find a way to host an ATP Tour event.

Of course, back in the theoretical day, you might have been able to watch  a Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Pete Sampras or Andre Agassi out there, limbering up for the long slog to the U.S. Open, but the world has moved on. To Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray or Novak Djokovic, "Atlanta" might just as well be "Atlantis." But the likes of Andy Roddick, Mardy Fish, James Blake, Robby Ginepri and John Isner are providing the southern U.S. city with something like equal value. Americans like watching Americans, and that's especially true in a market like Atlanta—the U.S. deep south.

Lest this seem like so much American provincialism, let's remember that the Spanish like watching their countrymen, and you couldn't schedule enough Frenchmen at Roland Garros to completely satisfy the Parisian crowd. This is the time of year to celebrate American tennis, and if we can no longer party like it's 1979, we can at least watch very good players try to navigate around the obstacle presented by a reinvigorated Lleyton Hewitt. He's an Aussie, but he shares many of the temperamental qualities found in our boys here in fist-pump of a nation. Just think of Atlanta as the American Barcelona.

This morning, I called Bill Oakes, the Atlanta tournament director, just to see how things were going down there. After all, it's not the best of times, in any number of ways, to hit the reset button on a long-gone event. And Oakes was the TD in the Atlanta event's previous incarnation, until it evaporated in 2001.

"We've had great crowds so far," Oakes said. "We even had great crowds for the qualifying event, which was a little surprising. People have always come up to me to say it's too bad that Atlanta tennis people are players, not watchers. But even back in 2001, only two events, other than the U.S. Open or Masters events, drew larger crowds than ours in Atlanta. I felt like I was spitting into the wind, going around trying to convince people that this thing could still work."

The problem, for those nine years, was the common one. "Look," Oakes said, calling up an interesting analogy. "The National Football League would love to have a team in Los Angeles, but if an owner who wants to put one there can't find a franchise to buy, there's no point."

This was a good move all around. Atlanta purchased its franchise, in reality it's calendar week, from the promoters of the event that gradually fell the wayside in Indianapolis. This is a net gain for tennis, though, given the overlap that always existed between Cincy and Indy. For a long time, those two established tennis cities had to be content with hosting tournaments just weeks apart. Thus, they competed for the many of the same fans and players, and saturated one geographical market while others—like Atlanta—went hungry. Now, Atlanta also has a piece of the pie.

The U.S. players aren't blind to these issues, and the ongoing struggle to keep the U.S. Open Series intact and relevant. When Andy Roddick stepped up to take a wild card into Atlanta, it triggered a surge of ticket sales, and Oakes was delighted when Roddick expressed a desire to play doubles as well. As a result, today's schedule features two U.S. doubles teams in action: Roddick and Mardy Fish, and James Blake and John Isner. And yes, they are on opposite sides of the draw. If they win through to the final, we'll have an entirely new theme to replace What's wrong with American tennis, anyway?  It will be: Have we become a nation of doubles specialists? (Not that there's anything wrong with that. . .).

The best U.S. doubles team, Bob and Mike Bryan, aren't playing Atlanta. Neither is Sam Querrey. They're the only U.S. players with high name value to miss the tournament. Oakes said they simply couldn't fit it into their schedules.

If you want to get a quick tour of the Atlanta Athletic Club, click here. Robby Ginepri does a pretty good job hosting this video, and the ATP's Greg Sharko swore it was all done in one take. I'd say Ginepri has a future in broadcasting. I especially like it when the camera pans on the fun zone for kids, and Ginepri says, "If the kids get tired of watching the tennis, they can come here and go nuts on the blow-up entertainment." It made me smile.

Hey, why not?  Those kids' parents can amuse themselves with the tennis, reveling in the fact that no matter what happens in tonight's match between Roddick and Rajeev Ram, the U.S. will have placed five men in the singles quarterfinals: Roddick (or Ram), Isner, Fish, Taylor Dent and Michael Russell.

Not bad for a nation of doubles specialists.