This Wozn't the way it woz supposed to go... giggidy, Whoever wins wins, I'm pretty impartial on WTA matches

Woz is down, shocker, whre is Sam Elin?

Nam, I had classes all day, just got in, but from the look of the score I should have stayed in class. Kom sa, Caro.

Can anybody fill me in, What happened to my girl? Thanks.

Samantha, Caroline is a bit nervous at the moment. Hopefully she can regroup in time.

It's a pretty even match, at least off the ground. Probably the big difference is that Zvonereva is serving better and is actually out-steadying Wozniacki, which is suprising. Woz also seems a bit flat and the forehand is flying more than usual.

The match discussion for this semi seems to be happening on the "Got Sleep?" thread.

It doesn't look good at all, I'm so disapointed.

Vera is on fire......But she is prone to chokes, lets wait and see. I would love to see a Wozniack and Venus in the final. I was just thinking, for the all the hype there about Fedal final, if they both fail to make it to the final. We can make them play for the third place:-). I don't wanna imagine a final between Djokovic vs Youzhny. Just doesn't right.

Congrats to Vera, she deserved the win. Good job Caro in making it to the semi and having a break out win. If Vee wins, I think she can beat Vera, but Vera had Kim's number all year and I think will win it. I'm kind of glad I missed that match.

Talking about narratives:

For me, it has to be a Fedal or Nadal-Djoko final. My order of desired winner: Rafa, Nole, Federer. I think Rafa winning is the best narrative, 2nd: Nole winning. Federer already had his 16, so his story is the least important at this moment.

Sam E, explain how losing in the semis is a breakout win for Wozniacki when she made the final last year and was the hottest player on tour coming into the tournament? Too bad, she has been playing great anyway. And she looked smokin hot in that dress.

Woz looked like a world beater, when everything went smootly from the get go. But when she found herself in position, where she has to change something, her lack of self-relience showed. She is too dependent on her father; and in Slams he is not allowed to come and put some sense in her. As a result she looked lost.

Vie, I think it would a nice surprise for Youzhny to win his first major.Unfortunately he is on the wrong side of the draw:-) I want Rafa to win a career grand slam and he has never been this close.

rafaholic, that would indeed be a nice surprise for Youzhny. Quite improbable and not so attractive a narrative though, don't you think, considering things within Youzh experience and prospectives.

Hi everybody

Why Rafa and Youz are playing before Federer and Nole if they have just one day to rest? I think should be the opposite

Shelock, I love your comments, you are straight and not two faces

When I talk about The Narrative, I mean a storyline which neatly encapsulates conventional wisdom, giving a journalist a ready-made framework with which to write a story or report without looking too far below the surface.

For example: "In the Australian Open 2010, Roger Federer showed once again that you can never write off the greatest player of our time, and Andy Murray showed once again that he isn't ready for prime time. Federer's effortless movement and devastating shot making in this tournament has been as good as it's ever been, while tonight Murray was hesitant, tentative and unsure, particularly on the big points. The closest Murray came to the Swiss star was when he admitted after the match that "I can cry like Roger, it's a pity I can't play like him." Back atop the tennis world, Federer has served notice that he's hungry for more titles."

That's a (made up) paragraph that expresses the narrative in early February 2010. It would ignore the way that Federer scuffled through some earlier matches (Davydenko, Andreev), and the way Murray kept the match tight until the end of the 3rd set TB.

Narratives aren't confined to sports journalism - they show up in business, politics and other branches. But they're lazy forms of thinking and writing, particularly when they seize on one event and make it representative of a much bigger picture.

sherlock read julia's posts when i say the same thing about the media u throw out that 'tim is crazy' attitude, a lot of people share these views, maybe not you, however..

The pictures of Federer and Nadal on the tennis.com front page say it all: a slim, tempered athlete versus a hulking monster with an arm almost as thick as his head.

Tim, did you read my 1:53?

Sorry, never meant to imply the crazy attitude. We just have different opinions on the media issue, but that's ok. I understand that others agree with you. I imagine a few lost souls agree with me too. Hopefully anyway. :)

Andrew, I am talking about what the journos or commentators are anticipating as the good that can come outr of this open. And whatever happens on Sunday, a narrative will come out, but these things being anticipated are categorically new and better narratives than the old narrative from AO2010.

Posted by Larry 09/10/2010 at 02:21 AM
Very expressive, and Nadal looked good. I remain a skeptic about him on fast hard. Verdasco is completely cowed by Rafa, and was tired. Youzhny is an interesting case. I don't think he intimidates easy. I see Youzhny has having versatility and court coverage that approaches Federer's; at least he's fluid and has some great groundstrokes. Nadal to win over him? Probably, but it won't be so fast.

Djoker is looking mighty relaxed, healthy and smooth out there. Good weather for him. Big serve on him. Amazing speed around the court, and his groundstrokes land very deep. Very deep. I give him a 40% chance of beating Fed.

I will take either Fed or Novak on this surface to beat Rafa. That train looks good against pre-whupped Spaniards. Not necessarily against #1 or #3.

I will say you're living in a dreamworld. Before nadal had the injury last yr, nole record was 4-3 on hardcourt and then the injury happen. Had it not been for it, it would of been alot more closer. Now djoko stand at 7-3 and trust me it will be alot more closer when they meet again. I expect nadal to break nole lil 3 mini streaks, and do the same thing he did to fed in early may beat him easily.

Elevenis, they have just one pound difference between them but genes are genes, look Rafa's father, uncles etc.

When I talk about The Narrative, I mean a storyline which neatly encapsulates conventional wisdom, giving a journalist a ready-made framework with which to write a story or report without looking too far below the surface.

For example: "In the Australian Open 2010, Roger Federer showed once again that you can never write off the greatest player of our time, and Andy Murray showed once again that he isn't ready for prime time. Federer's effortless movement and devastating shot making in this tournament has been as good as it's ever been, while tonight Murray was hesitant, tentative and unsure, particularly on the big points. The closest Murray came to the Swiss star was when he admitted after the match that "I can cry like Roger, it's a pity I can't play like him." Back atop the tennis world, Federer has served notice that he's hungry for more titles."

That's a (made up) paragraph that expresses the narrative in early February 2010. It would ignore the way that Federer scuffled through some earlier matches (Davydenko, Andreev), and the way Murray kept the match tight until the end of the 3rd set TB.

Narratives aren't confined to sports journalism - they show up in business, politics and other branches. But they're lazy forms of thinking and writing, particularly when they seize on one event and make it representative of a much bigger picture.

Federer is neither the greatest playa or the GOAT. We need to get off that crap. He was fortunate to have play in a weak era and take advantage of the situation. Had he play in sampras era he would of won 5 GS the most. Since 2008 competition have thighten a lil bit and it's more harder. So nadal will go through the greatest competition since pete's sampras era. Federer won alot of titles against subpar or cupcakes.

Another difference between Rafa and Roger is that Rafa loves to do more sports not just tennis, he likes to play soccer, golf, swimming, riding motorcycle, etc etc, in one word, he is more athlete than Federer. Of course his body is different

According to the NY Times Special Section from the start of the tournament, Three to Watch:

Mardy Fish

David Nalbandian

Sam Querrey

and for the women:

Viktoria Azarenka

Kaia Kanepi

Coco Vandeweghe

I just found this in my desk and had a little giggle.

Ethiopian, yesterday someone else here said that after Federer, Rafa has more GS and MS HC titles, tied with Djokovic and Roddick even that Rafa, like you say, was out of the court in different occasions because the injuries so I don't finish to understand why someones are thinking he is no so good playing on HC or maybe because he is so great on clay and grass that everybody is expecting he has to win always on HC , if not, that means "he's not playing so well ". Come on!!!!!!

Hey mick,

Sorry for the epically late response haha. I think what annoyed me about that entire line of thinking (not just your one point which wasn't totally crazy) is that if we follow the logic that Fed was in his prime as Nadal was just getting into the game you are left several choices:

A) Early, raw Nadal was beating up on an in his prime Fed. Not sure that is what Fed fans would really like to hear.

B) Nadal was an early bloomer and his early years constituted his prime. This seems to be the go to for a lot Fedatics (Fed, Fanatics, get it??! Lol such a bad joke :-D). But if this is true then shouldn't Nadal be in his older years now? This would fail to negate the more recent losses in their matchups that a lot of fans like to do to discount the H2H. Or you could argue that Nadal has a longer prime, but couldn't that be the sign of a better player? Not saying that is the case just covering the bases

Sorry for the gigantic post, but I like to make sure that I elaborate on the ideas.

Nadal goons mental age-5, out en force, say what?

Pete, I really enjoyed this post. The brilliant Naval commander and the locomotive! When I was at the Rafa/Feli match on tues. they showed rafa in closeup on the big screen and he reminded me of Batman with those steel gray patches on his shoulders. It seems we never run out of metaphors for these guys.

I think it was Jmac who said on thurs. that if Fedal meet in the final it would be "the most important match in open history." Talk about exaggeration. yikes! Maybe he said that because Rafa would be the youngest player to achieve a career golden grand slam. And the first player to win three consecutive slams since Laver in 1969. So I guess it is a pretty big deal. And if Roger wins it only further cements his place as the greatest player ever. Besides it's always great tennis when these two play each other.

Didn't Roger won three consecutive slams too? Two times...

Wimbledon and US Open in 2005 and 2006 Australian Open.

Wimbledon and US Open in 2006 and 2007 Australian Open.

I guess they mean in the same calendar year?

Hi Carol. I have to say I am glad Rafa got the first semifinal because IF he wins it, they turn around and play the final the next day. I think it favors Rafa or Misha.

...that is what I was going to guess Annie...same calendar year.

Annie, Now c'mon. How can it be in the same Calendar year for Nadal when he didn't win Australia.

Gotham: 3 in a row would be the French, Wimbly, and USO, all in 2010. I think that is what they mean.

"How can it be in the same Calendar year for Nadal when he didn't win Australia. "

Winning the Calendar Slam (all 4 slams) is different than winning 3 slams in one year.

Rafa cannot win the Calendar Slam this year since he did not win AO 2010.

He can, though, win 3 slams this year since he won FO, Wimby and has a chance to win USO if he advances to the final on Saturday.

humorous piece from James Larosa for tennischannel.com:

http://72.32.204.230/news/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=8105

"Apparently, 14-7 does not translate to ownage." If 12 of the wins weren't on Rafa's best surface, you'd have an argument. For the meantime, Rafa owns Fed on clay, and they're about even everywhere else. Not to mention that, age wise, Fed + Rafa are not exactly in the same stage of their respective careers. Fed has been on a natural, slow decline for almost 3 years ... where as Rafa has been coming into his own the last 2 (taking the injury period into consideration). There are variables that make a difference ... nothing is cut and dried, at much as we'd like to believe it's so in our fave's case.

well even mats wilander said when Rafa gets to 16 Slams, he can claim the GOAT, not until then, i mean his resume his still HEAVILY skewed to one specific surface, that most of the greats have not ever done well on, for obvious reasons, its a specialists surface that covers two months of the Masters top level schedule ...

If you people would read my post again I said if rafa won the U.S.Open he would have a "career golden grand slam"

THE grand slam is all 4 majors in the same calendar year - has not been done since Laver

3 consecutive slams in the same year has also not been done since Laver

VAMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS RAFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://i55.tinypic.com/10wr1g4.jpg

http://i55.tinypic.com/o6wned.jpg

VAMOS!!!!!!!!!

http://i54.tinypic.com/2zzue5x.jpg

http://i54.tinypic.com/1emeck.jpg

http://i56.tinypic.com/332xo5i.jpg

Sorry to have started something with my rant about narratives earlier.

To clarify, I have absolutely no problems with Nadal's career slam being the narrative. It is the 'Federer's achievements diminished if he loses...' narrative that bothers me. Substitute any other player in Federer's place in that narrative and it would still bother me.

Again, these guys have accomplished much more in their sphere of work than I ever have.

Nadal Goon?

LOL

oops... last line got deleted...

Again, these guys have accomplished much more in their sphere of work than I ever have. And hence deserve respect.

I've never been a real fan of the weight we afford the calendar slam versus, let's say, the Serena slam. If, by some miracle, Rafa was to win the USO and then win the AO, that's 4 in a row. And then RG.....and perhaps Wimby, ok, I woke up. One GS at a time. If he wins this USO, that's 3 GS in a row and not even TMF has done that. Go Rafa!!!!!

"If, by some miracle, Rafa was to win the USO and then win the AO, that's 4 in a row."

"If he wins this USO, that's 3 GS in a row and not even TMF has done that."

Actually, Geellis, Federer has won 3 Slams in a row twice.

Geellis, why does the major focus have to be a random stat that matters only if Fed hasn't done it? Are we that obsessed? Don't Rafa's individual, unique accomplishments stand on their own, or must they meet and beat what Fed has done to satisfy?

What's next? The 'most productive 3 consecutive years in Men's tennis history'? I love Rafa, but some of the KADs around here are so biased they squeeze the negativity out of me. Can't they both simply be the best players of their time? Can't we wait till they both retire to claim the best career?

Sanjay,

First, what you say still does not justify that tirade about my “tiny little world”.
Second:
A) Early, raw Nadal was beating up on an in his prime Fed.
Yes, this is precisely what was happening. You only forgot to mention (like all Nadal fans, you are omitting this part) that this “beating up” took place almost exclusively on clay.
Find me any Federer fan who would argue that Nadal is a better clay court player than Federer.

mick1303

Are you sure only on clay?

How can Federer's achievements possibly be diminished? It's all gravy, remember?

and I think Sanjay is referring to the first time rafa ever played federer. It was in Miami. IN 2004, when rafa was 17, he beat Fed in Miami 6-3,6-3.

John, I didn't forget. Which is why I said "almost".

Each win has a context for me. I'm not putting any asterisks. But Nadal was basically a nobody back then. This match was not that important to Fed, because he just won Indian Wells, was little bit tired and slightly sick with a flu. Nadal played good and won. This match went almost unnoticed back then. Only later it became important as another brick in a wall of Nadal's "superiority" over Fed.

In my book this match has the same relevance as Federer's loss to Murray in Cincy in 2006.
Nobody discounts this match from Murray's resume as well. But those in the know remember context.

Mick303, what match are you talking about that had the same relevance as Federer's loss to Murray in Cincy 06?
I don't get it

John, I was talking about Miami 04.

i want all four ,nadal, youzy, nole , fed , all of them tested , for illegal,drugs. before semi....... ok. no grunting like a girl, no taking 3 hours too serve, no picking your azz, no calling 4 trainers when losing, no coaching from box, no rubbing it in when you win 6 2 62 62, all head to head sports test before they play fight etc...they said they where, but players complained.........so, so what......heres 2 fair play????

Loved Nadal's pirouette volley, but didn't Federer accomplish a similar move against Soderling?

RANKED NO.58,TENNIS PLAYER IN 2010