31 posts categorized "January 2011"
by Pete Bodo
As has been the case for so many years now, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer were once again the main headline makers at the recently concluded Grand Slam event, this one the season opener in Melbourne. Only this time, it wasn't about the no. 1 and 2 players (respectively) meeting in the final, or either one of them adding to his major title count with a win. It wasn't about the Rafa Slam or the Federer insurgency.
This time, we had something closer to what some crusty old journalist once defined as news: Dog Bites Man is not news; Man Bites Dog is. . .
For the first time since Novak Djokovic overcame Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the Australian Open final of 2008, neither Rafa nor Roger made the final (corrected from original - ed.). Before that, you had to go way back to 2005 for a Rafa or Roger-less major final; Marat Safin downed Lleyton Hewitt in Melbourne in that one. Much was made of all this in recent days, more will be made. And it isn't entirely because we have a hunger for change, or news, or controversy or sensation. There's a fair chance that the reigning icons of men's tennis are coming up against it.
Take Nadal. If his actions and words are to be trusted, he's been unable to compete effectively in 5 of the last 8 Grand Slam events because of injury, although the only tournament he actually sat out was Wimbledon of 2009. It's tough to quantify the degree of impairment a player labors under, but there's a point at which you have to be downright perverse to ignore the injury narratives. The main reason to bring it up in Nadal's case is because there seems to be a pattern here, and it doesn't bode well for Nadal's future or longevity.
Federer's case is more transparent and commonplace. He's living the oldest story in the book. He's 29, an age at which the emotional knife no longer holds a good edge for a significant period of time, the mind needs more frequent breaks from the demands of fierce concentration, and the legs are less eager to follow the instantaneous orders issued by the eyes. The sobering aspect of Federer's most recent loss - the one that leaves him without possession of a Grand Slam title for the first time since 2003 - is that he didn't play that badly. Nor was he hurt, or otherwise impaired, as far as we could tell.
Novak Djokovic is playing extremely well, but not that well - not straights sets in the semis better than Federer, or at least the Federer we knew not so long ago. That Federer would have found a way to compete better; to do something more, or something different, or something bolder and more confrontational or intimidating albeit in a perfectly acceptable, sporting manner. He would have done something like that even if he still ended up losing. But this is just the way it goes, the energy level of a competitor gradually drops. All credit to Djokovic. The way he played the tournament suggests that Nadal needs to watch his back, and his ranking. That is, if he's fit enough to carry on.
So I don't believe this was just aberration, and that we'll be back to business as usual in no time, even if the next major is Roland Garros, a tournament that Nadal could probably win having to crawl across the terre battu on his belly. I have a feeling that the year of transition, the one everyone has been either dreading or awaiting, is upon us. And some of the other results at the Australian Open suggest that we might be in for a wild time.
It all starts, for the men, with Djokovic. Granted, Andy Murray's attitude, energy and determination (or lack thereof) were conspicuously weak in the men's final. By midway in the second set, Murray's highly-praised, somewhat unconventional game (he's still one big win from claiming the high ground as the "thinking man's" tennis player) already lay shattered in small pieces on the blue-gray floor of Rod Laver Arena. And the credit for that goes to Djokovic, for sweeping aside Murray's fatal attraction to games best left to cats and mice. In the big picture, Murray looked to create a masterpiece of craft and guile. But Djkovic just squared up across the net and basically said, Cut the crap and show me what you got!
It wasn't very much, it turned out. Djokovic was neither lured nor lulled into anything. He just continued to probe, push and take advantage of every opportunity that came his way. He seemed to know that if he executed at sufficiently high level, he could catch Murray flat-footed and out of tricks and go right through him. This was the second major in a row in which he performed at a remarkably high level; he was just unlucky to have a fit, on-form Nadal instead of Murray back at the US Open a few months ago.
So Djokovic is on a high, but you never know how long that lasts, and while he's still a pup (as is Murray, who was born within a week of Djokovic in 1987), he's shown that he can be distracted.In fact, he's just coming out of that Novak-the-Entertainer phase, which was accompanied by a fall-off in his game if not his popularity.
A guy must think pretty highly of himself to toss his smelly sneakers into the crowd right after a match (did he imagine that the lucky spectator who caught it would fall to her knees to fondle and sniff it?). There's a bit of the narcissist in Djokovic, it seems, but if he doesn't get hauled in for repeatedly disrobing in public, he's going to be a huge factor in 2011. He's gone back to the roots of his clean, precise, relatively flat game.
We could talk about some of the other usual suspects who have been loitering, waiting for the end of the Federer-Nadal era - the Berdychs, Soderlings, Monfils, Cilics' and Roddicks - but why bother. Those guys will be around, like flies on watermelon. I'd rather pay tribute to some of the players who made this Australian Open one of the more delightful, surprising of Grand Slams in recent memory:
Li Na - I've liked the spirited Chinese girl since she first punched through to a Grand Slam quarterfinal in 2006. At the time, her style and demeanor reminded of that great lady warrior, Chris Evert. But in the interim, Li has improved enormously, and evolved from a conventional baseliner (a game that no longer works well at the highest level) into a dangerous shotmaker.
Li has also gotten leaner, stronger, and more nimble. She reminds me a little bit of Andy Roddick now, in that she's clearly taken a journey, seeking to make herself better, and arrived at a new place in her career. There's only one thing she still needs to do: maintain the standard of play she's achieved in the first month of this year.
 Kim Clijsters - I thought it was touching how, in her victory speech, Clijsters acknowledged that only after winning the event did she finally feel she'd earned the right to answer to the affectionate nickname, "Aussie Kim."
More important, Clijsters really needed this win for her street cred as a champion, and the way she earned it, with a come-from-behind three-set win over Li, deserves the utmost respect. Unfortunately, Kim hinted that she'll play only sparodically going forward, which may make you ask, "So why bother?" Are all the great WTA champions going to declare themselves part-timers?
The WTA needs a new sheriff in town, and that job may fall to Caroline Wozniacki. Alright, she didn't uphold her no. 1 seeding - or win her first major. But she had an excellent tournament despite laboring under a load of pressure. I think that's only going to make her hungrier and better. I don't think this is another Jelena Jankovic here. Petra Kvitova has a lot of up-side as well, and she's not even 21 yet; I liked the way she handled the native favorite and no. 5 seed Sam Stosur.
And what can you say about Francesca Schiavone? Realistically, not very much because she's already 30 and unlikely to sustain the level she hit last June as the suprise winner at Roland Garros (now that was a Man Bites Dog story. . .) . Her 16-14 win over Svetlana Kuznetsova was a high point of this tournament, and we can only hope that she finds a way to keep doing these things. It's like she was put on this earth to remind her fellow WTA pros that you can play this game with joy, passion, humor, and a humble, visceral awareness of just how danged lucky you are compared to the average person.
On the men's side, I wrote during the tournament about the Fab Five, those young guns named Grigor Dimitrov, Alexandr Dolgopolov, Bernard Tomic, Milos Raonic, and Richard Berankis. The one I like best in the lot is Raonic. He has the potential to develop the biggest game, but let's not forget that way back circa 2003, Roger Federer was attracting high praise and accolades, although nobody suggested that he had a game with which he might dominate on all surfaces (which he did, at least until Rafa Nadal came along, at which point Federer became merely the second-best - by a mile - player on clay).
Dimitrov is the one who's already received the same kiss of death once bestowed on unreliable Richard Gasquet: the nickname, Baby Federer.
The success of the Fab Five (Dolgopolov, the oldest by far at age 22, went the furthest, losing in the quarterfinals to Andy Murray) suggests that the status quo on the ATP Tour is in danger. Even if none of those youngsters is ready to vault into the top 10, each of them is capable of beating top 10-type players. Just look at some of the names they knocked off - Robin Soderling, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Mikhail Youzhny, David Nalbandian, Feliciano Lopez. And that will certainly have an impact. None of the players who have waited patiently through this Federer-Nadal era, hoping for a turn in the spotlight, will have to be very careful.
Tomorrow, I'll have some thoughts on Andy Murray. . .
by Pete Bodo
It probably says something about the game of tennis today that the consensus "best man never to win a Grand Slam title"—that would be Andy Murray—has had the top two seeds removed from his path, but will still embark on his quest to nail down that elusive first major as an underdog.
Murray is seeded No. 5, while Novak Djokovic, his opponent early tomorrow morning in the Australian Open title match, is No. 3. As if that weren't challenging enough, Murray's chances are being shaped and conditioned by factors and forces of a kind that will have no bearing on the play of his opponent, but may influence Murray's performance.
Murray is hoping to become the first British man since Fred Perry in 1936 to win a major title. More than 270 Grand Slam events have come and gone since then, and some have been won by Italians, others by Brazilians, many by Swedes and a host by the Spanish. Even the French have won a couple during that interim, not to mention the powerhouse U.S. or Australian paragons. But no Brits. Of such statistics are legends born. They feed our fascination with the concept of the hex, or jinx.
Murray might have avoided this entire mess ("The curse of Perry!") had he won either of the two majors at which he previously made finals. You know, kill the idea before it becomes the narrative. That's precisely what Novak Djokovic did, winning the 13th major in which he played (the Australian Open of 2008). Oh, there was certainly less pressure on Djokovic. Nobody was asking, "How come the Serbs can't win major titles?" Serbia is an emerging tennis nation; Great Britian gave us the game before promptly forgetting how to play. Still, had Djokovic tarried as long as Murray, his life would have been complicated, particularly at home, with the refrain: "Will a Serb ever win a major?"
Djokovic won his major on the floor of Rod Laver Arena, besting Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who hadn't been to a major final before and hasn't been to one since. Is it a bad omen for Murray that when Djokovic won in 2008, he surprised Roger Federer in the semis, beating him in nearly identical, straight-sets fashion as he did the other day at the same juncture? If you're a Djokovic fan, you're entitled to sit back and smile, basking in a feeling of deja vu.
But let's be realistic. You can't put Murray's Grand Slam final failures down to nerves, or pressure, or a hex. He lost straight-up to Roger Federer in his two previous finals, the U.S. Open of 2008 and here in Melbourne last year. That he's returned to the final in Oz is in itself a terrific achievement. Tennis is a game of second and third and fifth chances, sure; there's always that next major, the new year. But Murray is returning to the scene of what by any reckoning was a huge, nearly crushing disappointment (some felt Murray never really recovered until late in the year). He's picking up where he left off, with a shot at redemption against a less accomplished opponent. For Djokovic is Murray's peer (they were born exactly a week apart, in May of 1987) while Federer has been both his role model and nemesis.
That the stakes seem that much higher for Murray than Djokovic can go either way. Let's be honest—for all but the most fiercely loyal Djokovic fans, the match is all about Murray, all about the ghost of Perry and the best player never to win a major, all about the hopes of a kingdom more or less united and aching for a Grand Slam champion to call its own. Just how the hype will affect Murray remains to be seen, but it might also influence Djokovic's attitude. People can get swept up in historic events in a variety of ways, not all of them good.
I have an idea. Let's poke around the records to see what other No. 5 vs. No. 3 match-ups we might have had at the Australian Open in years gone by. We'll just go by the year-end rankings of the previous year to create our imaginary match-ups.
In 1975, the Murray role would have gone to Manolo Orantes, going up against Bjorn Borg. Ouch. In 1980, Murray would have been Guillermo Vilas matched against Jimmy Connors. Double ouch. In 1985, the No. 5 vs. No. 3 match-up would have been Stefan Edberg vs. Mats Wilander, while in 1990 Pete Sampras (No. 5) would have been in against Ivan Lendl. In 1995, it would have been Michael Chang vs. Tomas Muster, and in 2000 Yevgeny Kafelnikov would have met Pete Sampras. In 2005, the No. 5 player was Nikolay Davydenko, while Andy Roddick held the No. 3 spot. Note that in this entire comparison there's just one man who never won a major, and he's still in with a chance—Nikolay Davydenko. Take that to the bank, Murray fans, if things get rough tomorrow.
Maybe it's just me, but this match resists handicapping. Both men are playing very well, although you have to give Djokovic credit for slashing his way through a tougher draw. Djokovic took out Tomas Berdych and Federer in back-to-back matches starting in the quarters, while Murray's two victims at those stages were, respectively, unseeded quarterfinalist Alexandr Dolgopolov and No. 7 David Ferrer.
 The similarities between the two players are striking. Both move beautifully and are dangerous serve returners. Murray has a better serve, and his backhand is more versatile if less forceful. Djokovic's forehand is massive, and he's great at changing the direction of successive shots. Murray can be unpredictable and has a better sneak attack, even if both players are excellent at making the transition from defense to offense.
Unless you believe uncategorically in the power of inspiration, you have to give Djokovic the nod when it comes to the intangibles. He's got his major already, and the way he's played here (and since the U.S. Open of 2010) suggests there are more to come. He's got to be stoked by that win over Federer. He's under no particular pressure to beat Murray, while getting a chance to win that first major without having to beat either Federer or Nadal kind of puts the ball in Murray's court. Even if Murray plays the best tennis of which he's capable, Djokovic might still win. And you can reverse those roles just as easily.
My only strong feeling is that the match will be won by the player who is more willing to take the initiative and press the attack, provided he executes at a reasonable level.
By Jackie Roe, TW Social Director
Evening, TWibe! The Deuce Club is jam-packed this week, so let’s dive right in.
I have the results of the AO Sucide Pool, and it looks like we couldn't have asked for better TW representation . . . both the men's and women's pools were won by TWibers! Congratulations to Fatboy, who's the women's SP champ, and Jacko, who was one of the two champs on the men's side! No one beat the draw, but the survivors still did a bang-up job:
AO '11 Women's SP Champion Fatboy's picks: Petkovic - Jovanovski - Cibulkova - Pavlyuchenkova - Sharapova - Peng - Wozniacki - Radwanska - Li - Zvonareva - Clijsters - out of picks
AO '11 Men's SP Champion Jacko's picks: Nishikori - Berankis - Monfils - Garcia-Lopez - Wawrinka - Melzer - Berdych - Ferrer - Federer - Murray - Djokovic - out of picks
Awesome job, guys. You guys get a framed photo of any player, right? Who are you choosing?
I have a melange of AO-related goodies for you (I hope you think they're goodies, anyway), starting with an AO fashion rundown.
I usually talk fashion in the first DC during a Slam, but I stayed away from the topic last week, assuming you'd already heard and read enough about it. Not a wise move! Seems some of you missed the tradition—and I missed hearing your impressions, too!—so here's my fashion report, a week late. Share yours in the comments!
~
Generally, I liked what I saw, especially all of the bright colors; the greens, pinks, and yellows contrasted nicely against the surroundings. What year was it when seemingly everyone was dressed in blue and blended in with the courts? Was it just last year? I'm glad there was less of that, though I will say I didn't mind del Potro's blue in the least—good to see him again, in any color.
An interesting color-related observation from my sister: She doesn't like it when the players wear colorful shorts, favoring blacks, whites, and greys instead. Something about how they’d look ridiculous if they wore that outside of the tennis court. That never even occurred to me! I don't object to it, as long as the bottom matches the top. What do you guys think?
 Thumbs up
Ivanovic: Loved the green and purple color combination
Sharapova: Liked the orange sherbet and grey (at first I saw lilac—am I colorblind?) and that it's toned down from what she's worn in the last few Slams; could do without all of the straps, though
Henin (I'll miss you, Justine!): Again, nice color combination; athletic, no frills but still feminine
Azarenka: Somehow always ends up looking awkward despite having a great figure, but this pink number is flattering since it elongates her upper body
Dulko: Unlike some, I really liked the Lacoste kit; it’s unique but not in an outlandish way, with the visible drawstring and the sexy-but-not-scandalous keyhole opening
Benesova: Another eye-catching color combination, with the white and salmon (or is it more coral?); something about its simplicity that drew me to it—I'd want to wear this myself!
Kuznetsova: Midnight blue, white, and red Fila kit was sporty, functional, and fit her perfectly
Scheepers (why was I watching Scheepers again? ;)): Huge thumbs up on her K-Swiss black skirt, because it actually moved! More of that, please.
Federer: Cheery; coined him Sunny Side Up Fed. Another analogy—he’s the sun and the clouds against the blue sky. I need sleep.
Murray: I like seeing color on him (that wasn’t meant to be a joke), though the green and white is somehow more appealing than the green and black
Berdych: As with Fed, loved the yellow—bright and summery, popped on the screen.
Ferrer: His Lotto was more of a highlighter/radioactive yellow (compared to Berd’s Nike)—I thought it'd come across as offensive, but instead it was pretty striking
Lots of guys were in the color-bombed Adidas kits, and I actually didn’t mind them, even though it looked like a Fruit Roll-Up exploded on them. I did prefer the white version I saw on Monaco to the watermelon one Verdasco sported—less of an assault on the eyes.
Thumbs in the middle
Jankovic: Her dress fit her well, but the shade of pink was a little too bubblegummy for my taste. And what was with the jagged hemline?
Pennetta: Not terrible, but it felt a little too casual—like something you’d sleep in. And horizontal stripes are tough to pull off.
Safina: Sailor Moon.
Petrova: Not good, but not nearly as bad as we’ve seen in the past, right? So she gets a pass. Still, the tiered ruffled skirt has got to go.
Clijsters: Fine, I guess, but as Jenni said, is she trying to find out who stole her lucky charms?
Simon: Liked that he had a different look than usual, but not so keen on the clashing greens (shirt stripes vs. shorts).
Raonic: Simple, classic Lacoste look was a nice change of pace from the loud colors—but a tad boring
Thumbs down
Wozniacki: That skirt! I don't think you could've made it more unflattering if you tried. In the words of Jenni (again), she looked like an upside-down cupcake.
Venus: The blue number was too, too, short, and the material looked cheap—on Twitter, one compared it to a bathing suit, another to wrapping paper. The yellow outfit was even worse, if that's possible. I could’ve warmed up to the silky, iridescent skirt, but that lattice top was exquisitely tacky. (Click here for more on Vee’s fashion.)
Rezai. Always Rezai.
Roddick: I guess thumbs down is kind of harsh, but I really didn’t like that his shorts were black. Should’ve been blue to match the collar/detailing on his shirt.
Nieminen: On Twitter I said his shirt looked like “Mondrian meets vomit”
Sorry I don’t have photos, TWibe . . . hope some of these kits are still fresh in your memory so you can share your own fashion dos and don’ts!
~
Next up: I thought it’d be fun if you shared your favorite quote from this year’s AO. The ones I found most amusing are below:
Q. You called me a stalker the other day.
MARIA SHARAPOVA: Yes.
Q. Have you had a problem with a stalker before?
MARIA SHARAPOVA: Not until you, no. I don't know why you're here today. That shouldn't have happened. You even have a sign. Oh, goodness (laughter). That's wrong.
 Q. You were in the top 50 in 2010. What are your goals for 2011?
THIEMO de BAKKER: To win the match (smiling).
Q. Who has changed more hairstyles between you and your sister, colors and things like that?
VENUS WILLIAMS: I don't know (laughter). I think maybe we're confused on our identity, because we can't keep one hairstyle for more than a few months. But life is fun when you can change it up and have fun with it.
Q. I can't.
VENUS WILLIAMS: I have a couple of suggestions if you want to talk after (smiling).
Q. What do you expect in a guy?
CAROLINE WOZNIACKI: What do I expect? Honesty. Understanding what I'm doing. Maybe a sports person himself.
Q. You're not going to find it in here.
CAROLINE WOZNIACKI: You know, sometimes the media is too good looking here, so I can't really focus on what I'm supposed to say (laughter).
Q. What do you invest all your prize money in, you sponsorship money in? Properties? Shares?
ROGER FEDERER: What do you expect what a Swiss guy would say?
Q. Did you try to beat the record of Mahut and Isner?
SVETLANA KUZNETSOVA: I tried, but apparently didn't work. She finish it earlier than I thought.
Q. Did you see the stats? He got on top of you pretty well winners to winners. You only had a couple breakpoints there. Talk about your overall feeling of the match. It was clear you were trying to fight to get back in, but it didn't seem like you could dominate many of the points.
ANDY RODDICK: Was that a question or a lot of statements back to back?
Q. Talk about the match in general. He hit a lot more winners than you, and I know it's important for you to dictate some of those points if you're going to beat a guy like that.
ANDY RODDICK: That was a statement again.
Q. You won the first set, then what happened after that?
FLAVIA PENNETTA: She won the second and the third.
Q. You're so different, at least you seem so different, to Pistolesi. He is always telling jokes. I don't know if he does it with you. But I know him since he was 18 years old. Do you like the company also or you don't see away from tennis?
ROBIN SODERLING: No, we spend a lot of time together. He's a great guy. I think you're wrong. I think we're very similar. It's just that I don't tell you guys jokes (smiling).
Q. Well, start.
ROBIN SODERLING: No (smiling).
Q. Last year you were in semifinals. Now you are in final. What are you going to do next year?
NA LI: If I win this year, maybe next year I will retire.
And more funny in these clips:
Go to the 2:00 mark
This might beat the pregnant interview
Enough from me . . . what quotes or interviews will you remember?
~
But we can’t forget the tennis. We’re not pulling all-nighters for the fashion or the sound bites, we’re doing it for the tennis. So now, tell us:
- What was the best match of the tournament? The worst?
- What was the biggest upset?
- Who surprised you the most?
- Who will win the finals this weekend?
~
That’s a lot, I know. Feel free to comment on as much or as little of this as you like—I won’t take offense!
Wait! It’s not over yet. Here’s the poll you’ve all been demanding . . .
Nicknames for the Djokovic/Murray rivalry—take your pick:
Andole
Anole
Djandy
Djokay
Djoray
Djurray Duty
Djuzz
Mandole
Murkovic
Muzzker
Muzzole
Nolan
Noland
Nolandy
Nolray
Noluzz
Noray
Novandy
Novray
Other (specify)
. . . laughing so, so, hard. Have a great weekend, TWibe.
by Pete Bodo
For some years now, we've gotten an earful about new markets and roadmaps taking tennis places where it's never gone before. It's hard to quantify the real progress of those dreams in a world where the deal rules, or to find eloquent, concrete expressions of those ambitions and hopes. It's hard sometimes even to understand just what the plans mean, what they really represent, or why they matter. It's hard to know why we should care, or how all of it might impact our lives, never mind the lives of others, many of them far away and as mysterious to us in their ways and wants as we are to them.
Today, though, we have a tangible symbol of this vision and the grand ambitions helping to create and shape it. We have before us Li Na, a Chinese national who will meet Kim Clijsters in the Australian Open final, hoping to become the first player of either sex from her vast, rapidly-developing nation to win a Grand Slam tournament—a feat, should she be successful, that may have repercussions far beyond those that might accrue in similar circumstances in any other nation. China, after all, is a giant; for most of the 20th century, she was called a "sleeping giant." Today, she's awake. And tennis is just part of it.
Therefore, Li is not just another player hoping to win just another Grand Slam. She is both an individual and an icon representing of a nation—one of 1.3 billion people, few of them engaged in, but a staggering number aware of, the enterprise in which Li is involved. She is playing for herself, and undoubtedly for her restless, snoring, tennis-playing husband and coach, Jiang Shan. But she is also the vessel containing the yearnings of her countrymen and women, a role she has no choice but to accept, and whether that helps or hinders her is one of the more tantalizing questions looming before us.
My gut feeling is that Li will bear the expectations admirably. The words that come to mind in contemplation of Li run to adjectives and nouns like...disciplined, patient, tough, cool, focused. Li is 28 years old; she knows the stakes as well as the pitfalls. And she's no stranger to the demands of this particular tournament; she crashed the semifinals last year as a lowly No. 16 seed, beating, in succession starting in the second round, Agnes Szavay, Daniela Hantuchova, Caroline Wozniacki, and Venus Williams, before she lost to that other Williams, Serena, in the semis in two tiebreaker sets.
This year, Serena is MIA and Li improved her seeding position by seven places. She's taken out two players seeded ahead of her, No. 8 Victoria Azarenka, and No. 1 (and world No. 1) Wozniacki. When you compare her results to those of Clijsters, her opponent in the final, it's pretty clear that Li has passed a more severe series of tests.
But what about Clijsters—isn't the three-time Grand Slam champion (and, now, eight-time major finalist), while a few months younger than Li, far better prepared for the task at hand? Clijsters has been No. 1 in the world, and even though she's won only three of the seven major finals she's played, she must have learned much of value in those matches, all of it useful against an opponent who's in her maiden final.
Melbourne presents—by far—Clijsters' best chance to slough off the criticism that she can't win a Grand Slam event other than the U.S. Open (a problem that most WTA pros would kill to have). In a curious way, then, Clijsters' excellent record in New York drives some discontent with her overall record and doubt about her prowess—it's a positive with a nasty, negative undertone.
The sum of all these mitigating circumstances is that if Li will be playing with the weight of China on her shoulders, Clijsters will be competing against her own record of Grand Slam shortcomings, a clear and much-loved favorite who's never really felt comfortable as the Queen Bee. Which condition exerts the most influence—and in what way—will probably determine the outcome.
 I expect that the women will go right at each other, bring all their firepower to bear. Statistically, they are more similar than different. In fact, Clijsters trails Li by a single errant shot in the unforced error-to-winner ratio. Clijsters has hit 125 winners in this tournament so far and made 148 unforced errors. Li's numbers, respectively, are 153 and 175. So Li is -22, and Clijsters -23. Not much to choose from there. The only caveat in this analysis is that Clijsters had an extraordinary first-round win over former world No. 1 Dinara Safina. Clijsters made just four unforced errors in that 6-0, 6-0 blowout, while hitting 17 winners.
It's clear that both of these women like to powder the ball, and are willing to take their chances. The forehand of each has been particularly deadly. But all in all, Li seems to have played more commanding tennis. Against Wozniacki, she was down match point but survived and went on to win the match. Wozniacki was up a set and a break, 4-3 in the second, when the great turnaround began. The next five games were fought as brilliantly, bitterly and artfully as anything we've seen these past few weeks, and I can't help but think that they were an omen.
Here's an interesting stat: Even with the lopsided Safina match in the count, Li has broken serve four more times (32) than Clijsters, and she's played a better set of servers. As far as their serves go, Clijsters get a slight edge in average speed (around 160 kph for first serves, just a few kph better than Li), but Li has posted a better first-serve conversion percentage, hovering right around 70 percent. Li may be the more effective returner, while being Clijsters' equal as server.
When thinking about the opportunity before Li, two questions come to mind. First, how will she handle the pressure? At some point in this match, unless she freezes like a deer in the headlights, the significance of what she's poised to accomplish will become real in a way that may have not been up to this point. It could happen any time, but most probably would happen at a critical time. How she reacts to that pressure—and you really don't know what it's like until you've been there—could have an enormous bearing on this match. And Clijsters has the experience to know what to do if Li should get tight or hesitant.
I also think Li will need to play as decisively and crisply as she did against Wozniacki if Clijsters runs off the rails, which she's done in a number of her matches in Melbourne. It's safe to say that going into a match with Clijsters these days, you know she'll give you a few windows of opportunity. Her lapses are as appalling as they are inexplicable. Suddenly, her game just is not there. She usually works her way through the rough patch, and thus far at the tournament nobody has really made her pay. But then, Clijsters has played just one seeded player before she met No. 2 Vera Zvonareva in the semis, and that was No. 12 Agnieszka Radwanska.
Radwanska is on the mend from foot surgery in the off-season. Clijsters presented her with a number of opportunities of the kind that a defensive baseliner like Radwanska simply must convert in order to have a chance. Radwanska fell short, and that was the end of that. Not only is Li seeded higher, she's as tough a No. 9 seed as you're apt to find at any tournament. Based on how she's played so far, Li will make the most of those opportunities. She did in Sydney, where she beat Clijsters in the final of the biggest tune-up event.
I like Li's chances. She's built a good head of steam. Clijsters hasn't lost a set yet, it's true, but I think Li makes Clijsters nervous in a way that, say, Zvonareva does not. So I'm looking for Tennis Australia, which prides itself as being the "Grand Slam of Asia-Pacific," to crown the game's first Chinese Grand Slam champion.
by Pete Bodo
What a (day and) night Down Under. Yesterday, I backed only one winner—Novak Djokovic. But what does it tell you in that learning of his straight sets win over Roger Federer, I was surprised. Conversely, when I watched and read that the women I had expected to slash their way to the final, Caroline Wozniacki and Vera Zvonareva, were both knocked out, I was not the least bit shocked.
I thought the opening match—Li Na vs. Wozniacki—was a terrific battle and great advertisement for the women's game. I imagine the final will be played out along similar lines, thanks in no small part to the attributes of Li Na. She has added some serious "big game" elements to her repertoire; wasn't it just two or three years ago that she appeared destined to be nothing more (or less) than an extremely patient, disciplined, smooth, consistent baseliner? No more. Like her counterpart on the ATP side, David Ferrer, Li has added sting to her rattle. I love the way she competes; it gives her a three-game advantage over most WTA players from the get-go.
My other takeaway from the match is that Wozniacki is a much better player than many think. She'll do just fine with the game she has (even if a legitimate weapon would be a nice addition). Wozniacki is a very big girl who plays like a small one, and her greatest assets are those that have nothing to do with her physical dimensions or even her strength or fitness. Her anticipation is terrific and her timing excellent (the way she stoops when taking a ball bouncing on or near her own baseline is a perfect emblem of her discipline, and an innate feel for how the game is played). She also has excellent composure and fighting spirit. Pile those virtues atop her excellent groundstrokes and good serve, package them in an impressive physical plant (it does look like she could be leaner, but forget that for now) and you've got a Grand Slam champ. Her day will come.
Many matches have a clear, identifiable turning point. There's something very satisfying about that, even though, when it comes to sheer drama, you can't beat a see-saw battle. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Li won the match in the late stages of the second set, starting with a Li break-back to level the score at 4-4. Li then survived a match point, and some of Wozniacki's most urgent, menacing forays over the two-game span that ended the set. It was as clear an example of "getting over the hump" as you could ask. It isn't often that a player back on her heels, as was the slow-starting Li, can mount so massive a fightback (Li won, 3-6, 7-5, 6-3; the scores are eloquent) against a player whose level does not appreciably drop.
Wozniacki gives you nothing; if you want to beat her you must take the match away, and Li was able to do that. Both women played with remarkable poise, determination and proficiency in those two critical games late in the second set. It was great to see.
So my dark horse, Li, is in the final, against the all-around favorite—and adopted Aussie—Kim Clijsters. I'll look at that match tomorrow, but first we have a little business to conduct tonight.
 Andy Murray (No. 5) vs. David Ferrer (No. 7): The mission for Murray, now that Federer and Rafael Nadal are both out of the Australian Open, is simple: Try to keep from thinking of what winning that first Grand Slam title might mean, lest your head explode. Or, at the very least, don't let Ferrer out-gut and out-guile you in a semifinal that will leave you feeling less like you want to take a swim in the Yarra river than hurl yourself into it from the highest bridge you can find.
On paper and in the pundit-o-sphere, Murray is practically a lock. But the head-to-head says otherwise, with Ferrer leading 3-2. The positive element in the H2H for Murray is that he won both of the matches they played on hard courts, and without losing a set. Just a few months ago, at the ATP World Tour Finals, Murray prevailed in their round-robin encounter, 6-2, 6-2. But Rod Laver Arena has a different, slower surface on which the ball is apt to bounce higher, which works in Ferrer's favor. That the match will be played at night helps Murray.
Quite honestly, I don't really have a strong feeling for how to handicap this one. Both men have airtight ground games, they both love to play defense and they return serve well. Ferrer's serve, once a real liability, has improved, and he places it awfully well. But it's still no knockout punch. He averages around 180 kph on his first serve and around 150 (remember, that's kph) on the second. I'm looking for Murray, a superb returner, to attack that serve.
In his last two hard-court majors, Ferrer lost a wild one (6-7 [4] in the fifth) to Fernando Verdasco at the U.S. Open, and another tough if less dramatic five-setter to Marcos Baghdatis in the second round of last year's Aussie Open. Ferrer is a guy who routinely makes his seed at tournaments, so he's lost to quality players at almost every major event. But one theme emerges from his Grand Slam hard-court record: He's had the most trouble with aggressive players. He's lost in straights to Marin Cilic and Novak Djokovic (twice), and has lost in four to Mikhail Youzhny and Mardy Fish.
So we'll see if Ferrer has incorporated some "big game" thinking into his evolution, to go along with that weaponized forehand. He probably will need to take the initiative against Murray, because the No. 5 seed is probably too inventive and unpredictable to beat with a grinder's game. Murray is not as aggressive a player as Djokovic, but he's in the same department as a mover, a returner, and an opportunist. Murray's transition from defense to offense is superb, and I think that's going to win him this match.
by Pete Bodo
Things sure can change in the blink of an eye, although for our purposes it might be better to say "overnight." Before we parse the women's semifinal matchups, let's note two seismic events that occurred while most of us here in the eastern seaboard of the U.S. slept: Rafael Nadal was beaten in straight sets by David Ferrer, and Justine Henin reportedly retired from tennis for the second time in fewer than three years. Even in today's "should I stay or should I go" world, you have to believe that this time, Henin is gone for good.
Injury played a role in both of these big stories, but it was by no means the major part. Let's take Rafa's case. He picked up some sort of virus that seemed to influence his results in Doha (where he lost in the semifinals to Nikolay Davydenko) and the disease, or its lingering effects, apparently stayed with him. Last night, Rafa took a medical timeout after just three games for what appeared to be a problem with his left leg or lower back. Later, he suggested that his weakened condition due to the virus probably left him vulnerable to other injuries. “I don’t have to tell you what I felt on the court, but it is obvious I did not feel at my best. I had a problem with the match at the very beginning, and after that, the match was almost over.”
Almost, though, is a big word in tennis. And even though Ferrer generously acknowledged that Rafa was not in fighting trim last night, let's not forget that this win was a long time coming for Ferrer, the No. 7 seed who's played second-fiddle as a Top 10 "gimme" for the top players for a long time. Maybe Ferrer's problem was psychological, maybe it had to do with his game. In any event, he's always been more a barometer of the greatness of others than his own. He's has always been the ante at the high stakes table. Beat him, and you can include yourself among the elite, even though Ferrer himself has never been accepted into that company. Now, he's making his bid to take that next, crucial step.
Henin's decision to quit for good comes as absolutely no surprise here. I never felt that her heart was in her comeback, and often raised that issue once she faded from the scene following that elbow injury at Wimbledon. Never has so seemingly routine an injury loomed so large, and the silence from the Henin camp in the months following her withdrawal, and right up to the start of this year, was ominous. Actually, I'm surprised that she played at all this year.
Henin has never been a player who easily or convincingly expressed joy, which is sad and makes me feel for her. The closest she came, I think, was when she won her last French Open title (2007), with members of her newly reconciled family present. That was a long time ago, and not long before she first retired in 2008.
Since her comeback in 2010, we've grown accustomed to watching this great champion grow more introverted, less concerned with superficial things, including her appearance, but also less secure on the court. And the latter was a killer.
Back in the day, I often called Henin "the Sister of No Mercy" because she reminded me of a nun. She seemed overly severe. She dispassionately whacked her opponent's backsides, seemingly for a higher cause (if you're of a certain age and attended Catholic school, you'll know what I mean). That cause, of course, was "the beautiful game." Has a person so strikingly plain ever had such a shimmering, artistic game?
If you're the sort of person who believes that John McEnroe drove Bjorn Borg out of tennis, you might also be inclined to believe that Kim Clijsters rousted Henin out of the game for good. After all, the two were rivals for the hearts of their fellow Belgians, and over the years there was plenty of sniping and even some ugly controversy. (Clijsters' own father, Leo, accused Henin of using performance enhancing drugs.) Some of it was expected; after all, Belgium is a small country, and the two players had a spirited, see-saw rivalry since the very beginning. (Kim leads Justine, 13-12.)
Perhaps significantly, Henin embarked on her 2010 comeback leading 12-10, but Clijsters whipped her three times in just half a year; all three were three-set matches, two (Brisbane and Miami) were barnburners ending 7-6 (6) in the the third, and it was in their match at Wimbledon that Henin slipped and damaged her right elbow. Nevertheless, she finished the match and took everyone by surprise when she revealed that she had a bad elbow.
I don't believe McEnroe drove Borg out of tennis, but I believe Clijsters might have driven out Henin. But does it really matter? The important thing is that the Henin comeback has ended, and badly. It's a pity, and I hope she finds happiness or at least satisfaction in whatever else she chooses to do. It would be naive to ignore the fact that in the end Clijsters has the last laugh, after having to watch Henin version 1.0 utterly eclipse her as a champion. Clijsters still has plenty of time to add to her resume, perhaps even to catch up with Henin in the Grand Slam title count. And her opportunity begins tonight in the Australian Open semifinals. Let's have a look at them:
Caroline Wozniacki (No. 1 seed) vs. Na Li (No. 9): I can't recall a No. 9 seed in recent memory who looked nearly as good as Li has since the very beginning of the year. She won the tournament in Sydney a few weeks ago, beating Clijsters in the final, and she has not only won every set she's played in Melbourne, but given up four games to her opponent in only one of those games. That compact game and Li's low center of gravity make subtle demands on opponents, because balls hit relatively flat and at a modest trajectory take time away from opponent. Li's winner to unforced error ratio is negligible, which tells you that she's going for her shots.
However, Wozniacki is a talented retriever and a very consistent baseliner. Her height (5-10) and reach will help against Li's drives. I also look for Wozniacki to attack Li's serve; she's barely cracking the 100 mph barrier with her first serve (but converting an impressive percentage of first serves; she's served no worse than 65 percent and as high as 81). I picked Wozniacki to win this event and had Na Li as my darkhorse choice, so I can't lose here. I'm going with Wozniacki in a thriller.
 Kim Clijsters (No. 3) vs. Vera Zvonareva (No. 2): The fact that Zvonareva has showed up at the appointed place tells you something right off the bat, given the doubts most pundits had about the sustainability of her outstanding play last year. Can anyone doubt that she's a deserving No. 2? And now she has another opportunity to insert herself into the conversation at the top of the game.
Based on what I've seen of Clijsters, particularly in her match with Agnieszka Radwanska last night, I believe that she's beatable. She's had lapses of form, or concentration, or confidence in a number of her matches, and gotten away with them. I believe Zvonareva can—and will—make her pay the price. She's won three of her last four against Clijsters, to pull the H2H up to 6-3. Unfortunately the match that everyone remembers is not the Zvonareva win at Wimbledon, but Clijsters' blowout victory in the U.S. Open final.
I'm thinking that final in Flushing was an example of really bad, unavoidable timing; all credit to Clijsters for bringing her A-game. But tonight I expect to see Zvonareva get some payback. Granted, Clijsters can club any opponent off the court. But if you can weather the storm when she's playing well and extend the points, you can expect to get opportunities and critical lapses. And keeping the ball low (Zvonareva has a fine slice backhand) pays off against Clijsters, who likes to take it right in her wheelhouse. Radwanska made the kind of inexplicable errors that nobody who lives by her wits ought to commit at some key moments last night; Zvonareva won't make those unless she caves to the pressure. I look for her to keep it together and advance to the final.
Both of these matches should go three sets. You can blink, without missing too much.
 by Pete Bodo
For those of you who have grown weary of the Roger vs. Rafa themes (the Fedal Wars, in the patois), how about if we return to something a little less controversial, like tennis' ATP/WTA gender wars?
Actually, "gender" isn't event the correct noun, although common usage has trumped the dictionary in this one. Gender is a grammatical term, sex is a biological one. But I guess even hardcore feminists and male chauvinists balked at the idea of nakedly (npi) calling them "sex wars."
Anyway, it seems that some sort of truce has been in effect between the sex-based partisans in tennis. A lot of the hoo-hah about equal prize money has died down, and the main point of debate now is whether or not the lack of a reliable, dominant champ or rivalry on the WTA side is a good thing, especially when compared to the men's game, where Rafa and Roger have dominated for well-nigh five years now.
Only three men (Marat Safin, Juan Martin del Potro and Novak Djokovic) have won a major since the start of 2005, and each of them has won just one measly major; that statistic is nothing short of mind-boggling—historic as well as epic. Somehow, I don't see the tennis historians of the future drooling over the Grand Slam event battles staged in the WTA over that same span.
But we live in the present, and one intriguing if not exactly self-evident question today is, "Who's got the better quarterfinal line-up for tonight, the WTA or the ATP? Who cares what the answer is? That we can ask the question is a wonderful thing.
So, the WTA quarters:
Agnieszka Radwanska (No. 12) vs. Kim Clijsters (No. 3): I hope Clijsters crushes the Polish lass because I'm danged tired of having to spell-check Radwanska's name. Seriously, though, Clijsters has been favored, with increasing conviction, to win this entire event and her progress has been undeniably smooth. Still, who can forget all those baffling Grand Slam misfires, starting with her loss to Petrova in Melbourne last year?
After losing just four games in the first two rounds last week, Clijsters has had to play a first set tiebreaker in her next two matches, against (respectively) Alize Cornet and Ekaterina Makarova. Note that neither of those opponents was a seeded player. That's not Clijsters' fault, but it does beg a few questions: What if Clijsters had lost one of those first-set breakers? And, how will Clijsters respond to second-week pressure applied by a player like Radwanska, who's of a higher caliber than any of her previous opponents?
The two have met but once, at Wimbledon in 2006, when Radwanska was outside the Top 200 and probably still reading the Polish-language version of Teen Beat magazine. Clijsters won 2 and 2. Radwanska is trying to regain ground she lost when she had to sit out the end of 2010 with a foot injury, which makes the first major of 2011 even more of a new beginning than usual—a chance similar, if of a lesser order of magnitude, to the one Clijsters had upon her return to tennis in 2009. I like what I've seen of the new Radwanska.
This as a tricky situation for Clijsters. Radwanska has had two gut-check matches against seasoned opponents, the ageless Kimiko Date Krumm and Shuai Peng; Radwasnska won both of them, 7-5 in the third. She drives the ball nicely off either side and plays solid defense, so it's unlikely that Clijsters will just roll through her. If this becomes a protracted war, I like Radwanska in an upset special.
Petra Kvitova (No. 25) vs. Vera Zvonareva (No. 2): The head-to-head is 1-1, with only one of those matches played within the last year, a 6-4, 6-0 win by Kvitova on the clay of Rome. The Australian Open is on hard courts, of course, but guess what? Kvitova is at her best on fast courts, as her terrific run to the semis at Wimbledon last year demonstrated.
It's tempting to call for the upset here, because Kvitova is a dangerous attacking player who's unafraid to serve and volley. She's played her way through a tough draw, highlighted by an upset of Australia's darling, No. 5 seed Sam Stosur. But Kvitova's record is littered with as many puzzling, blow-out losses as surprisingly decisive wins, and she struggled against seeding equal Flavia Pennetta (No. 22) in her last match. In short, you never really know what you're getting with Kvitova.
That unpredictability works in Zvonareva's favor, as does the No. 2 player's style and present level. Zvonareva has excellent skills, and that's always bad news for an attacker. She'll be able to keep the 6-foot Kvitova on the bend and running. And Zvonareva's repertoire of passing shots is impressive.
Although Zvonareva has beaten just one seeded player through four rounds (No. 31 Lucie Safarova), she hasn't lost a set in her last two matches. Zvonareva came into this event with a lot to prove. She lost in two Grand Slam finals last year (Wimbledon and the U.S. Open) and won just one final (Pattaya City) in five appearances. Clearly, she's on a mission of affirmation, not unlike top-seeded Caroline Wozniacki. Zvonareva has avoided the first-week upset, tightened up her game after a second round three-setter, and positioned herself to win that elusive first major. I think she gets by Kvitova.
The ATP quarters:
Alexandr Dolgopolov vs. Andy Murray (No. 5): For about ten days now, it's been Andy Murray this, Andy Murray that. I'm sick of it! Seriously, though, while the attention lavished on Murray has been justified by his form, doesn't anybody remember that unlike Murray, that other fella Novak Djokovic has actually won this thing?
The outlook seems bleak for Dolgopolov. Forgive me for having a Greg Sharko moment here, but when was the last time an unseeded player has beaten a pair of former Grand Slam finalists (Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Murray) in back-to-back matches in the fourth round and quarterfinals of a Grand Slam event?
The head-to-head? Ha, ha, ha...But wait—they have met, in a Davis Cup tie way back in 2006, before the 22-year-old Ukrainian started wearing big-boy pants.
By those figures, things don't look good for Dolgopolov, but then let's remember that they didn't look all that rosy for Gaston Gaudio before the 2004 French Open, either. And you know what? Dolgopolov is crazy and don't care about nothin'. He's remarkably swift, seemingly fearless, and capable of burying anyone in a blizzard of winners. Laugh if you will at that spring-loaded service action; the velocity of the serve may not blow you away, but it sure comes at the other guy in a hurry.
The matchup promises to give Murray a marvelous chance to demonstrate his defensive and retrieving skills because, unless the pressure gets to Dolgopolov, you can expect him to unload on every ball. I'm really curious to see how this one plays out, even though Murray's defensive skills and superior serve ought to be enough to tide him through.
You know what, I'm taking a flyer. Dolgopolov in one of the all-time Open-era Grand Slam upsets.
 Rafael Nadal (No. 1) vs. David Ferrer (No. 7): On paper, this is a walk in the park for Rafa. He's 11-3 against Ferrer, and there's also the "Federer factor" here. (It seems almost perverse to write about Rafa without working Roger into it somehow these days.)
The Federer factor was on display last night, when his fellow Swiss and Olympic doubles partner, Stanislas Wawrinka, folded up like a cheap jacknife when presented with the opportunity to spoil a much anticipated if not yet scripted Federer vs. Nadal showdown.
The idea of Wawrinka beating Federer is comparable to the notion of Janko Tisparevic or Viktor Troicki taking down Novak Djokovic, which is like the concept of Ferrer licking Nadal. It might happen at a minor tournament, but at a major? There's a pecking order in place here, even if it's entirely psychological. So in the interest of equal time, we'll now change it to the "Rafa factor." The chance that Ferrer is going to violate it is remote. But...
What is it with Nadal and this fatigue/sweating thing? The theme blossomed after Nadal's straight-sets win over Bernard Tomic and now the mystery ailment, if such a thing actually exists, threatens to dominate the conversation. If Nadal does suffer from an ailment that causes fatigue (let's remember that Federer, John Isner and others have succumbed to glandular fever in recent times), Ferrer may be the worst opponent of all to face. Nadal could be sweating this out in more ways than one. Verdasco-Nadal, 2009 Aussie Open, anyone?
Ferrer, over the years, has departed from his grinder's roots into a much more dangerous player. He may have the best serve of any 5-9 player in the Open era, he really cracks the forehand, and he's become a capable attacker. His main obstacle now seems as much psychological as tactical; this is a guy who's always seemed happy to take what he can, and then skulk off when the big dogs approach the bowl of kibble. At some point, though, all dogs learn to growl.
Layers of Ferrer's quality and consistency (think Nikolay Davydenko) almost always manage to have a few moments in a big sun, and one of the odd things about Ferrer's CV is that he hasn't had that many. I'd say he's due, but I still like Nadal.
***
This is as compelling a quartet of second-week matches as I can remember. It's driven less by technical issues and head-to-heads (only Nadal and Ferrer have a signficant body of results) than by a variety of unknowns, although each of the matches features a player with great name value. The ATP and WTA have both done themselves proud at this tournament.
 by Pete Bodo
One thing that's become abundantly clear over the past few years is that Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are tied together at the ankles with a very short rope. Everything either man does seems to have an impact on the other, if not in what we might call the real world, then inside that enormous bubble of their rivalry, where matters are not entirely in their own hands.
What I mean is, no matter how Roger or Rafa might feel about things—and I believe they'd just as soon both go about their business as if the other didn't exist, until such time as a showdown is mandated by the draw—other agents, voices, influences and compelling, aborning narratives conspire to link their names and destinies.
If Federer beats Tommy Robredo, it isn't long before Robredo is discarded, as if he were a mere prop, and the emerginig theme is how the victory will influence a potenial Rafa vs Roger confrontation. If Nadal crushes Bernard Tomic, ways are found to interpret the triumph as good or bad news for Federer, as if the glaring reality that it is very bad news for Tomic is merely incidental.
Thus, the pendulum of the rivalry during this tournament has slowly swung back in Rafa's favor. Federer came in hot, Nadal's chances looked a little less certain. Would there be a Rafa Slam, like there had been a Martina Slam and Serena Slam? Not if Federer had any say in it, and unease percolated freely in the Nadal camp once he lost in Doha and thereby had to postpone an appointment with Roger. But Gilles Simon and even Robredo, to whom Federer lost a set in the fourth round, have moved the pendulum back the other way. In matches with those men, Federer showed signs of the inconsistency that plagued him at times through the first nine months of 2010.
Rafa helped himself the other day, giving the pendulum a good shove with his comprehensive beatdown of Marin Cilic, who had won their only previous match under comparable, open-air, hard-court conditions in 2009 in Beijing. Inside the bubble, the headlines said: "Nadal Beats Tall Croatian, Now Playing Better Than Federer." No sense complaining about all this; it's part and parcel of rivalry. One reason neither of these guys needs to look over his shoulder is because two million designated back-watchers are doing it for each of them.
Tonight, Federer gets his own Cilic, which is another way of saying that he has a chance to shape the narrative inside the bubble in a way that will improve his status. It's not that Stanislas Wawrinka, Federer's quarterfinal opponent, plays very much like Cilic. It's more that he represents a similar type of player, and is presently making a bid to join the group that has come to terms with the fact that it's going to take tennis played at that outer edge where power and consistency meet to take Federer down. The challenge for Federer is that Wawrinka, whom expert witness John McEnroe has said has the best backhand in all of men's tennis, has been making progress in that bid to join the Soderlings and Berdychs of this world. Just look at his photo on the tournament's official website and you'll know what I mean when I say the man has intentions. It's less head shot than mug shot.
Wawrinka is well-seasoned for this tussle. He's 25, and apparently ticked off that he's dilly-dallied and failed to make the most of his talent, which has been a realization of near-viral proportions in the ATP ranks these days. Seeded No. 19, Wawrinka has had a pretty tough draw in terms of the general quality of the opposition, if not necessarily the Xs and Os of each matchup.
After defeating Teymuraz Gabashvili, Wawrinka easily handled fast-rising prodigy Grigor Dimitrov (it was their first meeting), after which he performed a clinical deconstruction of Gael Monfils—a guy who had beaten him twice (on hard courts) since the Manislas won their first battle way back in 2007. In the fourth round, Wawrinka swamped Andy Roddick, the No. 8 seed, to improve his record against Roddick to 3-1. Wawrinka hasn't lost a set yet, although that's likely to change. Still, the only player who's seeded lower than Wawrinka in the men's quarters is the unseeded but electric Alexandr Dolgopolov. Wawrinka is seeded 12 places lower than the next lowest man, David Ferrer.
Against Roddick, Wawrinka's first serve percentage was an unimpressive 49, but he rained down 24 aces (a pretty good indicator of how deceptive statistics can be). Also, Wawrinka powdered 67 winners in 29 (total) games, for a scary average of 2.9 winners per game. Federer hasn't come close to matching Wawrinka's single-match winners count, and hit more than 37 only in the two matches in which he lost at least one set. Federer has made 40 more unforced errors in the tournament, with 147 in all. Overall Wawrinka is a net +82 in the winner-to-unforced error ratio, while Federer is +27.
I cite those figures because they suggest that Wawrinka goes in with an edge if it's going to be a shoot-out, although it's true that Federer has had to play three more sets than his next opponent, which adds to both his winner and unforced error counts. That's why averages and ratios are the best way to look at certain quantifiable factors.
Barring a drop-off in Wawrinka's form, Federer is going to have to be mighty sharp for this one. If he goes toe to toe with Wawrinka from the baseline, he could be in for a long and perhaps very rough night. Federer leads the rivalry, 6-1, and it's significant that Wawrinka's lone win was on clay—the surface that, up to a point, aids players who aren't nimble because it allows them more time to draw a bead on the ball. This will be a great opportunity for Federer to make the most of his excellent mobility and the new, aggressive elements in his game. If he can keep Wawrinka moving and under pressure, he can neutralize some of those big groundstrokes. It isn't so much a matter of ending rallies as it is keeping Wawrinka from getting his feet planted during them.
Wawrinka will continue his interrupted quest for validation (he hit a career-high No. 9 in early summer of 2008, but leveled off and began dropping to his present position of No. 19) with one enormous disadvantage that has nothing to do with forehands or backhands, and that's his Swiss nationality. It's a small nation with, traditionally, a dearth of heroes in major spectator sports. Federer has become the nation's sporting icon, and it's safe to say that Wawrinka was awful lucky to have Roger for a doubles partner when the pair won the gold at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Like it or not, resist it or not, there are karma issues at play in these situations, which is why I suspect that the match will be close but Federer will pull it out—or the Manislas will blow it—in the end.
I'll bet that even Rafa watches this one, even if he needn't bother to analyze what it will mean to him. Plenty of others will be all too happy to fill that role.
by Pete Bodo
We're about to embark on the Slam-within-a-Slam, the second week of a major. It's hard to accurately describe just how dramatic the impending shift always is, especially when you're on-site (in this regard, television is a great leveler). To me, it's like the first week is the real qualifying event, although the qualitative difference is obvious.
It seems like ages ago that Brad Gilbert and Cliff Drysdale (or was it Pat McEnroe and Chris Fowler?) were saying how that tremendous fightback by Fernando Verdasco was going to live with Janko Tipsarevic for weeks and maybe even months, implication being that we might be looking at an extended period of poor play from Tipsarevic.
Granted, we're not the ones who absorbed that loss, but does it really seem that consequential, this far out? And given how Verdasco was crushed yesterday by the suddenly dangerous—very dangerous—Tomas Berdych, doesn't that second-rounder with Janko seem that much less relevant? If the poignancy of that heartbreak has been so easily overtaken by other events, maybe Tipsarevic himself isn't quite as shattered as we imagine. Maybe he's just shrugged and moved on. He certainly showed no lingering ill effects on the doubles court, where he and Bjorn Phau battered a fine team in Xavier Malisse and Jamie Murray, before succumbing in the third round to Jurgen Melzer and Philipp Petzschner.
Well, the great wave of week one has receded, and the sands have been washed clean; the next wave hits the beach tonight. So let's take a quick look back at the first seven days and pass out our gold stars and pink slips to those highlighted in bold face.
Gold Stars
Jurgen Melzer. That's right. I'm leading with him for a reason; he's the man nobody seems to want to talk about, the guy at the party who doesn't successfully connect with anyone, even though he's nicely dressed, in good spirits, and is adept at making conversation.
Melzer had a career year in 2010. Starting just inside the Top 30, he was knocking on the door of the Top 10 by the end. It's no secret that Austria has a remarkable—and mystifying—track record when it comes to producing unbeloved or even just plain weird players (remember Horst Skoff?). But Melzer is in the second week at another major, having forced Marcos Baghdatis (who suffered a a groin injury) to his knees. Melzer gets Andy Murray next. Tough draw.
And how about the Australian Open website. Boy, I love the way you can navigate it, especially when it comes to getting an individual player's portfolio. Just click on the pro's name wherever you come across it and the page opens up has tabs taking you anywhere you want to go, including up-to-date round-by-round statistics. We have something similar here, but kudos, Tennis Australia.
But getting back to the men: Roger Federer gets a gold star, even though there's no more room on his bulletin board, for equaling Jimmy Connors' record for having made 27 Grand Slam quarterfinals in a row.
Young guns Alexandr Dolgopolov and Milos Raonic get stars for their most recent wins, over Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Mikhail Youzhny, respectively.
Stan "Manislaus" Wawrinka gets recognition for justifying—if the word can be applied here—his decision to leave his family to make the most of the five years he believes he has left as a top pro. Like I said before, I find it hard to imagine that there isn't a lot more to this story than we know, easy as it would be to condemn Wawrinka's actions. In any event, he would look pretty silly if he played like crap Down Under. He's responded to the pressure inherent in his situation admirably.
Tomas Berdych also gets a star for pulling himself out of his late 2010 tailspin; had he gone out in week one, it would have made it that much easier to dismiss his results from the first half of last year as a career run, destined not to be repeated. And Novak Djokovic gets a star for doing a fair impersonation of Fabio in that shirtless dance turn he did with Aussie hoofer Kym Johnson.
"We have some things in common, like footwork," Djokovic remarked. True enough, and Djokovic's foot—and racket—work has been outstanding so far. Oddly enough, he's flying under the radar here despite his late 2010 resurgence. That's probably because Djokovic encountered a lot of turbulence early in the event, while his rivals dominated. But Novak is flying straight and true now. Watch out for him.
Turning to the women: Francesca Schiavone, that soulful Italian, has again demonstrated her capacity for making headlines and history. Her 16-14 in-the-third win over two-time Grand Slam champ Svetlana Kuznetsova set a women's Grand Slam record for time of play, clocking in at four hours and 44 minutes. And you have to love this quote from Schiavone's presser, which ought to be painted onto a board and nailed up over the entrance to every center court in the world: We work every day to do this kind of—not work—but to give the best when you really say, 'No, I can't do it.' But at the end you have something more, always something more.. .
Looking back on how John Isner performed in the round after his epic, record-shattering first-round win over Nicolas Mahut at Wimbledon (he had nothing left in the tank and got just five games of Thiemo de Bakker), you have to fear for Schiavone when she goes out to play the newest WTA model grinder, top-seeded Caroline Wozniacki.
Give Wozniacki and Kuznetsova gold stars, too. Wozniacki looked ripe for a Jelena Jankovic-grade disaster when she set out to justify her No. 1 ranking this year, but she's responded beautifully, and at the end of the day it isn't her fault that Schiavone probably will be easy pickings in the quarterfinals. Sveta gets her star for her third-round quality win over Justine Henin.
Brad Gilbert. Yeah, I know, he's too much of a motor mouth, too relentelessly upbeat, too unabashedly American, too whatever...but two things I really like about Gilbert that aren't often remarked upon are the genuine compassion that shines through in his commentary and the sense he creates that he's your best buddy. Plus, he coins some really imaginative expressions, and who cares if they're jockspeak?
How can you not smile when Gilbert described a service return winner as having been marked, Return to Sender? Or when, contemplating Guillermo Garcia Lopez's boneheaded insistence on serving to Andy Murray's backhand, he observed, That's a yellow card in the coaching department...
Although the broadcast times are too heavily shaped by other sporting events on ESPN2 on a day-by-basis, the network has done a great job addressing the most common complaint in the history of tennis on television—the tendency of broadcasters to stick with lousy matches that feature stars, especally those from their own nations, instead of cutting to the most interesting matches going on at any given moment. A gold star to the entire ESPN2 team.
 Li Na (my pick to win the event) gets a star for having a great run, and so does dancing fool Andrea Petkovic—this time, her star isn't for her bust-a-move antics, but that decisive beatdown of resurgent Maria Sharapova. Ouch. That one had to hurt Maria.
In the bottom half of the draw, Ekaterina "Hey" Makarova gets a star for that gutsy 8-6 win over Nadia Petrova; she gets Kim Clijsters next. Clijsters earned her gold star for crushing poor Dinara Safina in a double-bagel train wreck of a match. You had to feel for Safina after that one, but we've been feeling for her for a fair amount of time now and it doesn't seem to help her cause.
Pink Slips
Now, for the pink slips, as if being sent packing in week one isn't humiliating enough...
Does anyone else roll his or her eyes every time that silly tourism promo for Melbourne comes up on ESPN2? The song is A Heart Divided, by Aussie chanteuse Holly Throsby. Why do I keep thinking that Throsby is a Starbucks barista with a pierced nose and tatoos? The "precious" factor in this promo is off the charts, so it gets a pink slip. I am not being rational here, I know, but there it is.
Also, how about that Live with Chivalry commercial? I cringe at that overdone British accent, the cheesy narrative, and the cast of characters—all of them Tim Henman wannabes, but not in a good way.
Turning to the draws, I don't want to belabor the negative, so the less said about some of these performances the better. Was anyone else disappointed by the way Jo-Wilfried Tsonga just faded away against Dolgolopov? Wonder why Tsonga can't stay dialed in and energetic for a five-set, first-week match these days? Okay, he's been injured, and seemed to have a problem with a hip as the match wore on, but still...Time is passing, Jo, and you have to exploit a window when you have one.
Guillermo Garcia-Lopez also gets a dressing down. He just didn't seem all that into his match with Andy Murray. Fine, Murray is playing very good tennis. But GGL seemed not at all interested in making it a competitive battle. Remember the words of Schiavone: We work every day to do this kind of—not work—but to give the best...
Some of these fellas and ladies, don't realize that, all in all, they could be working at more stressful, dangerous, unrewarding and soul-killing jobs.
With some reluctance, Slammin' Sammy Stosur gets a pink slip because she works hard and says and does all the right things. But this was, potentially, a big moment for her, and many observers felt she had a good shot at winning the title here, on a court that suits her game. Sure, her standing as the native hope and No. 5 seed created pressure, but every great player will tell you that pressure is a privilege as well as a burden, and if you want to triumph you have to accept and use pressure in your favor. Lleyton Hewitt at least always inserted himself into the second week conversation, usually late in the second week. It can be done.
Petra Kvitova is my dark horse pick to win the tournament, but Stosur might have found a way to produce stiffer resistance to the No. 25 seed after losing a close first set in a tiebreaker. "It was so close," Stosur said. "I mean, that first set. Don't really know how I lost it, to be honest. Felt like I started playing a bit better and was probably on top of her and then all of a sudden it was gone and I was a set down."
True enough. And while letdowns are beyond our control, the situation called for a better response to adversity than Stosur managed in that ho-hum second set.
I'm tired of giving Jelena Jankovic pink slips; I can't hand these out like candy or else they lose their meaning. So the last one I'll give out today goes to Victoria Azarenka. When you've lost just 16 games and no sets through three rounds of play, you need to step up, not back, when you run into a quality player like Li Na. Once again, Azarenka lost her way, but you have to admit, Li Na is on fire. She hasn't lost a set, or more than three games in any set, so far in the tournament.
That's all folks. Go Jets!
by Pete Bodo
Long after this Australian Open is over, after the Rafa Slam issue is settled and the Roger Resurgent theme has run it's course, long-view fans may come to think of it has the tournament that pre-figured a changing of the guard in men's tennis. For while a quartet of high quality players has created a log jam near the top. And Federer and Nadal have locked Grand Slam gates to keep the rabble out for a mind-boggling number of events spanning half-a-decade (since 2005, only three players not named Rafa or Roger have won a major—Marat Safin, Novak Djokovic and Juan Martin del Potro).
This can't go on forever, folks. Well, maybe not...
Seriously, though, lately there have been signs of fissures in the wall of exclusion. Had he not been injured a year ago and forced to miss 2010, who knows how big a factor Delpo might have been? This is a guy who had a fair shot at denying Roger his long-awaited French Open, and has posed to Rafa many questions that the career-slammer hasn't answered convincingly. Djokovic and Andy Murray have been the most consistent (and most consistently frustrated) challengers to the sovereignty of Rafa and Roger, but new co-conspirators have emerged. Count among them, most prominently, Tomas Berdych, Marin Cilic, and Robin Soderling; you'll notice that those three men all are still very much in the hunt Down Under as we approach the halfway mark.
But a new wave is also forming, down in the ranks where age (or, more precisely, youth) can be as much of a handicap as an asset. In this first week, the spotlight has found a quintent of players of noteworthy promise, and while one of them was blown to oblivion in the first round and two of them were laid low yesterday, two have survived to fight again, on the cusp of that Slam-within-a-Slam second week. The fallen were Bernard Tomic, who received a valuable lesson (gratis, no less) from Nadal, and Richard Berankis, who was picked apart by the last guy any jacked-up 20 year-old should have to face to prove himself, David Ferrer—the most level-headed and rock solid of veterans of late-stage tournament play.
The survivors were Canada's Milos Raonic and Ukraine's Alexandr Dolgopolov, who chopped down former finalist Jo-Wilfried Tsonga to punch his ticket to the fourth round in Melbourne.
The fifth member of this Fab Five is ump-shoving, serve-cracking, backhand junkie Grigor Dimitrov, who was crushed in the first round by Stan Wawrinka, who's been doing a lot of crushing this week. No shame in that for Dimitrov. So let's just list these kids in order of present ranking, and make a few comments about each:
Alexandr Dolgolopov, 22, No. 46: Granted, Dolgo is a hoary 22, but when I learned about some of his personal struggles last year at the U.S. Open (for a refresher, check here), I developed a better understanding of his situation. So I decided to place him in this Fab Five group despite his age. Sure, those two years of seasoning that he enjoys on the other members makes his present superiority in the rankings deceptive, but this kid has talent to burn and it's a special kind of talent. He may be the most electrifying player I've ever seen when he's feeling it. Should he go on a tear, I think he's capable of winning any tournament, including any of the majors.
Dolgolopov's blood lines are impressive: His mother, Elena, was a gymnast who earned gold and silver medals in European championships. His father was one of the pioneers of Russian tennis, playing on the ATP tour back when just earning the chance to do so was a remarkable feat.
Dolgopolov will play Robin Soderling next, and while I picked the big Swede to win this tournament, there will be a compelling David vs. Goliath subtext in this one, and I would certainly not dismiss Dolgo's chances. There's a point at which speed, both foot speed and pace of shot, can negate any strength or size advantage.
Richard Berankis, 20, No. 95: A Lithuanian, this kid has some refreshingly different qualities (perhaps the spirit of Vitas Gerulaitis does live!), like a passion for spear fishing in a peer group that skews more toward video games. The No. 1 junior in the world in 2007, Berankis developed his game at the IMG NIck Bollettieri Tennis Academy. He's got a fairly seamless, smooth and clean baseline game, reminiscent of the young Novak Djokovic.
Berankis is coming on fast. In 2010 he fought his way through qualifying and won a match at both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open (where, in the second round, he almost knocked off No. 15 Jurgen Melzer). Granted, Berankis benefited from a retirement in his second-rounder in Oz (David Nalbandian quit, complaining of dizzy spells, after Berankis crushed him in a 6-1 first set), so getting just five games off Ferrer in the third round had to be disappointing, but it's all part of the learning experience. The thing with Ferrer is that he's exactly the kind of guy you need to be able to beat if you want to be a player with a capital "P." Berankis isn't ready or able to do that yet; I'm not sure any of these guys, other than maybe Dolgolopov, is.
Note: Berankis beat Dimitrov in the semis of the Helsinki Challenger, site of the notorious ump-shoving incident that's caused the otherwise personable Dimitrov plenty of grief.
Grigor Dimitrov, 19, No. 105: He's tall, lean, and sometimes bellicose looking, with dark locks and a furrowed brow. Despite that, he's most frequently compared to that sunny-dispositioned warrior, Roger Federer. He's the new "Baby Federer," now that the original Baby Fed, Richard Gasquet, has grown up to become flashy but unreliable competitor, who doesn't appear to have the sand or desire to stop screwing around before the game passes him by.
Dimitrov, a Bulgarian, seems to be made of different, more leathery stuff. His tool box is loaded, and his whiplash one-handed backhand is the attribute that comes closest to validating the comparison to Federer. Dimitrov has been coached by Peter Lundgren, although the ATP website currently identifies former Aussie top-tenner and serve-and-volley nut Peter McNamara as his mentor. Lundgren let it be known that, in his eyes, Dimitrov has more up-side than Federer did at a comparable age.
Can you say "hyperbole?" But the talent is undeniable and obvious.
 Milos Raonic, 20, No. 152: We are in the midst of one of the more memorable career breakouts now that Raonic has beaten No. 10 seed Mikhail Youzhny in Melbourne. Youzhny is a seasoned veteran with a knack for bringing his A-game to majors, so Raonic's win is easily the equal of Dolgopolov's triumph over Tsonga.
Check out Steve Tignor's excellent post for the scoop on Raonic. For my part, most of you know that I worship at the altar of power, so that drives Raonic's stock sky-high in my eyes.
This kid already has a win over Nadal...well, sort of. In Toronto last year, Raonic and Jaroslav Pospicil took out Nadal and—get this—Novak Djokovic in the first round of the doubles. If you check out Raonic's results for 2010, you'll see that he's beaten a number of solid players, guys like Florent Serra, Marsel Ilhan, Sergiy Satkhovsky and Santiago Giraldo, so this hot streak he's on isn't entirely out of the blue.
Next up for the only other fourth-round survivor among the Fab Five? The schoolmaster, David Ferrer.
Bernard Tomic, 18, No. 199: You can hardly blame the Aussies for generating so much hype around Tomic; he's been touted as a surefire Top 10 (and maybe better) for years now. He trails his intriguing peer group in the rankings, but he's the youngest of the lot at a time when a year or 18 months represents a significant chunk of life and learning.
Tomic had two quality wins in Melbourne (Jeremy Chardy and Feliciano Lopez), but neither of those players was the kind who could expose and work on Tomic's greatest shortcoming, mediocre movement. The spanking Nadal gave him will be worthy of video review by Tomic, not for self-bashing purposes, but as a barometer for what he needs to do better.
Many have remarked that Tomic reminds them somewhat of Andy Murray, but I'm not sure being another Murray—without the retrieving ability and transition (defense to offense) game—is a particularly valuable ambition. Creativity-wise, though, Tomic is a great, and rare, talent. And creativity of his kind can compensate for many, many shortcomings—tennis has a rich history of both male and female players who were able to consistently plant their feet and dictate, finding ways to avoid having to run. But nobody would recommend that as a developmental template.
***
Only one member of this group (Dimitrov) was dismissed from Melbourne before the third round, and the man who ushered him out (Wawrinka) has revealed himself as a man on a mission. Two players in this group are still in contention. As generational stories go, this is a good one—and perhaps the most significant theme of the first week of the Australian Open.
|
