Hi, everyone. Today's Deuce Club features a special tournament report from a beloved TWiber, which we'll get to in just a bit.
Some business first:
1. Last week I started taking a head count for all Indian Wells attendees; if you missed the post and want to be a part of our TW gathering there, let me know in the comments or via e-mail. I'll have logistics on the get-together in next week's DC.
2. The Oscars are this Sunday, and some of you asked if we were having another virtual Oscar party (I think we did it two years ago?). I don't plan on putting up a separate post this time around, but feel free to return here during the show (assuming another thread goes up between now and then) to chat about this year's films, winners and losers, fashion hits and misses, the whole nine.
Now, on to the DC main event! TWibe regular Linz made her way to the Memphis tournament last week and documented her experience for us, both in writing and on video. Linz, thank you for sharing this—and how perfect that you were able to see your favorite win the whole thing! You must be his good luck charm, eh? Enjoy, everyone:
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about defining moments—of the tennistical sense. Those matches and moments, both live and on TV (or tiny internet stream or scoreboard, whatever it may be) that make us who we are as fans. I think we all have a handful of them, and I must say that my entire four days in Memphis was one giant defining moment for me, both tennis-wise and personally.
Of course, let’s start with the obvious—Andy Roddick won the tournament! I was there for four days and got to see four incredible Roddick wins. Having never seen him win a match live before, this was beyond anything I could have ever hoped for. To see him win a title, especially in that fashion (THAT POINT!), was an experience that I will never forget. I hope that every fan gets the opportunity to see his/her favorite player win a trophy live.
But beyond that (as if it weren’t enough!), this was my first tournament with a press pass. It happened at the very last minute (which is probably a good thing—I didn’t have time to frazzle!); I had brought my camera equipment with me to Memphis and was able to get a pass to film videos for a tennis blog. I had always envisioned myself backstage at tennis events shooting and editing interviews with players, but I didn’t realize it would happen so soon! Once I was in the media room I was able to film all of the pressers and shoot and edit player interviews with The Koz from Indietennis.com. (All of the videos I shot can be found here.)
One of the craziest moments for me came when I got to film an interview with Roddick (click here to see it) after his win against Lleyton Hewitt in the quarterfinals. As I was (somewhat steadily) holding the camera a mere 5 feet away from him, it suddenly occurred to me that the first post I ever commented on here on TennisWorld was the Hewitt/Roddick semifinal match in Memphis in 2009. It was such a cheesy “full circle” moment! [JR: Collective “awwww.” :)]
The video at the top of the page is my cheesy Memphis highlight reel. Many thanks to naughty T for the music suggestion.
(I also have to give a shout-out to all the fabulous people I met in Memphis, most notably fellow TWibers Bobby Chintapalli and Brad Hunter (jbradhunter), who were just as sweet in person as you would think they would be.)
TWibe, I’d love to hear about some of your “defining moments” as tennis fans. Some of my other ones are the Hewitt/Roddick 2001 US Open quarterfinal (though a loss, it cemented my love for Roddick—and my inability to embrace Hewitt) and the Tsonga/Gonzo US Open 4th rounder in 2009, which was the most electrifying tennis match I have ever seen live (well, before last week!). What would your moments be?
Terrific reporting, Linz. I’m thrilled you had such a memorable time . . . and in addition to being ARod’s good luck charm, you’re also quite the budding filmmaker! Keep up the good work!
TWibe, have a nice weekend, and I'll see you here on Sunday!
Hi guys, Pete's not here right now (he'll be back Tuesday) but this is the place to discuss matches for the next few days. There's also Steve Tignor's latest mailbag offering and periodic Racquet Reaction updates, if you're looking for somewhere else to chat. And don't forget about The Pro Shop, a gear haven authored by Richard Pagliaro—there will be shoe and racquet reviews aplenty there in the next few weeks.
Mornin', everyone. As I mentioned the other day, I am off for a week's vacation on the island of Vieques bright and early tomorrow morning. And I leave you with just three words: Beware. . .Robin . . . Soderling.
In reaching today's final of the ominously named Open 13 in Marseilles, Soderling improved his record in 2011 to a dazzling 16-1; he earned the titles in Brisbane and Rotterdam, and stands poised to strike again in Marseilles. It's easy to overlook Soderling, what with that unexpected loss Down Under to Alexandr Dolgopolov, Milos Raonic's breakout, the return of Juan Martin del Potro, and Andy Roddick's quest for his 30th ATP singles title in his 50th final (he's third to only Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal among active players, which tells you something). But it looks like the momentum this guy began to build back on that cold, gray day in May of 2009 in Paris, where he get the best of Rafael Nadal in the fourth round, continues to accumulate. Its's bound to pay off, big-time, one day soon.
The Memphis final between Roddick and Raonic shapes up as almost a symbolic rite of passage, as the aging Thor of the ATP passes the thunder down to his Canadian understudy. I can't wait to see the serve stats on this one. And what pity that Raonic's countryman, Rebecca Marino, strained an abdominal muscle and had to quit after losing the first set of the Memphis final to Magdalena Rybarikova. Still, you have to wonder of two Canadian players ever before made it to their respective finals in a combined event bigger than, say, the Trois Rivieres 18-and-under hard courts. . .
And in Dubai, Caroline Woznaicki will try to punctuate her reclamation of the the no 1 ranking with a win over Svetlana Kuznetsova. Like Soderling, Kuznetsova's Australian Open ended badly (alhough her epic 16-14 in-the-third, fourth-round loss to Francesca Schiavone is already the stuff of tennis lore and legend. But don't let that deceive you. Kuzzi is due to surprise us all again sometime soon, because this is a young lady who likes to make sure no one is paying attention anymore when she really gets to work. And she's been off the radar for quite a while now.
Anyway, I hope to catch some of the action today in the midst of packing. By the time I get back, we'll be ramping up to Indian Wells and then I'll be traveling to Miami to cover that combined Masters 1000 as per usual. I'm sorry to miss the big exo at Madison Square Garden, but I look forward to reading all about it here at Tennis.com. We'll be all over it, of that you can be sure. Have a great week, everyone . . .
Hiya, TWibe. How is everyone doing? Who else besides me is celebrating the warmer weather and the upcoming 3-day weekend?
Indian Wells is nearing, so I thought I’d start putting plans in motion for our annual TW get-together there. I’ll be in attendance from the 10th until the 16th. Who else is going and for what days? And where are you staying? I assume we’ll keep the Beer Hunter as our meeting spot, but I’m open to suggestions. Go ahead and respond in the Comments or you can e-mail me here so I know to look out for you!
Now on to today’s topic. Remember our YouTube series? This next installment, long overdue, is brought to you by my dear friend and DC regular Tan. She’s a film buff and wanted to share some of her musings on the relationship between tennis and film. It’s a brilliant piece, and I know you’ll enjoy it just as much as I did.
Tennis has never really had its film moment; unlike other sports, it's merely been in the background. (Pat and Mike starring Hepburn and Tracy could arguably be an exception. It's not exclusively about tennis, but about Pat's prowess in sports, tennis being one them. There is a hilarious tennis scene that tries to show what a tennis player, who's having a bad day and who can’t see the ball, sees subjectively during a match—sadly not online.) But tennis does weave itself into the tapestry of many films I love.
In Monsieur Hulot’s Holiday we get to see Tati simply enjoy the sport of tennis. He uses tennis to satirize the belief that there’s one right way to do anything. The point is just to have fun and play. The person who posted the clip equates it with Rafa’s homemade tennis . . . why not? It’s so much fun to watch:
Mostly I’ve noticed in film that tennis serves as a visual reminder that love and romance require two players to engage in fair play. The tennis court is a much nicer visual metaphor for fairness than a court of law. So at tennis’ heart, we find an egalitarian space where we can watch people engage in the game of courtship and from this perhaps nourish a deep love.
Woody Allen uses tennis perfectly in Annie Hall. Alvy and Annie meet at a tennis court—best use of la-di-da ever:
And in A Room with a View—a sentimental favorite of mine—true love is finally recognized on a home tennis court in the backyard. Scroll to 6:40 in the clip.
And then there is tennis in Godard. He probably shows a tennis match, a tennis racquet and/or ball, mentions tennis or uses the sound of a tennis ball being hit in maybe 30 of his gazillion films. He uses tennis as a vehicle for many arguments.
Just because it’s online, I chose the very first shot of Godard’s Pierrot le fou. Tennis here is a pure aesthetic experience. Tennis as something beautiful in itself (Federer, anyone?). There is a voice-over speaking about Velasquez’ art. We watch tennis being played at the public tennis courts of Les Jardins du Luxembourg which are nestled in the lovely garden near works of art by Delacroix and Rubens. The light of late winter/ early spring. Just magical. Demeter in contemporary times might not have been portrayed with a bow and arrow—she might have had a tennis racquet!
Thank you for sharing that, Tan! And how timely, what with the Oscars coming up.
Now it's your turn, TWibe. I was thinking you could take this in one of two directions (or both?):
1) Let's have a film discussion. What are your favorite films and what do you enjoy about them? Do you care to see tennis in film?
2) If you’re not a film person, consider this bent, one that was originally proposed by whitelinefever way back when (I think it was you, wilfy?). He proposed that we explore tennis in entertainment media in general—i.e. film (already covered), TV, books, songs, etc. Can you share some examples of where you’ve found tennis in arts or media? Have you seen tennis players on TV shows? Do you read tennis books? Is there a song or a lyric that makes you think of tennis? (whitelinefever’s contribution: Bjork/The Sugarcubes’ “Deus does not exist” line makes me think, “Does this mean Bjork lives in a world of no-ad scoring?”) Now Lil’ Wayne and Vampire Weekend are coming to mind . . .
Obviously, as this is part of our YouTube series, go ahead and share YT links as you see fit! (No need for TinyURL.)
I'm presently a little tapped out on Milos Raonic (I added some fresh thoughts on him over at ESPN this morning), who's still lighting up the scoreboard down in Memphis, or as they say in Texas, "Meffis." Raonic is in the semis now, but I have a higher degree of interest in three other ATP pros still alive in the same draw: Andy Roddick, Mardy Fish and Sam Querrey, two of whom have been named to the Davis Cup squad rookie captain Jim Courier will be taking to Chile at the end of the month. Those names, though, are written in sand.
You may remember that I spoke with Courier during the Australian Open about the pending Davis Cup tie, and wrote a post about it. At the time, Courier insisted that all the candidates still had plenty of time to earn a place on the squad, and acknowledged that having a terrific doubles team like Bob and Mike Bryan, while a great luxury, also restricts a captain's singles options.
For example, because the Bryans did not make that critical playoff-round trip to Colombia, outgoing captain Patrick McEnroe had three potential singles players: Querrey, Fish, and John Isner (with young Ryan Harrison the fourth man on the squad). This mix-and-match team, more the norm than not, was viable. As things turned out in Bogota, Fish seemed to be best prepared to handle the challenges and atmosphere (literally as well as figuratively, given the mile-high elevation at which the matches were played). So McEnroe leaned on him. Could anyone forsee that Fish would become the first U.S. man since Pete Sampras in 1995 to play a part in all three of the rubbers that clinched the tie for his nation?
Had McEnroe taken along the Bryans (he had considered the option of taking one, but those boys are only available as a matched set), there's a chance Fish might have been left off the team. And who knows what might have happened then. Still, I think any captain on earth would not hesitate to take a dedicated doubles team that comes as close to guaranteeing a victory as do the Bryans (they're a stellar 17-2).
I haven't been able to learn or figure out why Fish, who's playing Querrey in Memphis today, was left off the team, at least for now. Perhaps he's recused himself, for reasons having to do with his recent, fatigue-related health problems. Perhaps Courier just wanted to satisfy the ITF's requirements by submitting five names, knowing that even after that list has to be whittled down to four (on Feb. 22nd), he will still be allowed to make up to two substitutions right before the draw for the tie is made. You don't really have to write the name of your squad into stone until March 3, which makes a lot of these preliminary selections confusing.
There are all kinds of reasons why it would be virtually impossible to leave one or both Bryans off this team, starting with their record and remarkable loyalty to the event. No new captain in his right mind would want to rock the boat so early in his tenure—not unless that ship were sinking. So Courier has decided to take the almost sure doubles point.
Then there's Andy Roddick. You can't very well leave him off the team, can you? At No. 8 he's the highest-ranked and by far most accomplished of the American players. And the team that Courier inherited from McEnroe is still Roddick's team—he's the veteran leader, the guy former baseball star Reggie Jackson once characterized (speaking of himself) as "the straw that stirs the drink." Roddick and the Bryans have been the most ardent and gung-ho of Davis Cup warriors during the McEnroe era. Clearly, the idea that the emergence of Querrey and Isner would change all that was premature.
Thankfully for Courier, none of the other contenders have played well enough over the past few months to challenge Roddick's place on the squad. So once again, the critical Davis Cup question is, "Who's going to be No. 2 singles?"
Courier named both Querrey and Isner (who are good buddies, and also a doubles team to reckon with) to the team, which is going to leave him with some explaining to do should Fish beat Querrey in Memphis today—and especially if he goes on to, say, win the tournament. Should Fish outshine his countrymen in Memphis (Roddick is still in the tournament, too), will he suddenly become available or expect to be named to the four-man team? Given what he did in Bogota, he would have every right to demand a place on the team—and I believe he'd get one.
All in all, it looks more and more like the ongoing tournament in Memphis is also the U.S. Davis Cup team playoffs. Roddick has been playing well enough since late last year to claim a place on the team based on form alone. ATP No. 24 Isner was unlucky to draw Juan Martin del Potro as his first-round opponent in Memphis; overall, though, he's played pretty well this year, losing only to a trio of quality players: the mercurial David Nalbandian, Marin Cilic, and Delpo.
Querrey is ranked four places higher than Isner, but he played miserably at the end of last year and was 0-3 going into Memphis in 2011, having lost to Lukasz Kubot, Lukas Lacko and Alexandr Dolgopolov. Now Querrey is showing signs of life. He has a lot of catching up to do, and lacks the Davis Cup seasoning of Fish.
Whomever Courier finally names to the four-man squad, one thing is clear: The much-discussed transition out of the McEnroe era has been put on hold. It will be some time before this becomes Courier's team, and that's probably a good thing. He has plenty of other things to worry about, like deciding which of three players to pick as the No. 2 singles man. I wouldn't be surprised if he the names written in the sand are washed over once or twice before the balls start flying in Santiago.
Just the other day Vera Zvonareva issued a spirited defense of her "emotional" nature, telling reporters: "There is a big difference between being mentally tough and being emotional. It's a huge difference. I will always be emotional. As long as I use those emotions to my advantage, that's only a plus to me. If I need to break the racket to pump myself up, then I will break the racket. I don't care."
Yesterday, Zvonareva could have benefited from a good old-fashioned Marat Safin-esque racket demoliton in Dubai, where she was crushed by fellow Russian Alisa Kleybanova, 6-3, 6-2. The other day I was joking around, suggesting that maybe winning Pattaya City in Thailand for two consecutive years (2009 and 2010) constituted some kind of hex that prevented Zoner from winning bigger, more significant titles (for example, in 2010 Pattaya was the only title she bagged in six finals—including two majors, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open).
Well, the run at Pattaya is over; Zvonareva was beaten last week in the semis by Daniela Hantuchova. Zoner raised some eyebrows in that match when she pitched an angry fit over being fined for cursing. So inquiring minds want to know if we're about to return to those good—or bad—old days, when you could count on Zvonareva meltdowns as faithfully as you could rely on John Isner serving aces.
Zoner has made enormous career strides over the past two years, and losing successive Grand Slam finals in 2010 to Serena Williams and Kim Clijsters is not only nothing to be ashamed of, it's a pretty good example of bad luck. Let's remember that on paper, Zoner could not have been expected to win either match. So she had two outstanding major events.
But these more recent developments, coupled with Zvonarava's straight sets loss to Clijsters in the Australian Open semis, may constitute a warning sign. It takes a player like Zoner (Sam Stosur is another good example) a long time to get to or near the very top, but any player not to the manor born can slip from the upper echelon subtly and swiftly. The start of this year suggests that the Zvonareva surge is diminishing. It's funny, I don't recall much discussion about Zoner's "emotions" back when she was riding high last summer. And that tells me something. There is a big difference between being mentally tough and emotional, but not necessarily in the way she described it.
Au Contraire, Monsieur!
How French is it that French Federation president Jean Gachassin says that Sunday's vote to keep the French Open at its current Roland Garros site was "a choice against the current fashion of gigantism"?
I guess he means that having expansive grounds with tons of elbow room for thousands of spectators, places where fans can sit beside fountains, or on grassy knolls or quads, and where you might find food courts, merchandise concessions, "fun zones" for kids, and even plazas where you can catch a rock concert between tennis sessions (the way it's done at Melbourne Park during the Australian Open) is a really, really bad thing. Almost, like—and we're not going to name names here—like something from a country somewhere across the ocean...
Far better, Gachassin seems to be saying, to preserve our wonderful culture and its habits, like having to stand in line for two hours to buy a baguette jambon, having no place to go for cover during a sudden rainstorm, having to wait thirty minutes to get through a crowded passageway between courts—or over an hour to get a chance to sit down to watch a doubles match featuring two players you've never even heard of on an outside court at Roland Garros.
Well, you know that the French consider it in incredibly poor taste to actually talk about money, but of course there's no law just thinking about it, or working it into your calculations. I have to believe that the significantly lower price tag on a renovation (as opposed to the construction of an entirely new site outside Paris) may have had a teensy-weensy bit to do with the decision to remain at an expanded Roland Garros. The FFT said that the cost of renovating and expanding the present footprint of Roland Garros by 60 percent would be $370 million, while building from the ground up at any of the three proposed alternate sides would have cost between $630 million and $1 billion.
One of the more realistic—and frank—voices in this debate was that of former WTA No. 1 and multiple Grand Slam champion Amelie Mauresmo, who's now a tournament promoter and journalist. Sounding more like an entrepreneur and visionary than sentimentalist, she sensed that the quality of the event and game was not the only issue in play here. She said, “I don’t know if the tennis aspect prevailed in that decision. I have some doubts. I clearly said that I was more in favor of a development, of an ambition, that is, to move.”
In any event, any expansion at the overcrowded if charming and so very French Roland Garros site is welcome.
No More Mr. Nice Guy...
Give Fernando Verdasco a break. He was dealt one of the more rotten hands a player can get when he had to play fast-rising ATP star Milos Raonic twice in three days on fast indoor surfaces, where Raonic's atomic serve is particularly deadly. This was just the fourth time since 2000 that the finalists in one event had to square off again in the first round of the next one.
ATP No. 84 Raonic defeated No. 9 Verdasco in San Jose last Sunday in a pair of tiebreakers, after which the beaten man predicted a bright, Top 20 future for the winner, and spoke with wit and warmth about the skinny legs and arms of Raonic.
Yesterday, Raonic got the better of Verdasco again, this time in Memphis, and once again the key was a tiebreaker—in this case a decisive, third-set 'breaker won by Raonic 7-6 (5). You can see why Verdasco might feel a little frustrated. He said during his press conference: “He was luckier than me in the tie-break. He hit the line at 5-5 with the return and then he had big options to win the match. In San Jose he tried to make the points really quick, if I managed to return the serve he went to the net, like he did today a lot of times."
Don't say that as if it's a bad thing, Fernando. That's how you're supposed to play when you have a big serve and a good volley and the surface is fast.
Verdasco also groused, "For me that’s not a real match in tennis. I hope to play soon against him in clay court to show him what it is to play tennis, and play rallies, and run, and not only serve.”
Verdasco might have chosen his words a little more carefully, lest they come back to bite him on the behind. Because winning with the serve and a good net game on fast surfaces and playing well on clay are not mutually exclusive, as any number of players have demonstrated. We'll put Verdasco's reaction down to exasperation. But it's pretty good bulletin board material, so remember it if the men should meet on clay over the coming months.
Well, That Didn't Work out So Good...
You may remember that late last year, we broke the news that Ryan Harrison had hired a coach—the former ATP singles player and late-career doubles specialist Martin Damm, who had formed a relationship with the Harrisons (including the patriarch and head-of-family, Pat) while they were all together at the IMG Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy.
Pat Harrison, a teaching pro now employed at the NBTA, was torn in different directions by his three tennis-playing children and wanted to step back so he could do right by all of them. He backed the idea of hiring Damm. But Ryan's results early this year under Damm's tutelage were lackluster. He qualified for Brisbane, and lost in the first round to Robin Soderling. That wasn't so bad. But Ryan was beaten up in the first round of the Australian Open by Adrian Mannarino, a left-handed Frenchman ranked No. 61. Worse yet, a fleet of appealing new contenders, including Raonic, Richard Berankis, and Bernard Tomic, all fairly close in age to Harrison, played well Down Under and attracted a lot of attention.
The Damm finally burst when Harrison traveled alone to Honolulu, Hawaii, for a Challenger event after he lost in Australia—and won the thing. That raised his ranking to a career-high No. 138 and convinced him that he might just as well let go of Damm and retain Pat, his original coach, while he searched for a better fit.
The feeling here is that, given the news made by the youngsters at the Australian Open, Ryan has to ramp it up a bit lest he get lost in the shuffle. If a rising tide does indeed lift all boats, Harrison is due for some kind of break-out, but it won't happen in Memphis. He lost in the first round of qualifying to Germany's Bjorn Phau.
Where Did THAT Come From?
The most interesting—and bizarre—thing about Justine Henin's "farewell" press conference was the way she introduced the doping theme into what ought to have been a celebration of the Belgian champion's legacy, combined with an update on the precise reasons she left the game for a second time, following an aborted comeback that began at the beginning of 2010.
At one point in her presser (this is from news reports), she asked journalists who had tackled the recurring doping rumors to leave the room, and said of their interest and inquiries, "I can't accept that, nor will I forget or forgive. I have never cheated."
Her anger is understandable, but why bring it up—especially in a farewell press conference? Have those rumors recently been rekindled in the Belgian press following her unsucessful comeback (I'm asking, not suggesting)? The one thing we do know for sure is that way back in 2003, Kim Clijsters' father, Leo—no stranger to the hazards of engaging the media, having been a professional soccer player—and other tennis pundits made some ambiguous and provocative remarks about Henin's physique and stamina following her win over Clijsters in the 2003 U.S. Open final. And once the doping cat is out of the bag, it's hard to wrestle him back in.
I can see where Henin might feel aggrieved over having had to to deal with these rumors. They aren't the only ones that have a long shelf-life, because a reputation is the easiest thing to acquire and the hardest thing to shed. But I can't for the life of me figure out why she would introduce that issue, or refer to it, in her leave-taking.
***
That's it for now, folks. Just an FYI: I'll be around through the weekend, but then we're taking a family vacation (returning to the island of Vieques) the following week. Steve Tignor, Richard Pagliaro, Bobby Chintapalli, Ed McGrogan and others will keep you more than amused while I am away.
Rolling into Dubai as the newly demoted world No. 2, Caroline Wozniacki reacted to her situation in what seems more and more like typical Wozniacki fashion, explaining: "At least I won't get this question over and over again: 'How does it feel to be No. 1 without winning a Grand Slam?' I don't feel a difference (from when I was No. 1). The sun is shining, I'm still playing the same way and I'm still here to compete in the tournament and try to win it. There's absolutely no difference."
The comments, and the attitude underlying them, do very little to advance any burning desire Wozniacki may harbor to take her place among the drama queens of the WTA, but it helped her become the year-end No. 1 for 2010, and I believe it will help her become the No. 1 player once again, as well as a major champion. She might accomplish the former as soon as this week, should she reach the semifinals at Dubai. She moved one match closer to that round today in a bizarre win-by-default over Anna Chakvetadze.
Visibly under the weather, Chakvetadze lost the first set 1-6. Then Wozniacki took her eyes off the prize and began making errors while Chakvetadze, despite her illness, improved her placement and accuracy. But when she served for the second set, Chakvetadze swooned and melted to the court at 15-30, in a pass-out reminscent of Victoria Azarenka's collapse at the U.S. Open last year. Chakvetadze took a full medical time out, during which the trainers checked all her vital signs.
Chakvetadze ultimately made an effort to play on—but quit after playing just one more point when she found herself unable to run, hit, or do any of the other things required by the game. Apparently, her problem was gastro-intenstinal. Let's hope it's not serious. And the default brought Wozniacki within two matches of reclaiming the No. 1 ranking—you know, the one so many people seem to think she does not deserve.
That I find myself defending Wozniacki amuses me, because, truthfully, she isn't the kind of player who does a lot for me. I never was blown away by her game, even when she busted out in a big way in 2009 to become a Grand Slam finalist at the relatively tender age of 19. I don't find her "boring," or deficient, though, those being two of the chargers periodically hurled at her. That someone who's said by many to have a game unworthy of her status is doing so well should tell you that there's something going on that may not meet your eye, or more likely that escapes your eye. So what if nobody ever called Wozniacki "the female Federer"? The purpose of every player's game is to win the last point. Beyond that, it's all aesthetics. And Wozniacki has won lots of last points in the past year-plus.
The personalities of the players we watch also shapes our attitudes toward them. I never felt obliged to ask myself if I was being overly kind or harsh toward Wozniacki because of her personality, or even her looks. She certainly seems like a nice girl, but that's about as far as my opinion in the area of personality and her degree of charisma goes. It's not like the planet is short of nice girls, right?
But I find myself liking Wozniacki more and more as this "Slam-less No. 1" story has unfolded. I'm not just being a contrarian. The notion that she's an undeserving No. 1, a No. 1 by default, is just plain unfair, and taking that position suggests a lack of appreciation of her unique skill set (as well as her competitive character). For players' games are like fingerprints. All of them are different, but you'd never know that just looking at their hands.
Under the current ranking system, calling any No. 1 "undeserving" is a little like saying the number 4 doesn't deserve to be the sum of 2 plus 2. We all know that the "real" 2-plus-2 is 7, right? The very argument is ridiculous. A more worthwhile line of inquiry is just why so many fans are skeptical about Wozniacki's credentials, or don't think she has the game to win majors—in the minds of many, that's an undeclared prerequisite for being No. 1.
When you reach a certain level in tennis, winning a major ceases to be about your game. If you gave Justine Henin a weaker mind or less fierce will, she would have been...Alize Cornet. Forget the "no weapons" criticism, or the "Serena is MIA" theme. The evidence suggests that Wozniacki has Grand Slam chops. But it's been hard to appreciate that because of the way Jelena Jankovic and Dinara Safina inadvertently teamed up to make the WTA world unsafe for Slam-less No. 1 players. And that has nothing to do with Wozniacki's game, her mind or heart.
Jankovic, the year-end No. 1 for 2008, has been one of the great disappointments of the WTA. It pains me to write that because, frankly, I always did admire her game, as well as Jankovic's particular brand of athleticism. There's something interesting and even special about the way she scuttles, crab-like, around a court. And Jankovic has loads of personality. That swoon by Jankovic at the start of 2009 was awful, but understandable. What has been more baffling has been her inability to recover from what might otherwise have been just a career hiccup.
Jankovic surrendered her No. 1 ranking on Feb. 1, 2009, to the winner of the Australian Open, Serena Williams, who would hold it for only 11 weeks before Safina rose to the top to become yet another No. 1 who had yet to win a Grand Slam title. And the way Safina was overpowered in the Wimbledon semifinals a few weeks later by No. 3 seed Venus Williams, 6-1, 6-0, only strengthened the case of the critics. The significance if not the validity of the No. 1 ranking was severly undermined in 2009, and that's something for which Wozniacki has had to pay.
Another Slam-less No. 1? Cue The Who: We Won't Get Fooled Again!
But hold on. While Wozniacki didn't win a major before she earned the No. 1 ranking, that's about all she has in common, thus far, with Jankovic and Safina. Jankovic was closing on the age of 24 when she bagged the top spot, while Safina was a week shy of 23 when she earned it. Wozniacki, by contrast, was just a few months into her 20th year when she hit the top. That's pretty fast work, and pretty good work, for a girl that age. It also bespeaks a consistency that's more likely to develop with age.
With Jankovic and Safina, you could argue that they were in the mix near the top, and it was not until a certain combination of circumstances came together that they were able to bubble to the top. You can't really say that about Wozniacki, simply because she's so young. Her ascent has been steady and predictable, the payoff logical.
How these various women reacted to earning the No. 1 ranking is also telling. Jankovic basically freaked out and scuttled back out of the hot seat as fast as she could, even if there were mitigating circumstances (she claimed she had over-trained over the brief off-season). Whatever the case, she looked nothing like the No. 1 player when she had an opportunity to back up her year-end ranking at the 2009 Australian Open. And that told us a lot.
Safina, to her credit, celebrated her ascent to the top spot with back-to-back finals at Stuttgart and Rome in 2009, losing one (Stuttgart) and winning one. After that, she beat Wozniacki in the final of Madrid, but clearly showed that she couldn't handle Grand Slam pressure by caving to Svetlana Kuznetsova in the Roland Garros final. After the Wimbledon disaster, she came up small—again—at the U.S. Open. She lost a three-set heartbreaker to up-and-coming Petra Kvitova in the third round. The rest, as they say, is history. Long before her back gave out, her guts gave out, at least at majors.
It's been the other way around so far with Wozniacki. She got off to a lousy start this year and looked for all the world like a surfire early-round upset victim at the Australian Open. But she went and made the semifinals, and was within one swing of the racket from the final. That's not a bad tournament. In fact, with the exception of that first Grand Slam final appearance in New York in 2009, Wozniacki played her best major after she had the No. 1 ranking in hand. Nobody can say that her lofty position gave her the jitters.
Over the past two years, Wozniacki has emerged as a reliable, steady, hard-working pro. She has an even temperament and a great knack for winning tennis matches with a game that can best be described as understated. She hasn't had any sort of meltdown, technical, mental or emotional. She deserves better than to be thought of as a default No. 1 and I think she'll prove that over time.
Yesterday we took a quick look at Milos Raonic, one of the Fab Five youngsters who demanded a fair share of our attention at the Australian Open. A collective breakout, if that's the right word for it, is unusual. We're usually introduced to our prodigies one at a time.
That this group—Raonic, Richard Berankis, Bernard Tomic, Alexandr Dolgopolov and Grigor Dimitrov—all leaped onto our radar at once underscores that this was not the kind of classic debut produced by a lone prodigy, but a generational event; a moment when a diverse group of players who had hitherto been regarded merely as talented individuals suddenly and unconsciously acted in concert. In a case like this, the whole does exceed the sum of its parts. Going forward, it will be hard for me to think of any of these guys without wondering how one or another of the group is doing.
You might say that the excellent tournament these five kids collectively enjoyed was mere coincidence, but what fun would that be? Let's give them the benefit of the doubt—something that they've been earning in the past few weeks anyway (more about that later). Let's continue to think of them as a generation. If we can't compare them to the "golden generation" (Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, Michael Chang), nor the Hopman generation of Australians, led by Lew Hoad, Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall, they may yet seem more of a unit than that ATP marketing genius' "New Balls, Please" generation. If that group had been kept to Gustavo Kuerten, Roger Federer, Juan Carlos Ferrero and Lleyton Hewitt, the ad campaign might have achieved more traction, but...Nicolas Lapentti? Jan-Michael Gambill? That synthetic generation was too diverse and too large, and the difference in talent among the men too conspicuous.
In some ways, this group of youngsters resists categorization and its members seem to have little in common, including nationality. One is Ukranian, one Lithuanian, one is Canadian by way of Montenegro, one Bulgarian and another an Aussie born in Germany. On the other hand, the blood lines of every one of these kids runs right toward that Russo-European seam where east is distinguished from west. So let's just go for the pun and call them the Young Huns.
To what degree are the Young Huns a proper generation? Well, on an age-basis, you can make the case—but barely. The oldest, Dolgopolov, was born in November of 1988 (he's 22); the youngest, Tomic, turned 18 in October. That's a four-year spread, which is a lot in tennis—but the other three youngsters, Raonic, Berankis and Dimitrov—are within a year of each other. Berankis, the oldest, was born in June of 1990, and Dimitrov, the youngest, was born in May of the following year. Can three make a generation?
There's nothing about the way these guys play that begs for us to lump together, the way we were able to see the similarity among the Hopman era Aussies. Perhaps the greatest source of commonality among the Young Huns, beyond their regional heritage, is that they all popped onto our consciousness just a few weeks ago, even if the more astute among us were aware of some or all of them before the tournament. Why not? It can be as much of a binding agent as anything.
We're tempted to find a generational motif when the individuals in question tend to march in something like lock step; when they make progress together. While it's only been a few weeks since these Young Huns emerged, let's take a look at what they've done before—and after—their break-out Australian Open. We'll do it in order, starting with the highest ranked among them.
Dolgopolov, No. 29: You'll remember that at the Australian Open, Dolgopolov put up back-to-back wins over Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and fourth-seeded Robin Soderling before No. 5 Andy Murray, an eventual finalist, ended his run. Dolgopolov, whose nickname in the locker room is "the dog," backed up that great run last week in Costa Do Sauipe, Brazil, his first tournament since Melbourne. He didn't lose a set until he was beaten in the final by 13th-ranked Nicolas Almagro.
Raonic, No. 59: The pride of Ontario played the same number of matches at the Australian Open as its ultimate champion, Novak Djokovic. That was because, sallying forth with a world ranking of No. 152, Raonic had to play three rounds of qualifying just to make the main draw. To his credit, Raonic returned to the Q-wars after that great run in Melbourne.
The Canadian went to Johannesburg, where he again made the main draw and won a round before falling to Simon Greul. He then earned a wild card in San Jose and made the most of it. Raonic put up an impressive series of wins, beating hard-court veterans Xavier Malisse, James Blake and his fellow Hun Berankis before he punched a free ticket to the final when Gael Monfils withdrew from the semis. In the final, Raonic took down ATP No. 9 Fernando Verdasco. Raonic has played 19 ATP matches so far in 2011—fully 10 more than world No. 1 Rafael Nadal.
Berankis, No. 74: Granted, he got lucky in Australia. David Nalbandian, Berankis' secound-round opponent, won just one game over the first two sets and quit while trailing 0-2 in the third because he was feeling light-headed and disoriented. Berankis was beaten in the next round by David Ferrer, a guy who sometimes seems like he was put on this earth in order to teach ambitious young players the facts of an ATP life. Berankis went on to San Jose, where he topped Benjamin Becker in the first round and then mounted a great comeback to beat Donald Young. Ironically—or is it predictively?—Berankis lost to Raonic in the quarterfinals.
Dimitrov, No. 84: Another youngster who started 2011 on the qualifier trail, Dimitrov took a different approach than Raonic and therefore had fewer opportunities to crack through on the main tour. I suppose Dimitrov was hoping to get out of the gate fast and fresh Down Under, because he didn't play before the Australian Open (a strategy usually employed only by top contenders, and even among them not very often) [correction appended: Dimitrov's strategy was shaped by the three-week suspension he incurred for shoving an umpire; I forgot about that in my zeal to analyze the players' recent records- PB ]. He was met with some success, slashing through three rounds of qualifying and a first-rounder with Andrey Golubev before Stan Wawrinka, seeded No. 19, ended Dimitrov's run at five matches. Dimitrov then qualified for Rotterdam, where he posted a nice win over Evgeny Korolev before he was ushered out by the eventual losing finalist, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga.
Tomic, No. 185: The baby in the group, Tomic is a full 100 ranking places out from the next lowest-ranked of the young Huns. But he's certainly doing his due diligence as a newcomer. Okay, he got a little help from Tennis Australia on the wild card front, scoring an entry into the Brisbane ATP event. He bombed in that, but then earned a main-draw berth in Sydney the hard way—through qualifying, with wins over some solid players, including Igor Kunitsyn. Tomic won a set but lost his first-round match to fellow Hun Dolgopolov.
Tomic had impressive back-to-back wins in the Australian Open (as a wild card entry) over Jeremy Chardy and Feliciano Lopez, but he was laid low by Rafa in the third round. He then returned to the Challenger circuit where was upset in the semifinals at Burnie and lost in the final of Caloundra. The takeaway is that Tomic really needs to work on his consistency, although it's not that easy to go slumming in the Challengers after you've tasted success on the big tour. And you just know that every guy down there in Challengerville is gunning for you. At Burnie, Tomic lost to Aussie veteran Chris Guccione, whose ranking is 355. In Caloundra, Tomic lost the title match Slovenia's Gregor Zemlja, ranked No. 174.
At this stage, it's still a learning experience for Tomic, and those losses aren't as bad as they may look on paper. The important thing for him is to get matches and experience, to get more wins than losses and to grow accustomed to going deep in tournaments—no matter the level. With 17 matches played in 2011, Tomic is right behind Raonic, and 12-5 is by no means a terrible record at the start of a new year. He seems to be doing all the right things.
Let's see which of the Young Huns can keep building momentum as the year rolls on.
I like the way Fernando Verdasco put it while contemplating the future of the kid who beat him yesterday in the San Jose final, Canada's Milos Raonic. "What surprises me is that he has [long] legs, and if you see him in the locker room he has the body of a 12-year-old and has half [the size] of my shoulder—and serves 140 all the time. Nobody knows the future, but I think he can be Top 20 very soon...But there are a lot of guys who can return serve well and they are not going to give him the Top 20 for free."
Two things about Verdasco's analysis are worth remembering. The last sentence, which may seem more throwaway line than pearl of wisdom, point toward a reality of life on the ATP tour—it's easiest the first time around, before your career rivals have gotten a good look at your game and a good read on your strengths and weaknesses. Whenever a new talent bursts upon the scene, the other players tend to be a bit apprehensive, a mite passive. It's as if they don't want to realize or acknowledge that the threat is real. Once the truth dawns, though, they tend to dig in their heels and make life difficult for the new guy. This is Raonic's first lap in a long race.
But also note that Verdasco said, elsewhere in his presser, that while Raonic has a serve like that of Ivo Karlovic, he has something the towering Croatian still lacks, probably for good given his age of 31—groundstrokes. Reliable forehands and backhands. And let's not forget that kick serve of Raonic's, the one that Verdasco might have tried returning with a smash. Raonic may force the statisticians to create a new category of service return: it could now be a forehand, backhand, or...overhead return. I can't wait until Raonic plays Olivier Rochus. Can you ace a guy vertically?
I also liked the comparison of Raonic's physique to that of a 12-year-old (a description Verdasco delivered in his post-final press conference with a smile and a good-natured laugh). Indeed. What's going to happen if—or is it when?—Raonic fills out and bulks up, and finds his own Gil Reyes or Larry Stefanki?
It's a good question that may never be answered because Raonic may not change all that much as he enters the prime of his tennis life. We already know that he's spent plenty of time in Spain, under the tutelage of his coach, former clay-court grinder Galo Blanco. Knowing the emphasis the Spanish put on fitness, it's hard to imagine Raonic needing or taking on a heavier work load. But this does lead to some interesting questions.
Raonic is 20; his future seems limitless, but he's actually already on the old side of young. Let's remember, Marin Cilic was 19 when he won New Haven back in 2008 (he was the youngest winner on the ATP tour before Raonic). Juan Martin del Potro was the same age as Raonic when he won the U.S. Open, although del Potro was fast closing on 21 during his run in Flushing, while Raonic just turned 20 last December. A full year at that age represents a lot of life.
But here's something else: what do these three men under discussion have in common? The obvious answer is size, the not so obvious answer is identical size. Delpo and Cilic are 6'6", Raonic is a shade under at an official 6'5". What Raonic does, though, more than either Cilic or even del Potro, is play big—that's the by-product of embracing Pete Sampras as your childhood idol and role model. Efficient, bold, always ready to give it the gas, Raonic is four inches taller than Sampras. The very idea of what those extra five inches can do for a player who harbors a Sampras-like vision of the game is scary. Like Sampras, Raonic eschews frills and flourishes. He's all business, always looking to end a point.
That's significantly different from Cilic and even del Potro, two players who not only can play from the baseline but prefer it to a greater extent than does Raonic. That inevitably wastes a bit of the size advantage, albeit far less so for del Potro, a Grand Slam champion. Raonic seems different, and I've got to believe he's going to make the differences more rather than less apparent. He's probably going to press the matter and pressure his opponents more forcefully than some of the other so-called big men, an undertaking in which superior size is useful psychologically as well as physically.
Given that "big" is an adjective that will inevitably preceed Raonic's name, let's see just how big he is. It turns out he isn't so huge after all—at least if you concede that height is a relative factor; 6'6" in the NBA is different from 6'6" in Major League Baseball.
Karlovic is 6'10", Long John Isner 6'9", and Kevin Anderson, last week's winner in Johannesburg, is 6'8". Cilic and Delpo are 6'6", and so is Sam Querrey—but does anyone watch Querrey and think, first and foremost, "This guy is big!" I'm not so sure. Querrey in some ways is the opposite of Raonic; he plays a small game, and that's a tribute to his athletic ability as well as, perhaps, an inhibitor to greater success.
I may have missed someone in the Top 100, but oddly enough I found only one other guy who's listed as 6'5", Tomas Berdych. But there are at least two stars at 6'4", Robin Soderling and Gael Monfils. Neither of those guys plays as forceful a game as Raonic, although Soderling hits with as much gusto. That forcefulness is a huge asset. It doesn't guarantee success for Raonic, but it certainly sets him apart from his ATP peers. It sets him further apart than does his height.
In fact, the guy to whom we can most usefully compare Raonic may be Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. Some of you may be surprised to learn that Tsonga can barely claim a place among the "big" men in tennis. He's just 6'2" (so, for that matter, is Andy Roddick), but Tsonga certainly plays like he's a few inches bigger. If you didn't know better, you might guess he were 6'4" or 6'5". That's purely because of his power, his serve, and the aggression quotient in his game. Tsonga, like Raonic, plays bigger than he is.
Reading what other players say about Raonic, you'd almost believe that there's a god-given but almost unfair dimension to his success because of his size. But the bottom line is that in the big picture, Raonic isn't all that big, he just plays big—and in a way that few men of a comparable height can pull off. And that could take him far in this game, where so many big men choose to play smaller than they are.
[Ed.note: post has been edited to change Raonic's height to 6'5" as per most official sources. My old eyes misread his height at the official ATP website first time around. Hat top to the comment posters who caught the erro - PB]
Good mornin', everyone. Just thought I'd jump in to give y'all a new place to discuss the weekend's action—and a danged good tennis weekend it is, given that this is perhaps the slowest time of year. It's still winter in most of TennisWorld, the two big Masters 1000 events that usually declare the arrival of spring are still weeks away, and the Australian Open is just a memory—remember how crazy you were, setting the alarm for 3 a.m. solely to see David Nalbandian bag it, or Marcos Baghdatis spin his wheels yet again?
Anyway, we have a new WTA No. 1 in Kim Clijsters, and all I can say to fans of newly-stripped Caroline Wozniacki is that if you look at Clijsters' record, you will find more than enough reason to feel optimistic. Clijsters was No. 1 on three different occasions in the past, the last time a full 256 weeks ago, ending in March of 2006. The takaway: the No. 1 ranking isn't like your Sweet 16 party. You can have it more than once. In fact, you can earn it and hold it any number of times (by my count, Martina Chris Evert and Steffi Graf are tied for the most number of times they held the No. 1 ranking, at nine times apiece. That 10th time, it must be a real bear!).
More importantly, Clijsters also started her career as a No. 1—and former No. 1—without having won a major. In fact, two of the three times she was ranked No. 1 she was still without a Grand Slam singles title. And just look at her now.
Now, am I the only one who sees a certain similarity in the broad profiles of these two women, starting with their shape and musculature? These ladies could make a brace jolly milkmaids. They're fleshy and sturdy, strong, rosy-cheeked and clearly capable of doing chores. And their games are similar in at least one significant way—they play a punishing brand of tennis. Wozniacki's forehand many not have the same sting (yet) as Clijsters', but in a general way Caro is already a lot steadier than the present incarnation of Clijsters, and she's every bit as much the athlete, albeit in a less spectacular way (no splits, thank you very much, but plenty of court sense and anticipation).
And let's remember that there was much weeping and gnashing of teeth when Clijsters first became No. 1, because she was perceived as undeserving in a much more profound way than Wozniacki (or even other Slam-less No. 1s, Dinara Safina and Jelena Jankovic). Clijsters had been to three finals and five semifinals or better without winning a major when she first hit no. N in August of 2003 (just a week after she hit No. 1 in doubles, it ought to be noted). Clijsters problem was the same one faced—and eventually overcome—by Ivan Lendl and even Navratilova. All three started their careers as serious chokers; avert-your-eyes, this-is-getting-ugly-grade chokers. And just look what became of them.
So while Clijsters and her legion of fans have good reason to celebrate and enjoy the sweet taste of vindication, there's no reason for Wozniacki to feel bereft. The idea that she might take her loss of the top ranking as a blow is absurd. If anything, this brief interval she spent at No. 1 ought to be an appetite whetter. More than any other WTA competitor, including Clijsters, she seems to have the stamina and temperament to keep her nose to the grindstone. And she'll have one enormous advantage over Clijsters as this year unfurls—youth. Wozniacki, at 20, is driven and can afford to be obsessive and full-focused on the simple ask of winning tennis matches.
We can expect Wozniacki to make some moves. She can pick up some ground by improving on her third-round loss in Dubai and her quarterfinal loss in Miami. But she has to defend losing finalist points at Indian Wells. Clijsters has to defend the Miami title points, but she can gain ground by improving on her third-round finish at Indian Wells in 2010. Odds are that the women will go into the spring on clay without a significant gap in their rankings points.
The big question in my mind is, just how much does this No. 1 ranking mean to Clijsters? She seems to have developed extraordinary mechanisms for coping with or avoiding the stress that often accompanies high achievment in tennis; in some ways, she's a role model. But so far, nobody—but nobody—in tennis' Open era has been able to remain No. 1 for any appreciable time without deeply caring about it. If actions speak louder than words, Clijsters has told us that she really cared about taking her chance to nail down the No. 1 ranking again. Let's see how she feels about holding onto it.
