Hi everyone. my wife Lisa and I had a pretty rugged morning, meeting with city school officials on some issues having to do with our son Luke's developmental needs. That I would find myself at a conference table with my wife and five others - including the principal of Luke's school - to discuss the needs of a single New York City child is amazing to me (never mind that it's my own child) - and a tribute to the kind of services New York City offers. And this was no bureaucratic exercise in rubber-stamping or rejecting a request and calling out "Next?" either. We had to fight hard and demonstrate a real and legitimate need, to an extremely squared-away, no-nonsense evaluator. We were successful; I felt like Peyton Manning walking out of that room after a full hour of testimony.
Anyway, I want to get back to some of the queries posed in the Any Questions? post of last week, so let's do another round:
Sanja asked: I thought it was very interesting that she (Maria Sharapova) didn't institute any of her delaying tactics, (turning her back to her opponent or bathroom breaks etc.) Does she have more respect for Serena than others?
That's an interesting catch. I definitely think Serena inspires more respect, but also represents a greater risk for anyone trying to get cute with delaying tactics or bathroom breaks. You're not going to throw her off with gamesmanship - if anything, you're likely to return from the bathroom break to see her snort fire and commence to whale on your sorry butt, making you look even stupider than you did for taking the break. The other reason is more practical, if you think about it; any adult ought to be able to "hold it" long enough to take the kind of quick, merciless beating Serena laid on Maria in that final.
P.S. Venus is scheduled to play Memphis (Feb. 18-24).
Smiling Creig Bryan, another born list-maker, shot the moon with five questions. As they're interrelated, let's have a go:
1. How did the sundial-as-distractor get blown up so, such that it appeared on the ABC evening news?
You know, that's really interesting. John Barrett is the BBC's "Voice of Tennis." He's a revered and important figure in tennis (especially at Wimbledon); he's usually the soul of restraint and a paragon of Gentlemanly conduct, with a capital "G." He was working for the ABC during the Australian Open (Australian Broadcast Corp.), and I thought it highly unusual that he would speculate on the way an unidentified guest (Zane Haupt) in the Williams box was toying with his silver metal wrist watch each time Nicole Vaidisova was serving from the far end.
I presume somebody in the ABC network truck was feeding Barrett this information, convinced he had stumbled on something. Unfortunately, Barrett ran with it, and so did the producers who turned it into a "Breaking News" item on the regular evening news - they even teased it before the newscast came on-air.
This, to me, was highly unprofessional. For one thing, the ABC never did get (or, at any rate, use) Haupt's name, or any other personal information about him (like, why he was in the box). That's extremely sloppy and lazy, given the frenzy they were trying to whip up. More importantly, Vaidisova was the first to hold a presser after she lost to Williams. When she was asked about the incident, she looked at the interrogator like he was from Mars. She had no idea what he was talking about, and said as much.
To me, that killed the story in its tracks. Vaidisova noticed nothing, so it was wrong-headed and irresponsible to continue promoting fairly wild and unsubstantiated speculations that could be so damaging to Williams. ABC should have killed the piece the moment Vaidisova addressed it. Instead, they ran it. This was a clear a case of the media trying to make a meaningless, unsubstantiated claim or story stick for its own sensationalistic purposes. Or maybe they were too indolent to cobble together a different story to run. I think JB got suckered into being the network's patsy and, being a nice guy, went along with it. Dumb move, JB.
2. Who is Zane Haupt and how did he become part of the entourage?
According to Williams, Haupt is an Aussie tennis fan she met years ago. She hit it off with him, and they became friendly. He even visited the U.S. and Serena some years ago ("We had a lot of fun," Serena said). At the airport leaving Melbourne, El Jon and I saw Serena at the fast-food burger concession (surprise!); she was accompanied by a guy who looked like Haupt (we were in a hurry, so we couldn't get a positive ID). He was running around the same space, getting lots of bewildered looks because the conspicuous, giant AO trophy dangled from one hand, while his other appeared to be filled with packets of ketchup. Whether or not they used the AO Cup as a receptacle for the messy, empty ketchup packets I can't say.
3. Is Serena's hitting partner qualified as capable for coaching?
As far as I can tell, the answer is yes. We spoke with Mark Hlawaty shortly after the final and he more than held his own as he analyzed the match and explained Serena's strategy. He sounded authoritative. He said more coach-worthy things in five minutes that I've heard Oracene Price say in all the years she's been around, and that's no knock on Oracene. She fits a different support role for Serena, although I suppose it's possible that she's a regular Brad Gilbert, trying to keep her profound grasp of strategy and technique under wraps (I haven't heard anyone with or without locker room access advance the theory, though).
Keep in mind that some top players are loath to leave any kind of verbal or paper trail behind their coaching experiments or relationships, that when the partnership invariably heads south, the coach will seek additional compensation for the work he or she has done, perhaps even in the courts. Rick Macci, who makes a very strong case for having been the one who deserves the most credit for developing the Williams sisters's games, is said to have negotiated a deal that included giving up his claims - and part of that package was agreeing to a gag order on his relationship with the Williamses.
This, BTW,is what happens when player and coach enter into a relationship without a formal contract. I think some players are incredibly short-sighted (and sometimes penurious) in this regard. They use coaches with no twinge of conscience, while the coaches hope that their careers will be made by association. I don't need a contract, it's the contacts that count - this is too good an opportunity to pass up! Worse yet: If I do a lot of good for this player and she makes it big, I'll be taken care of, for sure!
The problem, of course, is that it is entirely a buyer's market. The coaches are scared of passing up a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and the player, and his or her reps, are reluctant to cede coaches too much authority or credibility. They afraid of the coach stealing a player's thunder, as well as frightened of the coach making financial claims in the event that they. . . accomplish the mutually agreed upon goal. Hence the "hitting partner" who can be paid on a per-week basis, and whose brain can be picked with no obligation or threat of upstaging anyone - did I hear someone way "Yuri"?
4. Is Maria's hitting partner qualified as capable for coaching?
Michael Joyce is as qualified as anyone to be a coach (he's a former player, and a product of the very progressive Southern Cal tennis culture), but he's just a "hitting partner" and, I'm told, operating under a gag order (he refuses to do interviews). We've seen Maria, and other top players, distance themselves from pros like Nick Bollettieri and Robert Lansdorp. For a variety of reasons including but not limited to rampaging ego, many tennis parents insist on retaining the title, "coach." The legitimacy of that claim varies greatly, but it's always a strategy for self-justification, retaining at least nominal control, and keeping a coach from hogging up too much credit. If it sounds like coaches have evolved into the pariahs - real or imagined - of the tennis community, you're on the right track.
One other element that helps explain this acutely unprofessional state of affairs is that many top players are notoriously unwilling to make changes that in any way change a status quo that seems to be working for them. Firing daddy is often an option players won't entertain.
5. Are there any other "hitting partners" out there, that may be being, possibly, overextended in other areas, outside of their assigned duties? (Excluding Mirka, please.).
The answer is yes, but I'm drawing a temporary blank and feel I should move on (come on, Tribe, weigh-in!). But note that this entire "hitting partner" strategy is far more more popular on the women's tour. There are two reasons for that: Parents are far more involved, and being able to afford a male hitting pro has a certain, automatic fitness and toughening component.
Generally, though, the lengths to which top women pros go to avoid formal coaching relationships is quite astonishing, and that's the next frontier in the ongoing professionalization of the game.That a woman like Kim Clijsters, an underachiever of baffling and irritating proportions, didn't decide at least to enlist a coach in the final year of her career (while she's still young enough to play the best tennis of her life) is amazing.
Kimmy, it's a lousy freakin' 100k plus expenses and a few bonus clauses, for gosh sakes!
Clijsters decision to go it along may ensure that she remains a One-Slam Wonder - probably the least likely and most easily ridiculed OSW of all-time, given her obvious talent and consistently high standard of performance. I won't vote for admitting her to the Hall of Fame unless she wins another major.
I'm answering a few more queries from the Any Questions? post today, and will return to them early next week; I will address most questions but will leave some out to avoid repeating myself, or taking on things that don't seem relevant. So here goes:
Matchup writes: What are in your opinion the future youngbloods which will dominate the AFTER-Fed era" What are in your opinion the future youngbloods which will dominate the AFTER-Fed era? One of my personal guesses is Juan Martin Del Potro, the young, tall (195cm) Argentinian with a killer forehand, strong double-handed backhand and with incredible speed.Having seen Del Potro playing live in Basle against Fernando Gonzales, I am sure that the this 18 1/2 year old will be a top contender with the likes of Murray, Djoko and Nadal. Del Potro can play on hard court and has a ultra agressive attacking game coupled with good slice, volleys and movement. Pete, what is your take on him? Think since he is neither British nor American he is kept below the "new generation" radar by some quarters of the media. Thanks.?
Matchup: Andy Murray declared himself the main challenger among the Young'(g)uns at the Australian Open with the variety, strategy and composure he showed in his battle with Rafael Nadal. Novak Djokovic is a close second, but don't forget Marcos Baghdatis - he needs to make another statement soon, but his performances in Grand Slams last year make me think he is indeed the real deal as a contender.
You're absolutely right about Del Potro being under the radar, although I would not say he's being "kept" there by the media; they're just behind the curve on this. I like this kid. A lot. So here's a question for you all - what's more important and a better indicator of future stardom, the kind of consistency Djokovic has shown, or the kind of brilliance Baghdatis demonstrated last year?
Tokyo Tom triple dips with these questions:
Fed often says how much he enjoys playing against what would seem to be his toughest rivals. He seemed quite pleased Gonzo had made such significant progress under his new coach. . . Do you get the impression that Fed really feels this way? If so do you think it also partially explains why he seems able to handle the big matches so well?
You know, I don't think you get mind-games with The Mighty Fed. This guy definitely wants to play his rivals (he's not a title-bagger, he's a respect-bagger), especially guys like he callow Novak Djokovic, who call him out. I think this amuses TMF in a cat-with-mouse kind of way. And you're dead on when you suggest that this translates to a wholly sanguine match temperament. You could also say this is one sick dude, under all the niceties!
Secondly, and I have no opinion or feelings one way or the other about this but -- I was shocked when I saw some stills of SW during the tourney. Far from looking heavy - in the idle weight sense, she looked seriously pumped up - in the body builder sense - especially her arms. As she has been out of action for quite awhile, was there any discussion as to her work out routine with the weights as to how she built such muscle mass. Given the sorry state of American baseball, there is the obvious question lurking in the background.
If Serena has been on weight-training program, she's been very secretive about it. I've embraced the suggestion that we've developed a very narrow definition of the "right" body-type for a tennis champion, based on the mean. It made me think of the times I'd attend a triathlon in which my wife, Lisa, took part. She's built more like a Maria Sharapova than a Serena, yet at any given race, some women built more like Rosie O'Donnel than Martina Hingis (I kid you not) finished well ahead of her.
Granted, this was amateur, just-for-fun stuff, but it was eye-opening just the same, because Lisa is a good athlete. I remember similar scenarios from my moderately serious tennis-playing days. The weeding out process tends to put "ideal" body types at the very top of a sport (the best amateur triathletes are usually classically built), and in Serena we have a bit of an exception. But remember, there were times when Monica Seles and even Martina Navratilova were not exactly lean, mean fighting machines. I think it would be irresponsible to speculate on the last part of your question; but I will say that I didn't entertain any of those speculations myself, and that both pro tours have gotten much more serious about monitoring performance-enhancing drugs in the past few years.
I missed this but, it was obvious that Sharapova's serve timing was way, way off. As her power game starts with the serve, I am sure that affected the rest of her game. Any idea what happened to her serve action and timing? Did it seem to be the beginning of a psyche problem ? Was it present throughout the tournament or just in the finals?
This observation takes on special meaning if you scroll through the Comments section in the post below, where Mod Squad (9:52 AM) makes a very similar and even more well-documented connection. There's no doubt that Sharapova relies on her serve far more than many of her rivals, although bombing away successfully was pretty central to Serena's final-round win, too.
Slice 'n Dice writes:
(1) Would you agree that, in general, parity is better for the game than single-player dominance? If not, please explain. If so, does the play of Federer represent the exception? Is he, like Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Muhammad Ali and others before him, just so exceptional, so gifted, as to be able to elevate the status of the game practically single-handedly (no pun intended)?
Personally, I don't much like parity in tennis (I do like it in football), and it seems to me that the game is best off when you have a great rivalry between two players who stand head-and-shoulders above (Chris and Martina). Next best, though, and more common is having a dominant player (Graf, Federer, Sampras) whom everyone else is gunning for. I don't think TMF is an exception in this regard, although the quality of his dominance ought to be noted with an asterisk. This game tends to to be driven by the Long live the Emperor, kill the Emperor meme, and I think it's worse off when that isn't in play. Among other things, the meme supports the notion that tennis is, above all, is a matter of heart and head, not strokes and strategies (beyond a certain level of expertise). Long live the gunslingers, sports is their final refuge.
(2) Will Federer continue to "widen the gap" between himself and the rest of the field with more forays into the net, a more attacking style, and perhaps even serving and volleying? And if so, will this hinder his chances at winning the French Open? Or do you think he'll make the FO his focus until he's won it, then and only thn allow himself to explore new tactics and shot combinations?
I like the issue this raises. For my money, the key for Federer against Nadal - on any surface - is versatility. Andy Murray's match with Nadal vividly showed what mixing up a game and a nuanced strategy can accomplish, although I concede that the task is tougher on clay. Roger's strong suit is versatility - anything that enhances it is a plus, straying from it is a minus. It seems to have worked pretty danged well so far.
Well, I have a few chores to take care of here, including posting an OT invite. So that's it for now, have a great weekend, everyone!
Let's take a little break from our ongoing Q-and-A (I'll try to get back to it later today, or early tomorrow).
Some of you may have checked out the link submitted in previous post by TW's saucy Sydney Bureau Chief and Warrior Moment badge distributor, Lucy. It's on the state of Australian tennis (read it here). I found this piece unbearably smug, self-indulgently cynical, and intellecutally insupportable, although I confess I would have liked to write that terrific line about shoes and funerals myself. What did this guy do, put on the headphones and overdoes on that nihilistic anthem, Imagine, to prep for this? What do you say about a piece with no seeming higher purpose than to demonstrate the author's thinly-veiled schadenfreude?
As is almost always the case, there are interesting dimensions to the apparent demise of Australia as a great tennis power, but not a single one is touched on here.
It always seemed to me that Australia's leap into post-modernism - the perfect symbol of which was the shift of venue for the Australian Open from Kooyong to what was officially called (and, tellingly, no longer is) the National Tennis Center.
In fact, I spent a fair amount of time at Melbourne Park last week trying to figure out of the NTC had officially changed or dropped its name (Google it and you'll see plenty of refrences), for which I earned a good number of those Get a Life, Dude looks. In fact, the majority of people I spoke with had no idea what the NTC is, or was. Clearly, we have moved into the new, Vodafone Arena era.
In my book, The Courts of Babylon (as well as other places), I have often doted on the fact that when the NTC opened for business in 1988, the hallways of what is now Rod Laver Arena were lined with pictures of rock stars, not tennis players (the stadium was a multi-purpose venue, but wasn't tennis the raison d'etre?), and you could comb the entire grounds at Flinders (now Melbourne) Park and find not a trace of the Aussie tennis heritage.
I took that as an ominous sign - a striking, almost willful repudiation of a grand and glorious tradition. But it also signaled a shift that was global in nature- the trend away from athletics with an active emphasis on tradition and participation, toward presenting tennis as spectacle and entertainment with a rapidly changing and largely meaningless cast of characters. I think Men Without Hats might have performed there, but I can't be sure. And there is a great difference between things that are entertaining and entertainers. Watching a Koala scarfing down eucalyptus leaves is certainly entertaining, but that doesn't define the fuzzy little guy as an entertainer. He's just going about his business in a way that appeals to us, much like Roger Federer.
Worse yet, the logic - such as it is - at the heart of this editorial linked above is laughable. If Aussies have truly evolved from large-wristed, barefooted sportsmen into shop clerks and layabouts, how do you account for Australian swimmers, or cricketers? It may be an inconvenient truth, but it seems to me that Australian sports in general are chugging along quite nicely. That tennis for a period was the victim of neglect (yes, I'm well aware of Tennis Australia's various development programs), and the geniuses at TA seemed to flee from, rather than toward, their great tradition, is the more compelling issue. And, of course, it has certainly provided at least one cynic with an opportunity to revel in Australia's woes.
Okay, done with that rant, let's move on:
In my ESPN blog today, I hit on a topic that came at me out of the blue - the fact that in Roger Federer and Serena Williams, we have the two most viable candidates for completing a Grand Slam since Pete Sampras and Martina Hingis in 1997 (that year, Sampras was defending a Roland Garros semifinal; Hingis would fall one match short of a Slam when she was upset in the French Open final by Eva Majoli). I predicted that either Federer or Serena (or both) would either achieve a Grand Slam this year, or go into the U.S. Open with a shot at doing it.
I'm sticking to that call. I think they call it going out on a limb. Saw away!
New reader alert: there have been some great questions raised in the post below, so I am continuing to answer the queries solicited in my recent Any Questions? post. Are you all finding this helpful and fun? I know a rolling post can be tough, as it forces you to keep checking back for new material, but it seems like the quickest, most efficient way to handle this kind of thing. Feedback welcome in Comments below. Meanwhile, shall move on?
*****
HTTB wrote: I know there have been some inquiries about the absence of Patrick McEnroe during the second week of the AO. Someone said it is due to personal family reasons. Do you have any other information to pass on to us? I'm not trying to pry into his "business", but I'm concerned that someone is very sick in his family. P-mac doesn't always get a lot of Love in TW, but I missed his commentating.
Patrick had to return home for family reasons, but thankfully they were nothing that posed any kind of long-term threat to his family's health or well-being.We emailed back and forth during the men's final and Patrick did some great calling from in front of his TV, on the ebb and flow of the match.
*****
Joao: Do you think it's possible to make a better blog without "beyind" kissings and all time appraisals?. . . Last question: do you think it's not possible to write unbiased about tennis (special american players) and keep the americain public attached to your site and magazine?
Joao (sorry, my keyboard doesn't like accents! I believe this is less a problem of xenophobia than market-share technology). I don't really know what to say to Part 1, except that I like some people more than others, and also enjoy "appraisals." As for Part 2, it's a transparently loaded question (you know, in the same league as Do you still beat your wife?) I'm glad you asked though, because it taps into something I've been thinking about.
In my experience, American - er, gringo - fans have a healthy and admirable interest in players from other nations. But I also wonder if U.S. fans, coming from a culture of high, competitive standards, aren't a little too apt to get disgruntled if certain players aren't in the mix at any given tournament. I think Europeans and South Americans may be more content to watch the mix of players they've been given (I don't hear too many complaints echoing across the Atlantic if, say, Roddick or Blake chooses to skip a European clay event), while we here in the states sometimes succumb to a Donald Trump-esque insistence on the best. This tournament means nothing, Rafael Nadal isn't entered! That's a slightly different way of seeing the general reaction to tournaments with mediocre fields.
Don't know whose "beyind" I kissed with that answer, but I do know that I don't believe there's any such thing as "unbiased" coverage, except in straight match reports on who won and by what score. To me, "bias" is the ability to discriminate and make choices, preferably based on sound reasoning, and the willingness to assign greater or lesser value to some qualities than others- in all things. Every time you buy a new pair of jeans, you're acting with bias. I think it's a personal obligation to make such "biased" decisions and, often, a cop-out to avoid making them.
*****
Quynh wrote: I do have a question for you re. the Murray-Nadal match. What was the strategy that Gilbert and Murray devised for the match against Nadal and how well did it work ?
I didn't see either Brad or Andy after the match, but I believe the strategy was based on two principles, one "negative" and the other "positive." The negative one was: Don't let this guy do what he most likes: maneuver himself into the backhand corner and hit forehands from there. The positive one was, attack behind every forcing serve and try to keep to court open so you can end points quickly by jumping on any short ball he gives you - and Nadal gave his AO opponents plenty of short balls.
*****
MarieJ: which coach would fit for him (Nadal) for grass and HC ? i'll pick Jmac, he likes the kid and has the attacking game, no ?
I like that choice a lot, Marie, but there some other fine candidates out there. Darren Cahill, for one. Tony Roche (whoops! He's taken). Yes, even the notorious Pat Cash, who written at some point during the AO that he had been approached by the Nadal camp. If I had to narrow the search function, I would be looking to an American, Aussie or British player who had a very solid serve-and-volley game but was never so big a star (like Cash) that ego would be an issue. You know who would be a good fit, based on the game he had? Jonas Bjorkman. I see some big-time coaching in that guy's future.
*****
Rosangel: I also wonder, in light of the type of game he (Nadal) plays, whether there *is* anything big he can do to change, if he wants to win another major. Other players are finding ways to deal with his game, at least on hardcourts. You said yourself recently that having him win a major on a surface other than clay is a bigger ask than you had thought. How much is it realistic to ask now, in your opinion?
I think Jet boy could "flatten" out his game on hard courts at no great risk to his clay-court prowess. Topspin exists in degrees. He might work on getting real slice on his serve, especially in the ad-court. Anybody notice how big lefty servers (and lefties in general) have all but vanished? When was the last time you saw that famous John McEnroe "can-opener" lefty slice to the ad court? They used to "Bend it like Beckham", and I don't see why that wouldn't work on even medium-speed hard courts. Nadal could also make an effort to play further inside the court, sacrificing his great retrieving ability for a first-strike capacity. The bonus, if he did that, would be the ability to retain his topspin, put more pressure on servers, get himself in position to get more free points.
*****
Samantha: Also, on the clay, who would you give the advantage to Justine or Serena if Serena continues to play at this level? I would say Justine because the clay neutrailized the serve and power of the big hitters.
Great question, Sammy. I give the edge to Serena for the following reasons: the neutralizing effect of clay is not as obvious as it appears. Aranxta Sanchez-Vicaro, the ultimate speedster and counter-puncher, should have dominated in Paris by that trope, yet she didn't (although she was danged good). Also, Serena is fundamentally a baseliner, so it's not like she's completely out of her comfort zone on clay. The real issue here to me is: which is worth more, Justine Henin-Whoops all around speed and retrieving ability, or Serena's bold, aggressive game and spirit? Granted, Henin is also a warrior, but in that department Serena reigns supreme. To me the big issue on clay is fitness; Serena showed us last week that fitness is not an issue for her on hard courts. I think it might be different on clay.
*****
Maplesugar: 1 - Do you think the AO final was all about Gonzalez? Instead of about Fed? It seemed to me that Gonzo was rather "Roddick-like" in that he didn't play the game that brought him so far in the tournament, and I wondered if you drew any comparison with that? 2 - Do you think that Maria would go farther with tactics and a new coach...instead of just trying to hit the cover off the ball?
No way on No. 1. I think Gonzo wanted to play the game that brought him that far (BTW, I don't think Andy did that) but Federer found a way neutralize and deal with that; I wrote that in my match report. On No. 2, if Maria doesn't hit the cover off the ball and win in two and three shot combinations, she's dead. I think she should focus on wringing every drop of potential out of her serve, because she's three times the player if she starts a point in control of it than even on an even footing. That, BTW, was a big key to the women's blow-out final, I thought.
*****
Okay, folks, time to call it quits. Feel free to go OT if you wish, on the Monday Net Post. I'm going to continue tomorrow; my aim is to answer every good or reasonable question put to me in that Any Questions post.
Howdy. I'm back in the office today and trying to catch up with things here before my ESPN chat at 1 PM (drop by, if you're not doing anything special). Thanks for the avalanche of questions in the Comments section of the post below; I'll be answering them in this space, more or less sequentially, throughout the day. I hope to get to all of them. You know, the 36-hour travel time to and back from Stralya is a rip-roaring pain in the backside, but once I arrive there, or at home, I don't experience a moment of discomfort or fatigue. Jet lag, like the storied "wind-chill factor" (it's 52-degrees, but it feels like it's 20! What's up with that?) is a fiction, perpetuated by the usual, glass-half-empty
suspects. Rise, people! Glad I got that off my chest. Back soon.
****
Okay, ex-Momofan asks: Why does Amelie break my heart repeatedly and how do I fix it, once and for all? HOW GOOD IS SERENA? (rhetorical question)
Sorry, dudette. Would you advise any friend to date, oh, Marat Safin (Remind me to tell you all a good Safin story at a later time)? It's not like you have to get down on your knees and beg this girl to break your heart. She marches to the tune of her own drummer. My French colleagues have more or less given up on the hope that she'll be a regular, reliable contender. They shrug. That's Amelie. End of story.
Re. Serena. She's good. Very, very, very good. So good that she can break all the conventions and still beat everyone out there with ease. The biggest story of the AO was the 180-degree turnaround in the way Serena is perceived. I was one of the multitudes who made that turn, although I always conceded that Serena is larger-than-life and more like a Force of Nature (I've called her that in the past) than a mere tennis player. But keep in mind, she needs to play at a very high level to keep that status. If she doesn't perform up to snuff, it all comes crashing down - fast. It's the gunslinger thing, writ large.
Ray: Who is the favorite for the French Open as of now? If I'm a betting man
(which I am), I give Roger the slight edge over Rafango.
Welcome home, hoss. Great to have you back. I can't go quite as far as you have. The results since Wimbledon tell me two things about Nadal (make that three): 1 - the desire to transcend "clay-court specialist" status demands more than mere determination to do it. 2 - He needs a tennis coach, not an uncle who once played but there's also this soccer thing, blah-blah-blah. 3 - Jet Boy is going to be looking for some serious payback in the upcoming months; there's no doubt in my mind that the maybe this guy ain't that great after all sensibility is taking hold. If you're Rafael or Toni, you're telling yourself something like this: Okay, we found out a lot about ourselves since we beat Roger in the French Open last year. First, we need to decide how hard we want to work to defray some of our losses since Wimbledon in the early '07 hard court season (Indian Wells and Key Biscayne). But let's not go at it so hard that we jeopardize our chances at payback time on the red dirt.
What I saw in Australia said a lot about Jet Boy's deficiencies on hard court, but absolutely nothing on his performance on clay, where he's the champ until someone - perhaps The Mighty Fed, but don't overlook Gonzo - knocks him out.
******
Okay, everyone, ESPN chat is over; a few more of yours before I run out for a sandwich:
Abbey: From a tennis writer's pov, is writing about roger becoming a difficult
task to do? you know, same old, same old. or is he still a fascinating
story to track?
Not at all, Abbey. Genius is ceaselessly fascinating and writing should always be an adventure.
Nancy J: What qualifications does Oracene William' have to be Serena's tennis
"coach?" Obviously, she is a successful "coach," but based on what
experience? Who is Venus William's "coach?"
Great question, Nancy. I see absolutely nothing that qualifies Oracene as "coach" in any meaningful sense of the term. And I say that with due respect to, and a full awareness, of how important she is to Serena. Nobody ever accused Oracene of tweaking, say, Serena's forehand follow-through. This plays into an issue building to critical mass on the heels of Serena's towering performance - why do so many WTA pros have second or third-rate coaches - at best - or parents as coaches? That's one reason they can't compete with the most talented, top players. As for Venus, I suspect Richard is her coach. BTW, I don't know too many coaches who are afraid of being outcoached by Richard, crafty as he can be. Like many other women, Venus and Serena tended to win in spite of rather than because of their coaches. And that's a situation that ought to - and can be - addressed, although the Williamses are the ones who least need to do it. They could win with me coaching them.
*****
Lucy writes: Since you were in Melbourne and I was not, did you feel a weird vibe
coming out of the AO this year? What were the crowds like? It just
seemed like this year was kind of a banner year for unsavoury incidents
there. Is anyone in press circles NOT an Andy Murray convert? I want names! What do all those Swedes do when Jonas Bjorkman loses these days?
Well, there were a few weird events - clash of fascistjungen, a child molestation in a public men's room - but the overall vibe was the same as ever. Casual, beery, fun on the outside courts and gathering areas, hardcore and either corporate stiff or KAD tense inside. Best feature: the daily 6 PM concert in Garden Square, featuring Aussie bands. In Australia, you get some pretty impressive rockers, unlike at the U.S. Open, where the warm-up performance for the night session is usually something lame, like an a capella outfit doing renditions of favorite hits from the 60s. This underscores one of the nicer things about Australia, where pop music is so well-entrenched in the culture that you have a welcome shortage of poseurs and hipsters that have always been so conspicuous in music scenes of other large cities - and a lack of the kind of cynicism and superiority that would prevent a lot of rock acts from playing places like the BJKNTC.
I don't know of a single dissenter on the Andy Murray front; the guy won everyone over, from what I could see. . . The Swedes, having lost Bjorkman, are hurting. The up-side is that they get to attend the event without having to walk around in sweltering heat with yellow and blue paint all over their faces, which enables them to more effectively hit on Aussie chicks. There's always an upside. . .
*****
Our friend, the media director Matt Van Tuinen (some of you will undoubtedly meet him at Indian Wells, if we overlap) for the Pacific Life Open, asks: I want to know if you would prefer to see TMF win all four majors
this year, or if you are more interested in seeing others - Roddick,
Nadal, Blake, Gonzalez, etc., challenge and defeat TMF? What do you
think would be better for the game?
I would like nothing better than to see a male complete a calendar year Grand Slam in my time.
Liron (Ms) Rubin writes: Momofan: Where the (expletive deleted, rhymes with "mail") have you been? For a while, I entertained the thought
that you had dropped out of college and run off to grow organic
tomatoes with a hippie boyfriend.
I can't answer that, but it's funny as rhymes with mail. . .
*****
Heidi, who'll never fly again, asks: What are your predictions for our two woebegone finalists, Gonzo and Sharapova?
I think Gonzalez, under Stefanki's tutelage, will be a Grand Slam contender. I'm telling you, watch this guy in Paris! Sharapova will continue to contend at Slams because she's a great competitor and faithful, hard-working pro. To me, Sharapova is the kind of player who ought to be getting to quarters and semis, but halted there due to her by-the-numbers game. However, she did put on a pretty amazing performance at the U.S. Open last year, so I may be judging her too harshly.
*****
Sandwich time, back soon. . .
*****
Jenn writes:
(1) Who do you think will be the next woman to win her first major?
I am a Jankovic believer, personally, but I was astounded to see how
quickly she went out to Serena.
(2) Is Rafael Nadal really going "backwards" in terms of progress as
some of the commentators have suggested? I question this, simply
because in the last 4 majors his results are win, finalist, quarters,
quarters. Those aren't exactly bad results. His loss to Youzny in NY
was questionable, but he ran into a juggernaut in Gonzo last week.
Nobody was going to beat that guy except, obviously TMF. If you do
think that Nadal is going backwards or flatlining in his game, is it
because Uncle Tony has taken him as far as he can (more than one
commentator suggested that Nadal needs a Stefanki or Gilbert in his
camp).
Jenn, first off, kudos for your precision and clarity. Great first question. Right now, my front runners are Vaidisova for her game, Peer for her heart. I guess you'd have to throw Ivanovic and Chakvetadze (although I don't see it) into the mix and don't forget Elena Dementieva - she's been there, at the late stages, before. But I'm losing faith. Second question: I buy the commentator's reasoning re. Nadal (see above). At the level we're talking about, quarters doesn't cut it.
*****
Paleochora writes:
Do you think all the coaches are going to go back to the drawing board and see what they can do to beat TMF? Or is there a feeling - ok, he's # 1 and lets all just battle it out for # 2?
There will be three camps: the I'm No. 23, I'm not worthy of carrying Roger's racquet bag camp, the I'm No. 7 and doing great, so who cares? school, and the I'm Andy Roddick/Murray/Richard Gasquet/Novak Djokovic/Marcos Baghdatis, I gotta figure out a way to beat this guy school. The real changes are likely to be happening in the young(g)'uns and the lower orders, among emerging players who can still embrace a "Beat Federer" component in their development.
*****
Chloe02 writes: Maria Sharapova. Just how big a loss was the final? Did you feel that
Maria played badly or was she not allowed to play by Serena? Do you
think Maria will continue to dominate the other women but just come
unstuck when it comes to Serena?
I don't think Sharapova dominates the other women at all - Amelie, The Kooze, Justine Henin-whoops . . . They can all give her fits. I also like the way Hingis matches up with her, although the record doesn't support that. See my remarks above. Sharapova will take whatever they give her (most of these reluctant warriors give her a lot) and make the most of it. Good on her.
****
Sashanka: Do u think that Nadal needs to tweak his game a little when he is
playing on hard-courts? I mean,he needs to hit a lot deeper than he
usually does. I saw his match against Malisse in Chennai and i think he
lost because of that only - hitting into the opponents' comfort zone.
That tweak is a pretty big ask, which I think is why Nadal has struggled, but also where he'll be so tough on clay, where stamina and athleticism will give him such big rewards. I think Nadal demonstrates the fallacy of the argument that clay-court players are the most well-rounded of all. You can win with limited tools on clay just as you can on fast grass.
Leo: I have a question about TMF's tatics: it seems to me he really doesn't
give it all on each and every match. Like analysts said, he has too
many gears, do you think it is true? and also it seems to me that he
has "a plan" for different players (rather than in women's tennis now
popular axiom "playing my own game"). Do other players have such luxury?
I thinkTMF is distinguished by the fact that he does give his all to every match; his genius is in making it all look so easy. His gear changes are not a conscious choice, but a response - a reaction that, bizarrely and counter-intuitively, is actually controlled by his opponent. There's a fine line between "playing my own game" and "this is what I need to do to beat this guy"; some of it is pride, champions love to crow about playing their own game and leaving the rest to fate. But in almost all cases, men and women, it's a mix of both. You can bet that TMF and Tony Roche talked about how to beat Gonzalez, but the key to that conversation is a philosophical given: how do I beat Gonzo without doing things that take me out of my comfort-zone, vis a vis the things I most like to do, and do best.
*****
May: Tony Roche said that we haven't seen the best of TMF yet, and that he
expects him to peak when he is 27-28 years old. My question is: do you
agree with this prediction? Plus, in which ways can Federer improve?
Will he start flying over the court instead of merely gliding?
I think that may have been some typical coach's hyperbole, with all due respect to TMF. Players peak at the age you cited as competitors and masters of their tools at that age, but it seems to me TMF is already there - like, how much more experience does the dude need? Oh, he may play a few more matches like the Andy Roddick semi in Australia in a year or two, but overall there's not a whole lot of room for improvement there. In order to improve, TMF needs to be tested. I suppose you could say he could improve as a "competitor" against Rafael Nadal, but we have yet to see if Jet Boy can sustain his ability get to Federer on clay.
(Ed note: We're starting to strain Typepad so I'm closing down this post and starting a new one, Part 2 - PB)
Howdy. Just a quick drop-in to say rest assured - my streak is intact. 1,547 flights now and still haven't sat next to anyone interesting; this was half-way around the world, too. Three separate flights, each way. I'm kind of wasted. I'm taking tomorrow off, altbough I'm still scheduled to do an ESPN chat. Then I'm back blogging on Wednesday.Here's an idea. If you post questions/comments on the Australian Open - what happened, what it means, what the tournament portends for the future - in the Comments section below, we'll address them on Wednesday and I'll add some thoughts of my own. That work for you?
Alright, Tribe, we've knocked down another one - the first Grand Slam of the new year. I've got an early flight out in the morning, and will be off the grid until Tuesday, at which point I may have enough perspective to add a few thoughts. I didn't mention it in my last post, but if you read the transcript of Roger Federer's final presser, you'll see that I asked a question about the "Genius" banner, and followed up with two questions after Roger's response. That was for you Federer KADs; our own Tari has a hand in this whole banner thing. It was a drag not to be able to post comments from here, but you seemed to do just fine anyway. If Steggy's not too fried, she'll probably post while I'm traveling. You rock, chica. I'll wave to you, Lucy, as I fly over Sydney harbor. Lisa, Luke, I'm on my way. Can't hardly wait!
You all know the story of Icarus, who flew too close to the sun. I'm here to tell you something about Roger Federer. He's no Icarus. Dude landed on the sun last night, still so cool that his feet melted two nice little holes on the surface; all you need to add is the "close parenthesis" and you've got a smiley face icon! And that may be the most counter-intuitive thing of all, when it comes to Roger Federer's slash through the tennis history books. He makes his way with such apparent ease. With such unqualified grace. With such good humor, to blunt the bone-chilling inevitability. Last night, he hit double figures in his quest for Grand Slam titles; he now has 10. Anybody want to fast forward to 20 and drop in to see how he's doing?
Shortly after the match last night, he seemed to be doing pretty danged well. A group of us hallway surfers were gathered outside the locker room, shoving microphones in Larry Stefanki's face. He'd had a few beers, it seemed, and he was waxing philosophical and making a lot of sense. A moment later, the door to the locker room opened and out strolled Roger. As he passed by us, he called out, "Is that so Larry?" He was laughing. He kept right on going, around the corner, to do God knows what end (collecting his 11th Grand Slam title, thereby saving a trip to Paris?).
Five minutes later, while Larry was floating the theory that, tonight,his boy Fernando Gonzalez had been "thrown under the bus" (coaching patois for being flung into his first Grand Slam final against perhaps the greatest player of all time), Federer came back from his errand. Eyes sparkling, he quipped as he strolled by, "Yeah, right!"
"***hole," Stefanki retorted.
Everyone laughed, including Federer. This, you might say, is an ERR - Entirely Reasonable Response. The Mighty Fed just won the Australian Open without losing a set. Hahahahahah! There isn't anyone on this planet who can touch the dude. Hahahahahaha! Pete Sampras is thinking, "Gee, maybe I ought to make a comeback - try to build a little more of a cushion." Mwahahahahahahaha!
I may be delirious after the hours I've been keeping at this tournament, but right now it all seems too amusing for words. TMF wins another major, and everyone else on the premises is nothing more than a co-conspirator. Why fight it? Sit back and revel in the sheer audacity and once-in-a-lifetime beauty of it.
Of course, Gonzalez couldn't be quite that casual about it. Contemplating Federer's flight toward the sun, he could only say. 'Yeah, of course I have the tennis to be Number One. But Roger is really far away now."
I thought the match had two striking qualities. First, Federer took a young bull and moved the ball around the court so well that, by the middle of the second set, Gonzalez was sucking wind. TMF can pull even an aggressive player around as if were made of taffy, and it takes its toll. Stefanki had a point when he said that this was partly because of the nervous energy Gonzo was burning off as a first-time finalist at a major, but the rest of it had to do with striking quality number two: the defense Federer plays. I may have mentioned a few weeks ago that Andy Roddick recently told me that the most lethal aspect of Federer's game was his ability to defend, and the theory was borne out tonight.
Time and again, Federer found ways not just to stay in points, but to turn the tables and take control of them from defensive positions. Have you noticed how, when he's pulled wide by a near winner, TMF sometimes fields it with a stroke that bears a greater resemblance to the volley of some doubles specialist than the conventional, desperate get of a singles player out of position? And how about that squash-shot forehand flick that so often buys him a lot more than a collective exhale of appreciation from the crowd. As Gonzalez conceded, "He's defending really well. I mean, when I attack him, he's back in the middle, and that confuses you a little bit. That was really important in his game."
Oh, what the hail, let's make it three striking qualities. TMF chose not to pursue the obvious strategy of working Gonzalez's weaker, backhand side. Everyone (including Gonzo, I suspect) expected him to do that. But one of Federer's greatest - if not most conspicuous assets - is knowing how to keep an opponent off balance. He'll pursue this strategy even when that it demands working an opponent's conspicuous strength, instead of merely overworking his most glaring vulnerability. Federer knows that when you do the latter, you often accomplish one or both of two things: with a quality opponent, which Gonzalez certainly was, you help him get his lesser shot grooved, because he's expecting to use it. But you also you create counter-punching set-up opportunities for his stronger shot. But don't try this at home. Only Federer plays defense well enough and offense precisely enough to walk the fine line required to make this strategy pay off.
I broached this subject with Federer in his presser. He clearly understood that bull-headedly working Gonzalez's port side would, in effect, close the court. Gonzalez would lay back and trade slice backhands all day, waiting for an opening. Instead, TMF chose to do what he does best: open the court, keep Gonzalez off balance, challenge him to take his best shot. As he explained, "I knew that if he plays so many slices, it's going to be tough for you eventually. You have to stay on the attack. Otherwise, it's just going to be defense. It's going to be hard for you physically to go through a match like this. So you have to open up a little bit. I was hoping for that moment to come, once I lead a set, maybe take advantage."
Gonzalez's chances, from the onset, were slim to none. They vanished after a surprisingly tight first set in which Gonzo failed to convert two set points. Stefanki: "Obviously, it's not a good idea to lose that first set to Roger. Fernando had two set points - on the first, he didn't challenge a close call that went against him, because the chair umpire (Sandra "Hear me Roar" de Jenken) signalled that it was out. The next point, he decided to run around the serve. It was a good idea, but he didn't execute well. So deuce. With Roger, you have to get that first set under your belt. Otherwise, his nervous seystem goes to flatline. He doesn't get bothered at all. He has the best nervous system since Borg. And as big as Fernando's forehand is, Roger plays defense like Borg, or Mats Wilander."
Fernando was subdued in his presser, as befits a guy who had no problem with the idea that he, instead of 18 other guys in the Top 20, was playing the final against TMF. And that's a good sign when it comes to his prospects. But, as Stefanki noted, he has to get better. So does everyone else. The standard TMF continues to set is sending every contender back to the practice courts; the best among them may have the courage to go back to the drawing board. "Roger," Stefanki said. "Is like Tiger Woods. He's forcing everyone to become a better player."
But while everyone else is laboring on earth, TMF continues to soar. Last year, you may remember, he wept when Rod Laver presented him with the champion's trophy. This year, there were no tears. If the sun doesn't melt your wings, maybe tears will. Can't let that happen.
Howdy, Tribe. It's the morning of the final day of the Australian Open, and although the much-anticipated Men's Final is hours away, I'm off to a fine start. I had a leisurely brunch with Roger and Evonne Goolagong Cawley at the hotel, and just a little while ago I went out to try to find a stuffed kangaroo to bring back for sleep-deprived Steggy, who's again been so indispensable to TennisWorld.
The National Tennis Center was nearly empty, so I was surprised to hear the opening chords to the old Big Brother and the Holding Company mega-hit, Piece of My Heart. It takes major Wilanders to cover any song ever sung by Janis Joplin, but the chica doing it was up to the job. I wandered by; it turned out to be Mahalia Barnes, whose father, Jimmy, is a legend of Australian rock. Her band is performing to warm-up the tennis crowd later tonight, and they were doing the sound check.
I sat down to listen. I'd seen the late Janis Joplin a bunch of times back in my misspent youth - hey, maybe it wasn't so misspent after all! - and always felt that she was the real deal: a frizzy-haired, substance-abusing white trash chica from Port Arthur who had a few things in common with with Serena Williams, including a big a**. It was a sweet moment, made that much poignant by its surreality.
Here's an update for all you old-school readers who have been curious about what Evonne has been doing. Now 55, she's still living in Noosa Head with her husband Roger, a guy who, back-in-the-day, was often suspected of the same things Pierre Yves Hardenne was accused of when his divorce from Justine Henin-Hardenne became a public matter. He's just a hanger-on! He doesn't have a job! He's after her money!
But let me tell you something: I'm not real familiar with Hardenne's situation, but I know Roger Cawley's as well as if he were a blood relation. Roger was a clever, charismatic, entrepreneurial guy (he was a good athlete too, having played county-level tennis in England) when he fell head-over-heels in love with Evonne when both of them were in their early 20s. He feel in love with her talent, which made him one among millions. More importantly, he fell in love with her person - the graceful, natural, unaffected, Supremes-loving aboriginal girl who emerged from the stressed native culture here to become a multiple Grand Slam champion. Her saga that stands as the antipodal equivalent of the Venus and Serena Williams story.
It was clear that Roger chose wisely - that was a no-brainer. But Evonne, obsessively sheltered throughout her youth by Vic Edwards, the talent-worshiping coach who discovered and whisked her away from home to make her a champion, showed remarkable judgment as well. Their first meetings in London were clandestine; both of them knew that Edwards wanted Evonne to have no part of any man but himself. He also wanted her to wring every drop of potential out of her tennis game, and fooling around with boys would interfere with that. Roger fought Edwards for Evonne and Roger won; soon after Evonne accepted his proposal, Edwards gave her an ultimatum - it's him or me. She said she was marrying Roger, no matter what the consequences. He didn't blink, she terminated their relationship, and Edwards ultimately went to his grave with his eyes still shut.
Evonne and Roger have two kids, Kelly (an actress) and Morgan (a first-rate but injury-plagued soccer player who's now a personal trainer). Kelly is almost 30 and Morgan not far behind, but to them I'm still "Peter Draw Cat" - the guy who dropped into their lives now and then and spent a lot of time drawing pictures of cats for the toddler, Kelly.
Roger knew that when they married, their life would be all about Evonne. This is a leap of faith for any man; Roger knew exactly what people would say. But a few things helped make Roger and Evonne the flat-out wonderful couple they have been for almost 30 years now.
Roger was willing to put Evonne's needs ahead of his own in many critical, Big Ticket areas. But that would not have been sufficient to protect the marriage if Evonne had not shown a deep understanding of what the means, and a comparable ability to put the needs of her husband and family above her own at some critical times. In reality, Evonne was a part-time tennis pro, even in some of her greatest years (she won seven majors and, when she won Wimbledon in 1980, she became the first mother to do since 1914). This is a comment on both her athletic genius and, more importantly, her character and values. And here they are today: still together. Still attentive to each other to the point of dotage. Still ready to have a good time at the mere suggestion (And, boy, did we have some good times; Evonne once carried me - literally - out of the men's room in Trader Vic's in New York's Plaza hotel. Did I mention that she could handle her GE's like few women I've known?).
Roger was Evonne's hitting partner and coach, with a lower-case "c." When she went out to play Chrissie or Martina in some big final, preparation consisted of Roger snuffing out his Rothman's to have a 20-minute hit with the wifey. No wonder they find nothing unusual in the fact that Roger Federer's hitting partner, at least some of the time, is no more imposing or youthful a player than his coach, Tony Roche (I'm not sure of Tony's age, and carbon-dating is pretty unreliable anyway).
"I think Tony's done a great job with Roger, yea," Evonne remarked at one point this morning. "He seems to be hitting a lot more slice now, and you can really see Tony in Roger's volleys - that little underspin thingy he does. It seems pretty obvious to me."
Anyone familiar with Evonne's tennis would hardly be surprised to hear that she's a big fan of Federer's. Evonne was comparably smooth, equally creative. Her game it was like a summer breeze, and she would have won more than than seven slams if it didn't sometimes come and go like one, too. As it was, she appeared in a whopping 18 major finals, eight of them in her native Australia, where she is a both an icon and a national treasure. But she knows that tennis is a game for and of the young. She had her run, and a fine one it was. But that's all it was, and all the rest of it - the exposure, the status - means nothing to her.
"I don't watch much professional tennis now," Evonne said. "But I quite enjoy watching Roger. The other night (Federer's match with Andy Roddick), when Roger hit that backhand passing shot off his shoe tops - I got this feeling. Yea, that must have felt good."
Evonne would be the one to know. She was all feeling on the court; all improvisation and nuance and creativity.
In retirement, Evonne has gone off-grid, declining to trade heavily on her status as an Aussie icon. What is it with these Aussie chicas? Margaret Court, still the all-time Grand Slam women's singles title holder, is an evangelist and preacher; Evonne, still the all-time favorite player of legions, world-wide, works with aboriginal kids in an under-the-radar program that puts heavy emphasis on all-around personal development. This makes her happy. Even at the peak of her career, she never forgot where she came from, and always expressed a desire to work in the aboriginal community.
Evonne has some talented kids in her camp. She works closely with them, and I'm sure that they respond to her not because she's Evonne Goolagong, the great Aussie champion, but Evonne Goolagong, the lady who seems to have some innate understanding of who they are; the lady who is patient and encouraging and gentle. For of all her qualities, the one that stands out the most is her gentleness. It is, I think, why she is so good with kids. And I think that it all along it was the underlying reason for why so many loved her so; the high-backhand overheads and deft drop shots were just the dressing.
Some of the kids in her program are talented, but the road to glory is long and hard. Roger thinks they have some kids with big potential. He has always been a sucker for a beautiful game. He appreciates shot making skills and soft hands. His blue eyes lit up when he said, "You know, our best kids are attacking players."
Evonne leaned across the table and, in a conspiratorial whisper, added: "We don't try to tell them how to play, and we don't want to go against what their year-round coaches are telling them. But we do tell them, 'It's nice to have options. . .'"
Evonne always had options too. And she always seemed to choose the most valuable, productive ones. Sometimes, you travel awfully far in life, without ever going too far from where you started.
As is almost always the case, there are interesting dimensions to the apparent demise of Australia as a great tennis power, but not a single one is touched on here. 
