 Okay, admit it, you've all set your alarms to make sure you dont miss the Polona Hercog v. Ayumi Morita match, which is first on Court 5 starting at 11 am Paris time. . . come on, what kind of fan are you?
Well, we'll see what the day brings for Hercog and all those other hopefuls battling it out on the red clay of Roland Garros. I'm a little torn about the schedule; do I really want to get up at an ungodly hour to watch Francesca Schiavone get to it with 41-year-old Kimiko Date-Krumm? No I don't, and it's just because I can't stand those noises Schiavone makes when she's playing; they really do belong in a barnyard. I'll even take shrieking Maria Sharapova or Mrs. Whooooo (Victoria Azarenka) over Schiavone as a listening experience any day.
But I sure would like to catch a glimpse of Date-Krumm. What did they do, schedule the match first-on because they know oldies like Date-Krumm and Schiavone (she's quickly closing on 32) tend to be early risers, and don't need to get as much sleep as the kiddies like Vika or Maria?
Anyway, enjoy the matches today. I have no idea what I'll be writing about later.
-- Pete
 by Pete Bodo
It was the perfect antidote to the dispiriting experience of watching Nicolas Mahut drum Andy Roddick out of the French Open the other day. Roddick, we all know, is the last American male to be ranked No. 1 as well as the last to win a Grand Slam title (2003 U.S. Open).
Nine Americans—three men and six women, won singles matches Monday in Paris. Sure, you can point out that they were first-round singles matches on what is traditionally the first day of the two-week competition (we'll ignore that wretched Sunday start business). All I can say is, it beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
Check that.
All I can say is that the results were particularly noteworthy because many of them were truly "quality wins," and thus perhaps indicative of brighter days ahead for the USA. Out of the 10 Americans in action Monday, only one lost—and even that was a quality loss.
That shortcoming involved Ryan Harrison, who left the court cursing the gods for the turn of fate they ordained in his match with No. 11 seed Gilles Simon, an accomplished clay-court player performing for his home crowd. Simon subdued Harrison, 3-6, 7-5, 6-4, 6-1. The scores eloquently tell the how the air went out of the match for Harrison after Simon contrived to escape from the deficit of a set, and a break, and a double second-set point for the American.
Doesn't it sometimes seem that the those selfsame gods are bent on putting Harrison through every possible wringer as he impetuously flings himself at the ramparts of career? That's kind of what you get for wanting it that badly, it seems—and it turns out that Ryan not the only one in the family with that affliction. He has a younger brother, Christian, who's a highly promising junior. As Ryan said, "He (Christian) wants it so bad. It's so good to see. You know, I get a three‑page text message from him before I can even check my phone about what he thought about the match (today) right after I finish."
But let's not dwell on the might-have-beens. Harrison lost a tough match to a terrific player, and in some recent years that alone might have constituted a good Roland Garros for the USA. Today, though, it was the only dim bulb on the tree. And the scores put up by some Americans were just as impressive as the names alongside them. Note that they with the exception of Harrison, not one of them lost a set today:
Brian Baker d. Xavier Malisse, 6-3, 7-6 (1), 7-6 (5): Baker's story, one which has by now become very familiar to anyone who hasn't spent the last month living under a rock, just keeps getting better and better. There was something poignant in this battle, as both men were once highly touted prodigies. Malisse, now 31, No. 77, and playing some of the best tennis of his life, more or less got lost in the fun-house and never did fulfill his promise; Baker's aspirations were killed off by his series of injuries.
Jesse Levine d. Benjamin Becker 7-5, 6-2, 6-4: Another qualifier, Levine was up against a salty, 30-year-old veteran in Becker. That can be a tough assignment for a guy like Levine, who's been on the cusp of the direct-entry elite for a long time now (he's presently No. 131), because players like Becker, who's No. 157, know full well how valuable those early-round ranking points can be, and how much tougher it is to get them from, say, a Novak Djokovic.
John Isner d. Rogerio Dutra Silva, 6-3, 6-4, 6-4: Silva is ranked No. 121 and he earned his way in via qualifying. Barring a meeting at some Challenger with, say, Ivo Karlovic, I'll bet Silva has never seen anything quite like that serve of Isner's. Now he can return to Sao Paolo, Brazi, and tell his friends that he's been to see the elephant.
Unlike some Americans, Isner is taking his sojourn on clay in stride. He said, "Well, for me, personally, I don't mind clay. I don't care what surface I'm playing on. I don't care if it's mud . . . My serve is my serve. I like to think I'm gonna hold serve a lot. Whether it's clay, grass or hard, I'm always gonna have that on my side."
***
And now for the women:
Not long after Christina McHale and Sloane Stephens won their matches, they huddled in the locker room, excited about having won, eager to know: What next? As Stephens explained, "I was like, 'Who do you play (next)? She's like, 'I play Lauren Davis.' I'm like, 'Oh my God. I play Bethanie (Mattek Sands).' So all the Americans are playing Americans. But it's good that we'll have people in the third round. That's always nice."
Let's not worry about that for now, or wonder who's going to take a bullet for the team. Let's just look at the winners:
Christina McHale d. Kiki Bertens, 2-6, 6-4, 6-4: A 20-year-old from the Netherlands, Bertens is No. 89. Given that McHale is No. 35, the final score may be a little surprising, but look at it this way: McHale is now a force on the tour, and she just turned 20. She's living with pressure that some of her less accomplished countrywomen known nothing about to this point, and McHale seems to be managing it well. Surviving a scare like this is a ritual of passage for all Top 25-type players, and it will probably carry a confidence dividend over to the next round.
Lauren Davis d. Mona Barthel, 6-1, 6-1: This was a real stunner, mostly because of the borderline inconceivable score. Barthel, after all, is No. 32, and in the midst of what might be a career year (although she's still just 22), one she launched with a win at Hobart. Davis is just 18 and only 5'2", but she has a big, big heart. This was a terrific win that nobody would have dared predict.
 Vania King d. Galina Voskoboeva, 6-4, 6-2: The 23-year old-doubles expert King is locked in a fascinating race with Venus Williams and Varvara Lepchenko—the prize being the fourth and final berth on Team USA for the upcoming Olympic Games in London. This was a winnable match, given that at No. 48 Voskoboeva is just eight places ahead of King in the singles rankings. But that only made the assignment that much more nerve-wracking. Venus also won her first match, as did Lepchenko, so the race continues unresloved.
Sloane Stephens d. Ekaterina Makarova, 6-4, 7-6 (6): Makarova is No. 37 in the world, Stephens No. 79. But it amounted to yet another convincing, straight-sets upset by an American. Stephens loves the clay, even though her familiarity with it is limited. She's just 19, and a real live wire with a big, carefree personality. That could serve her well in the days to come, as the pressure begins to ramp up.
Varvara Lepchenko d. Ksenia Pervak, 2-6, 6-7 (6), 6-4: Lepchenko was born and spent her early years in Uzbekistan, but is now an enthusiastic American citizen. She's making a mighty push to earn a place on the Olympic team (see above) and this win keeps her hopes alive. She's got to be feeling good after losing the first set and surviving an 8-6 tiebreaker. Perhaps it will free her up to swing from the heels in her next match.
Bethanie Mattek-Sands d. Sabine Lisicki, 6-4, 6-3: Bubbly, irrepressible, 27 but still a little goofy (but in a good way), Mattek-Sands is down to No. 167 and coming off a long struggle with a back injury. This is something the woman she vanquished knows a lot about, having overcome a serious, career-threatening episode (ankle) herself. This one ranks right up there with Davis's destruction of Barthels as an eye-brow raiser, but for the women of the USA, it was all in a day's work. On a very special day at Roland Garros.
 Mornin'. This will be extra-quick, and just to make sure you have the proverbial tabula rasa for chit-chatting about the matches today. I'll be writing a Racquet Reaction post on the Li vs. Cirstea match on Chatrier. LI, the defending champion, comes into the tournament seeded no. 7. But given the terrific mood swings she's always been subject to, it must be gratifying for Li - and her fans - that she's been a reliable quarterfinalist for the past few months, and had a match point against Maria Sharapova in the final of Rome just a week ago.
Still, that proverbial crown she's wearing must feel awfully heavy on the eve of the tournament. Pete Sampras once told me that the only thing tougher than winning a major for the first time was defending the title a year later, so we'll see how Li measures up by that standard.
I'll be traveling back to New York City later tomorrow, and will have another "They said what?" post tomorrow evening sometime. Enjoy the matches. Remember, as Boris Becker once said, "It's just tennis. Nobody died out there. . ."
-- Pete
 by Pete Bodo
In keeping with our desire to leave no stone unturned in our coverage of the French Open, I'm going to parse and comment on the post-match press conferences that have become an everyday part of life for ATP and WTA players.
While post-match thoughts and remarks are often interesting and even illuminating, they can also be just plain fun. And sometimes the questions themselves are more memorable than the answers they elicit. That's especially true early in a Grand Slam tournament, when players of every imaginable level of expertise and/or accomplishment are put through the interview-room wringer, like so many Toyota Corollas at the car wash on a Saturday afternoon.
I'll be tracking the press-room badinage as the tournament goes on, cherry-picking particularly noteworthy or amusing thoughts, exchanges, rationalizations, delusions, excuses, and insights. So let's get right to it with our first installment:
Nicolas Devilder is a 32-year-old Frenchman ranked No. 286 in the world. You might say he's been going nowhere, fast, but he's been ranked as high as No. 60 (August, 2008), so he isn't a total nobody. Besides, he fought his way through qualifying and earned his place in the main draw, where he defeated a highly-touted 20-year-old qualifier from Serbia, Filip Krajinovic.
After the win, Devilder waxed sentimental about his career as a journeyman, chasing those elusive ranking points all over the world in events big and (overwhelmingly) small. He was asked what his craziest experience has been "on the other side of the world." He replied:
"That was many years ago, '98, '99 in Egypt. I was on a circuit of tournaments, and I found myself completely alone for one week. I stayed there for a month, but the last week I was there on my own. I still have some bad memories. It was really tough. Egypt is really tough. People had said to me, Oh, Egypt. It is lovely. You can take a cruise on the Nile.
Except, I didn't go there for tourism, obviously. . . I was 18 and on my own in my room. You're the only Frenchman, no friends, no Internet at the time, no mobile phones. You're watching TV and there are no French channels. You keep those memories. All tennis players have been through this and maybe even worse times than that."
It kind of makes you wonder, how did people even live before Facebook?
Irena Pavlovic, who's of the Marion Bartoli two-hands-on-both-sides school, was just one of the naturalized French citizens (she's originally from Serbia) in action today. She was a winner, knocking out Kai-Chen Chang, 6-4, 7-5. When she was asked if the close match was one she might have lost in the past, she cut right to the chase:
"Yes, of course, because I would have felt frustrated. I would have had many things going through my mind. (But) at one stage, I just realized that I had to move forward, to stop whining, and I had to focus on the fight."
Repeat after me, youngsters: move forward, stop whining (unless your name happens to be McEnroe or Murray), focus on the fight. You could do worse.
Andy Roddick is already famous for his acid tongue and sharp wit. But that doesn't deter some of our more gung-ho correspondents from, basically, begging to be the victim of Roddick's caustic humor. Roddick played a lousy match today and lost to Nicolas Mahut in four sets, but that didn't stop at least one deep thinker from making one of those self-indulgent press room speeches disguised as a "question." Here's the exchange:
Q: "You had so many reasons for expecting more or less that things could be not as great as you would have expected, so maybe you shouldn't be so bothered by it. I understand it's not easy to accept defeat. It's difficult all the time. But this time you have a lot of reasons for more or less expecting that, or not?
"Because we see that you were very, very angry with yourself, the situation, you just came out of the court. But is it such a big surprise for you to be in this situation of a loser right now? And the second question is—first time Andy Roddick comes in press room No. 2. I'm very surprised. I think you're a big champion and they should respect you more."
To which Roddick replied, addressing the crowd in general:
"Wow. Bet you guys wish you could write down what I was thinking during that, right? (that provoked laughter). This is the point where the older, better version of myself takes a second.
"You know, you deal with your emotions and I'll deal with mine. I've done it long enough to know what feels good and what doesn't. That out there did not feel good. So as much as I appreciate your best Tony Robbins impersonation, I'm going to handle this how I want to. And as far as what press room I'm in, I really, really just don't care at all what press room I'm in. That's not important to me."
Robbins, by the way, is an American self-help author and master infomercial provider.
Mathilde Johansson, a 27-year-old native of Sweden, also plays under the Tricolor now. She had a fine win today, taking down Anastasia Rodionova, 5-7, 7-6 (6), 6-3. Johansson started the year losing 10 straight matches—she didn't get her first win until the end of April, when she busted-out out big time, reaching the semis at Fes.
I suppose that, given her history, it's understandable that the clothing-and-shoe contracts are not flying Johansson's way, although she's had some support in the past from Lacoste. Apparently, Johansson decided to tough out the situation, and played in a store-bought skirt and top. An observant pressman remarked that he saws no name brand on her skirt, and wondered what had come of her Lacoste deal. Johansson replied:
"Well, Lacoste I don't want any longer. We couldn't find—well, you know, we couldn't find an agreement which would be—how can I say? Which would be satisfactory for both parties. So I thought, I'm going to play with no logo than what they had for me.
I thought, If I go through the first round in the Grand Slam I'm going to have them. So I thought, No, okay, nothing at all. I can wear what I want. It's a good thing."
But she quickly added:
"It doesn't mean I wouldn't want to wear their clothes. Of course, what I wear is not really a tennis outfit, but at least people see I'm not playing with old outfits. . . I'm not going to going to advertise this brand, otherwise it's like I've been playing for a brand. Yes, I bought it in a shop. That's all. I wanted this to be a bit shorter. It was too long for tennis, and that's all.
At least I can choose my colors. I'm really okay with this."
Perhaps a "satisfactory" agreement will be more likely now that that ghastly losing streak is over.
Melanie Oudin racked up her first-ever win at the French Open on Sunday, taking the measure of Sweden's Johanna Larsson in a neat, 6-3, 6-3 win. A wild-card entry, the 20-year-old, ranked No. 269, is trying to recapture the confidence and focus that carried her to the U.S. Open quarterfinals in 2009. To that end, she's moved to New York, to train at the USTA's facility at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center.
Oudin has other pressing things on her mind, including finding someone to take over the room she's still renting in Boca Raton, where she'd previously lived (she now lives with a nice family in Westchester County, just north of Manhattan).
"You would think that a lot of would be interested," Oudin said of her sublet.
"I feel like I need to start putting posters up and put it on Facebook. Right now is not a great time because everyone is in Europe for the next two months. Yeah, I'm gonna have to start trying to figure it out after I get back from Wimbledon."
So if you know anyone looking for a room to rent in Boca, you know who to call—or friend.
Nicolas Mahut, who upset Roddick, was the big story for the French on the first day of the tournament. He's been a walking-talking human interest story ever since that 70-68 episode he cooked up with John Isner at Wimbledon in 2010. Naturally, Mahut was asked today where this match fit into the grand scheme of his career highs. He said:
"Well, you know, it's Roland Garros, and the Suzanne Lenglen Court, in addition to the rest, so it's almost one of my best matches. When I saw Roddick, I thought before he would always kill me. You know, six or seven or eight times I played against him. At the Queen's final with the match point, you know what happened (that was in 2007). When I see him in the locker rooms, I'll feel better. I won't feel like the image (of me) is (of) a pigeon, that he was shooting at me like a pigeon. . ."
That Mahut's fear of Roddick was deeply and sincerely felt can't be in doubt. That "seven or eight" previous meetings were really just four. Roddick won every won of them. Not today, though, which is one of the reasons they bother to actually play the game.
 Howdy, everyone. I'm on my way to the farm in game-rich Andes shortly, but I wanted to give you all a fresh place to chat, and to pass on the details (below) of the Suicide Pool that has so often been a part of the Grand Slam experience for many of you. Special thanks to Mariya Konolova (as always!) for providing this information. Have a great weekend, I'll be back on Sunday - if not before. . .
-- Pete
Whether you have been dreaming of drinking your sorrows away in the Loser's Lounge while throwing darts at your favorite player's photo since the Aussie or never had the pleasure of putting all your imaginary medal chances on the likes of beacons of stability like Julien Bennetteau or Lucie Safarova, we look forward to hosting you in the French Open Suicide Pool '12 at TalkAboutTennis.com.
In addition to enduring pride and a fake medal, this fortnight, winning the SP gets you a Roland Garros Swatch, generously provided by our collective friend Jon Wertheim!
If you've played it before, you know what to do. Click here to play. You should find the thread for the first day, Sunday, (after the OOP is announced) at that link. The deadline to enter is the scheduled start of play on SUNDAY, May 27th (11 am in Paris).
If you don't know how to play the Suicide Pool, read on or click here:
You have to be a registered member of TAT to play, which you can easily become by registering here for free.
We will be keeping track of the fortunes of the TWibe. If you want your name to be tracked, please indicate this with the text "TW" in your first day's (and ONLY your first day's) pick. Only include your TW name if it’s different from your username on TAT.
 by Pete Bodo
Well, the French Open draws are out and the bracketology is already in full swing. I can already hear citizen X screaming about Rafael Nadal getting another "cupcake" draw, with nary a scary player in sight until a projected fourth-meeting with Milos Raonic. I'm also aware that citizen Y is bemoaning the fact that Novak Djokovic has five qualifiers in his quarter of the draw, and nobody better than No. 14 seed Fernando Verdasco blocking his path to the quarterfinals.
Then you have your Serena Williams fans, already fingering the worry beads over her potential third-round battle with dangerous basher Julia Goerges, while Vania King and Venus Williams' competition to make the U.S. Olympic team has saddled them both with tough starts: King must play Galina Voskoboeva and then probably face the tough No. 15 seed, Dominka Cibulkova, while Venus will meet third-seeded Agniezska Radwanska—if V suvives a first-rounder with Argentina's Paula Ormaechea.
But all I really know is that the draw gods have been extremely cruel to Italian players. They hurled Potito Starace into Djokovic's cage in the first round, while the festivities in Paris will begin with Bologna's own Simone Bolelli being fed to Nadal.
Those comparable sacrifices are fitting, given the main theme of this tournament. Let's have a look at that, and some of the other percolating subplots.
Main Men's Theme: Will we get the much-anticipated showdown between No. 1 Djokovic and No. 2 Nadal? This is the storyline deferred from last year by one Roger Federer, who halted Djokovic's astonishing 43-match winning streak with an upset in the semifinals. At the time, Djokovic was on a roll, coming off two consecutive wins over Nadal on red clay—losses that seemed to shake Rafa to the core. It was the best chance anyone has had in seven years to beat a healthy Nadal at Roland Garros.
It's different this year, and not just because Djokovic has played Nadal twice on red clay and come up short each time. The way the Djokovic apologists have it, their man is not quite the player he was through most of 2011, and at the Australian Open earlier this year, because he's pacing himself—not really focusing on anything but those two big-ticket items: the French Open and the Olympics (which will take place in August at Wimbledon).
That may or not be true, but this is undeniable: Two epic achievements are on the offer at this French Open, but only one of them can come to pass. The first: Should Djokovic win the tournament, he will become the first man since Rod Laver in 1969 to hold all four Grand Slam titles at the same time. The last player of either gender to accomplish that was Serena Williams, who completed her "Serena Slam" when she bagged the Australian Open title in 2003.
Where it gets really intriguing is that this is also Nadal's chance to win his seventh singles title at Roland Garros, which would break his deadlock with Bjorn Borg. This also would be an epic achievement, if not quite as sweeping and historic as the mission Djokovic is hoping to accomplish. The fact that for either man, the main obstacle will probably be the other guy, and that only one of these momentus achievements can come to pass, is what makes this one of this truly rare, irresistible force meets immovable object events.
 Main Women's Theme: Can Maria Sharapova reclaim her long-lost No. 1 ranking and complete her career Grand Slam? That's the key question, now that current No. 1 Victora Azarenka's drive to emulate Djokovic's domination of tennis has stalled. Azarenka has not won a tournament since Indian Wells in early March, lending credence to the theory that clay is her weakness. But it isn't like Azarenka has been playing poorly, either. Since Indian Wells, she lost in the quarterfinals of Miami, the finals Stuttgart and Madrid, and pulled out of Rome after her first-round win (bad shoulder).
This could be Sharpova's big moment. She's been a solid No. 2, and while her history on clay hasn't been great, she's made dramatic improvements on the surface since last year, when she lost to eventual champ Li Na in the French Open semis. Sharapova goes into Roland Garros with the Rome title tucked away, just like last year, but this time she won that tournament over Li. That's for those of you who believe in omens.
Men's Subplot No. 1: Can Federer, who briefly snatched the No. 2 ranking from Nadal a few weeks ago, still bring it at the majors? He's won nine of the 12 tournaments he's played since the 2011 U.S. Open (where he had two match points in the semis but still lost), but some doubt his ability to beat two out of his three main rivals (Djokovic, Nadal, and Andy Muray) in back-to-back matches at a two-week, best-of-five-set Grand Slam event. In Paris, he's penciled in to meet Tomas Berdych in the quarterfinals and Djokovic in the semis.
Women's Subplot No. 1: Wither Serena? It's no secret that this Olympic year has lit a fire under Serena Williams, but her predicament is somewhat similar to the one facing Federer. Can she rally her A game against a succession of quality opponents on slow red clay? Like Federer, the WTA No. 5 is past the age of 30, but unlike Federer, her record at Roland Garros has been patchy ever since she won her only title there in 2002. She's only been as far as the semifinals once since then, in 2003.
However, it seems we're looking at rejuvenated Serena these days; she's coming off two significant wins on clay—she clobbered Maria Sharapova in Madrid, 6-1, 6-3, and then did exactly the same thing to Azarenka in the final, by the same score. The big question for Serena is, can she survive the first week?
Men's Subplot No. 2: Can anyone step up and loosen the stranglehold the "Big Four" have on major tournaments? People have been waiting for a pretty long time to see if anyone else can crash the party. So forget about winning the event, how about one of you boys—Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Berdych, Juan Martin del Potro, David Ferrer—insert yourself into the conversation at the top of the game? One of you needs to count coup on one or more of the anointed four before they all reach their cozy confines in the semis. Do it for the reputation of the tour.
Women's Subplot No. 2: Where have all the champions gone? At the start of 2012, everyone expected an intense and exciting battle for top honors among a full half-dozen players, including then-No. 2 Petra Kvitova, U.S. Open champion Sam Stosur, year-end No. 1 (in 2010 and 2011) Caroline Wozniacki, French Open champ Li, and even Kim Clijsters. Not one of them has been much of a factor so far this year. We'll see if any of them can begin to rehabilitate her reputation in Paris.
 by Pete Bodo
There may be no week in the entire year when tennis is less closely watched than this one, and that's owing to a combination of factors collected under the single umbrella called Roland Garros.
Most of the elite players are having a few light hits but otherwise putting their feet up in preparation for the pending, two-week (each hopes) slog on red clay that begins this Sunday in the 16th arrondissement of Paris, hard by the Bois de Boulogne. In addition to having to live in the towering shadow of the year's second Grand Slam tournament, the ongoing ATP events in Dusseldorf and Nice also are hampered by the fact that at the end of this intense, five-week, three Masters-event run, everyone is a little bit overfed on red clay.
And that goes for the fans as well as players.
The other day, Ivan Ljubicic made some snide remarks about American players skipping European tournaments, but I prefer to look at it this way: If not for a few diehards (Gilles Simon? Radek Stepanek? Nicolas Almagro?), who else is going to show up this week for what has become a ritual humiliation in Europe but U.S. players? My countrymen seem vanish a week or two after the Miami Masters, only to slumber out of hibernation this week, rubbing their eyes and asking, "Tennis? Is there some tennis going on that I ought to know about?"
Thus, you have John Isner striking terror into the hearts of numerous forehand-backhand-rinse-repeat clay-court artists right now in Nice. And how about that truly sensational human interest story, Brian Baker? A former junior French Open runner-up, he's already planted the No. 4 seed in Nice—the formidable Frenchman, Gael Monfils.
Nice? Do we care?
You bet. Nice was one of the oldest and most beloved of events before it was swept away in 1995 by Roland Garros and Masters mania—other names for the influenza of "bigness" to which everyone, not just the U.S., is susceptible.
It was a pity to see the tournament go. Among other things, "Open de Nice Cote d'Azur" is about as pretty a name for a tournament as you'll find (that's the official title of the tournament; note the lack of affiliation with some financial services outfit, soft-drink purveyor, or jeweler). And you don't have to be a history buff or an F. Scott Fitzgerald fanatic to imagine what the scene at this tournament must have been like back in the days when tennis was an amateur sport and the idle rich would "summer" on that portion of the Riviera known, if you allow the pedestrian translation into English, as "the blue coast."
Should you want a little more gravitas than is afforded by Nice's long history, just peruse the roll of its champions: Ilie Nastase, Manuel Orantes, Jose Higueras, Bjorn Borg, Yannick Noah, Henri LeConte, Andrei Chesnokov—they all won Nice before the tournament fell on hard times and went dormant for 15 years.
Check out the draw—I think you'll find that this is a fair little tournament, made more rather than less interesting by the absence of any player from the Top 9. They're stacked up pretty thick after that, though, as if there were some kind of law about it. The tournament enlisted ATP Nos. 10 (Isner), 12 (Simon), 13 (Almagro) and 14 (Monfils). I don't know about you, but I'd rather plonk down a few Euros to watch second-seeded Simon battle Thomaz Bellucci (a third-rounder) than watch Novak Djokovic crush some hapless Latvian, oh-and-three.
The other ATP event this deadly week is the Power Horse World Team Cup in Dusseldorf, which may not have quite the romantic ring as the official name of the aforementioned event on the French coast, but then nobody ever mistook Dusseldorf for Nice. What Dusseldorf has, though, is what every tournament aspires to, and what Wimbledon itself has taken to the max: An aura, a reputation and an allure that makes people want to be there, even if the guy swinging the racquet is more likely to be Fred Flintstone than Roger Federer. That the aura doesn't spread far beyond the outskirts of Dusseldorf is neither here nor there.
The World Team Cup is a relatively new event, spawned in 1975 as the ATP's own version of the Davis Cup. It was the brainchild of the father of the ATP tour, Jack Kramer. In one of his many prescient moments, Kramer perceived a niche for an international team competition that took place during just one week, featuring the two top players from eight nations (the nations whose singles players had the highest combined ranking were the ones invited). The concept still must seem delicious to anti-Davis Cup (or Davis Cup-format) dissenters.
Back then, commercial realities as well as a certain respect for the tradition and history of the game made it unthinkable to attack (or skip) Davis Cup competition. Thus, Arthur Ashe worked both sides of the fence: The U.S. Davis Cup icon also combined with now disgraced con-man Roscoe Tanner to secure the U.S.' win in Kingston, Jamaica, in the first World Team Cup. Unfortunately, the tournament was a financial disaster. It would be three years before the WTC was revived by visionary tennis promoter Horst Klosterkemper of Dusseldorf's elite Rochusclub (no, it was not named for Olivier and Christophe).
The WTC has been held at the Rochusclub ever since, happily indifferent to the awkward slot on the calendar and the lack of participation by the very top players. The German people have been extremely supportive of their event, not least because the home team has won a record five times. Bogus? Who cares? You have to play it to win it, and if you can't be bothered to show up, somebody else will carry off the loot and the honors, and the Germans who flock to the event have a great time anyway. Check out the snaps of the winners over the years and then tell me that nobody cares about the event because Rafa and Nole can't be bothered.
Pro tennis once was inseparably yoked to the whims of the very top players, and in some places and ways it still is. But at its best, a tennis tournament is a happening, a Nicefest, or Dusselpalooza. During the ATP boycott year of 1973, Wimbledon proved that fans would flock to the tournament regardless of the field. It's great to have the top players all gathered under one roof, or rain cloud, but it's even better for the game when people want something other than a glimpse of a star, or celebrity, and find it in the places and players who aren't the headline makers. And that's the story of this deadly week.
 by Pete Bodo
Rafael Nadal needs scant promotion as the start of the French Open bears down on us. Any doubts about Nadal's future as the man with a stranglehold (instead of that familiar, playful bite) on the French Open trophy were laid to rest these past few weeks. All that talk about Novak Djokovic pulling the clay out from under Nadal's feet? Oh, how quaintly 2011 it was.
That particular threat has been dismissed as if by one of those wicked Nadal forehand cuts that ends with a helicopter flourish. So here we are again, with absolutely nothing to suggest that Rafa won't sashay out there next week and inflict a painful whipping on the first of the seven doomed men he will dismiss en route to his seventh Roland Garros title. That would break his tie with Bjorn Borg (six titles in eight appearances), and also allow Nadal to build on his superior winning percentage.
We used to marvel at the fact that Borg lost just two matches in those eight tournaments at Roland Garros (as if that weren't amazing enough, he lost both those matches to the same man, Italy's Adriano Panatta, who Steve Tignor wrote about last week). Nadal has lost just once (to Robin Soderling, 2009), and he was physically impaired at the time. To borrow a line from a popular country song, "That's my asterisk (story) and I'm sticking to it."
Most of you are familiar with these details, but there's "meta" and then there's "meta," if you know what I mean. And in that regard I find Nadal's accomplishments even more astonishing when you expand the big picture to the really big picture. Which, in this case, gets into the history of the clay-court game.
Borg's reign on clay ended in 1981, just three years after the Prince over-sized racquet, in the hands of U.S. Open finalist Pam Shriver, rocked and began to shape the future of tennis. In the ensuing years, 15 different men won the French Open, none more often than a trio of three-time champions, Mats Wilander, Ivan Lendl, and Gustavo Kuerten.
Additionally, the only men to win back-to-back French Open titles in that period were Lendl, Jim Courier, Sergi Burguera, and Kuerten—and among them only Kuerten won more than two titles at Roland Garros. The four years before Nadal won his first French produced four different champions; starting in 2001 they were Kuerten, Albert Costa, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Gaston Gaudio.
By the time Gaudio won in 2004, the French Open already had a highly-developed reputation as the least predictable of Grand Slam events, or the major most likely to cough up a champion who, if not exactly suspect, was neither a clay-court expert nor necessarily a man destined or even able to win multiple Grand Slam titles. While the trophy-class of players at the U.S. Open or Wimbledon was a limited cast of characters, it seemed that anyone could win the French.
There were solid, well thought out, inter-related reasons for this. The men's field was getting deeper and deeper. At the same time, advances in racquet and string technology gave everyone a boost of power and a more lethal return game. Combine these comparably superior and fit athletes with more powerful weapons, and put them to work on a relatively slow court, and it was a bit like tennis roulette.
It seemed that Roland Garros had been transformed from the tournament that only the best and most consistent players could win into the one that anybody could win. And that was only heightened by the fact that so many of its more successful players were developed on clay in emerging tennis nations like Spain, Sweden, France, and Argentina. When you looked back upon the Borg years, you were apt to think, "We'll not see the likes of him again. . ."
And when Bruguera, who had even more radical technique than Borg, was unable to add to his Roland Garros haul of two, it seemed that the days when style-of-play and particularly vicious topspin might yield a huge advantage were definitely over.
Well, Nadal has exposed all that as just so much fancy-pants theorizing, and accomplished something not very many coaches or former players might have thought possible: He re-defined the French Open as a tournament that could be dominated, mastered by a man with a specific (if unconventional) set of tools. I rate that very high among the intangibles that season our appreciation of a player and his accomplishments.
Much like his great rival in history, Borg, Nadal brought to the game a new, radical style—and he did it at a time when most of us thought we had seen it all. Both of these men were designed to win on clay from the ground up; it was obvious in their myriad physical gifts, their mentality, and those unusual strokes in which the only real point of commonality is a heavy reliance on topspin. Yet I don't think anyone could see Nadal coming, and it seems to confirm the idea that the game isn't really about surface speeds, technology, match-ups, or one-handed versus two-handed backhands; it's about superior individuals who find a way—sometimes an almost absurdly unfamiliar and certainly not always a merely "mental" way—to impose their will and dominate until laid low by the sword of time.
Note that Borg had escaped that fate, but at a heavy price—the loss of a good six or seven years of career (he quite the game abruptly at age 25). Nadal is likely to surpass him in total Roland Garros titles, if not in that presently otherworldly degree-of-success category. I'm sure that's a trade-off Nadal will happily make.
There's one other dimension to consider when you compare the success of the two titans of clay, and that's the casualty list of their opponents. In his six finals, Nadal had four wins over Roger Federer, the all-time Grand Slam champion in men's singles and inarguably the second-best player (after Nadal) on clay. His other final-round wins were over Robin Soderling, in a bit of revenge, and Mariano Puerta, who was later suspended for doping.
By contrast, Borg took just one title from a truly elite player, and that was Ivan Lendl, whom the Swede mastered (albeit in five tough sets) in his final year at Roland Garros, 1981. Borg won his other titles, working backwards from '81, over Vitas Gerulaitis, Victor Pecci, Guillermo Vilas (twice), and Manolo Orantes. None of them were serious rivals, which Lendl might have become had Borg not quit.
Borg's most overpowering performance was in 1978, when he won every set and lost just 32 games in the entire tournament. The best Rafa has done so far in this department was in 2008, when he also denied his opponents even one set and lost just 41 games. There's a general impression that Borg ripped through his competition at the French like nobody has before or since, but that isn't really true. Nadal is right up there, just behind if not dead even, when it comes to outright domination.
It was easy to think we'd never see the likes of Bjorn Borg again after he retired, and we learned a lesson. But we've seen lightning strike twice now, and whether it can hit a third time is something you all will have to decide for yourselves.
Mornin.' Am I the only one who assumed that the Power Horse World Team Cup competition, now underway in Dusseldorf was - rather bizarrely - sponsored by an American company that manufactures log splitters, pressure-washers, and other gear for the hard working- or playing - man (or woman)?
But no, for those of you who need to know, Power Horse is an Austrian conceived made energy drink, albeit with a decidedly "American" marketing tone and strategy - as the website says, "Power Horse - take it on!"
Whether you're watching/following the WTC in Dusseldorf, where the Americans are getting their fannies tanned (an appropriate punishment for having taken the last few weeks off), or Nice, where John Isner has at least advanced to the second round, feel free to express your opinion, vent your frustration, or wrote glowingly about the heroics of your favorites here. Enjoy the tennis. I'll be back with some thoughts on the French Open and Rafael Nadal later.
P.S. - Is there a better first name for a player than "Go" as in Go Soeda, of Japan, pictured above?
-- Pete
 by Pete Bodo
 Rafael Nadal has managed to turn the tables on Novak Djokovic at the time of year when, 12 months earlier, a surging Nole put what was then an unimaginable dent in Rafa's confidence—and reputation—on red clay in Rome. Nadal, who surrendered the No. 1 ranking to Djokovic a little less than a year ago, re-emerged yesterday as the dominant force on European clay, the role the Serb forced him to relinquish last season.
Nadal's claim is backed up with two wins over Djokovic in spring clay Masters events (Monte Carlo and Rome). For Djokovic fans, the most appealing narrative is that their hero has just been treading water, unwilling to invest himself entirely in the run-up to the French Open. If that's true, it's an extremely bold and risky strategy—eggs and baskets and all that. . .
Nadal fans have a more plausible explanation when they argue that last year was something of an abberation, with Djokovic playing at a level that was glorious but impossible to sustain. We once dreamed of potential finals between Nadal and Roger Federer; now the majority of fingers are crossed for a showdown between Nadal and Djokovic at Roland Garros—where Rafa has won six titles and lost exactly one match in his entire career.
 Andy Murray has really struggled ever since he lost the Miami Masters final to Djokovic and left the American shores. He hasn't made a semfinal since then, losing to Tomas Berdych (Monte Carlo), Milos Raonic (Barcelona), and Richard Gasquet (Rome). That wouldn't be enough to earn a thumbs down in and of itself; every pro hits mediocre times now and then. It was the way Murray lost to Gasquet that was so irritating and. . . amateurish.
We all know that Murray gets into funks, screams at his box, beats on himself. But one of the main reasons that former No. 1 and Hall of Famer Ivan Lendl decided to sign on as Murray's coach was to help the world No. 4 develop a greater degree of self-control. And that wasn't merely because Lendl, a hard case himself, wanted Murray to become a more pleasant citizen of the tennis world. Lendl hoped to convince Murray that he needs to show his opponents a tough, professional, preferably inscrutable face. You might even say he wanted to play the father figure who convinced the gifted Murray to grow up. Could it be that Lendl has been wasting his time?
Given the nature of the game, a player is full control of only a few things, the most obvious of which is his serve. But he also can control himself, and the way that the scowling, potty-mouthed Murray has failed to throttle his sour moods and reactions only adds to the growing narrative that he doesn't deserve to be spoken of as part of a Big Four. Maybe this show ought to be called Three and a Half Men.
It's a shame, because Murray is a really compelling player and a very decent, down-to-earth guy.
 Maria Sharapova won another big title Sunday in Rome. She did it by virtue of a performance that can almost be termed emblematic of her career. Her opponent, Li Na, raced out to a 6-4, 4-0 lead, which can be attributed to her terrific attributes as a clay-court player (she's mobile, patient, and armed with very precise, compact groundstrokes) as well as Sharapova's well-documented tendency to fall out of sync at unpredictable times, and far too often for a three-time Grand Slam champion, former No. 1, and current No. 2.
But if Sharapova often loses the plot, she also fights harder than most of her contemporaries to get it back—or even to just win ugly. Her fighting spirit is her greatest asset. Against Li, she dug in her heels and battled back, all the way back, in a match concluded on a rain-drenched battlefield, and which included a two-hour rain delay and a un-converted match point for Li. In what in some ways was a signature performance, Sharapova ultimately triumphed, 7-6 in the third.
 Angelique Kerber has cracked the Top 10, rounding out a line-up that is represented by 10 players from 10 different nations. That's extraordinary, given that all it would take is one duplication to ruin the line-up. I suppose we should thank Svetlana Kuznetsova and Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova for making this scenario possible.
Kerber essentially replaced Serbian-born and frequently injured Andrea Petkovic—who will miss the French Open—as the German representative in the Top 10. Her recent rise from the pack began when she unexpectedly reached last year's U.S. Open semifinals, after which she quickly surpassed her career-high ranking of No. 45, finishing the year at No. 32.
A lefty, Kerber has wins this year over Sharapova, Li, Jelena Jankovic, Caroline Wozniacki, Venus Williams, and Petra Kvitova. Let no one suggest she hasn't earned her ranking without quality wins.
 Victoria Azarenka went after the WTA last week after withdrawing from Rome following her opening-round win over Shahar Peer. The world No. 1 cited a right shoulder injury as the reason. "I was conflicted and disappointed to withdraw from Rome," Azarenka wrote on Twitter. "I tried my hardest but I wasn't healthy going into the tournament. If WTA rules were different then I could have focused on getting healthy but I could not afford another zero pointer on my ranking. Hopefully in the future there will be more protection for players rights."
Hey, isn't that more than 140 characters?
Never mind. WTA spokesperson Andrew Walker later told TENNIS.com (via The Ticker author Matt Cronin) that the WTA Roadmap, introduced in 2009, has already extended the off-season and significantly reduced the commitment requirements for top players. The result was a 33 percent drop in injuries and withdrawals, and a 28 percent increase in participation at top events by the best players. And the players have thus far supported the Roadmap.
If you read between the lines, Walker is asking, "What more can Azarenka want?"
The answer is easy: More latitude. But the question is, how much is enough, given Azarenka's rich history of pulling out of events, and her reputation as a player who never takes a hit for the WTA team? Even her colleague Maria Sharapova—who knows a thing or two about injuries—rebuked Azarenka after the top-ranked player's comments became public, telling reporters in Rome:
"First of all she is probably injured more than any other player. . . I think last year she had more retirements that anyone but played a full schedule and two days after retirement you would see her practicing, so it's tough to know what her state is, and what she is feeling."
Ouch.
Sharapova went on to defend the Roadmap, and said that when she feels too injured to perform, she simply doesn't enter an event, and considers the fines and any other penalty or obligation that she might incur just part of the cost of doing business.
Even if you think Azarenka's actions and intentions have been pure as the driven snow, you have to wonder: Would be fair to the rest of the women to rewrite the rules in order to accomodate one player's particular desires, needs, and even physiological strengths and weaknesses?
|
