133 posts categorized "2006 Entries"
Winning a Grand Slam suicide pool is about as tough as winning a Slam for real. The rules are deceptively simple: Each round, you must pick a man and woman who will not lose in that round, and then you can't use those players again. One piece of advice: Do not pick Roger Federer in the first round. Or the second. Or the third. To win, you'll likely need to save him all the way to the final.
To go all the way, you've got to avoid the upset landmine—or call a few of them correctly—for two whole weeks. On the men's side, it's tough because pretty much everyone not named Federer can go down at anytime, to anyone; on the women's, you need to survive the early rounds without using up your high seeds, because chances are they're going to be filling up the second week draw.
If anyone can survive all seven rounds of either of the draws, they'll get . . . something. Hat, T-shirt, strings, I'll see what we have at the office.
Have your picks in by the beginning of the first round tomorrow night (because of short notice, stragglers will be welcome).
I'm starting with:
Katarina Srebotnik and Mario Ancic
 Don’t you love to see an unspoiled draw? For this brief moment, no one has been upset, torn a muscle, had a brain cramp, suffered heat stroke, or otherwise let us down. Everything is potential. We're free to look at names and play out upcoming matches in our heads. Blake-Moya, Safin-Roddick, Gasquet-Baghdatis, Mauresmo-Vaidisova: sounds like a fun couple of weeks, doesn’t it?
All that will be ruined by Monday morning, of course, when the first results come in and bring the inevitable bad news. Safin lost to who? Jankovic tripped over what? But for this weekend, anyway, we can imagine whatever we want and keep our dream match-ups alive.
The Men
First Quarter
The problem with Roger Federer is that there are few dream matches that involve him—he’s so good right now that I can’t imagine, hard as I might try, anyone giving him a serious run for his money. Even the three young guns in his quarter, Gasquet, Baghdatis, and Djokovic, will be hard-pressed to do any damage if they face him. It’s not impossible, certainly, but just getting a set—forget three—from Federer will be an achievement. Djokovic would get the first shot at him in the round of 16, then the winner of Gasquet-Baghdatis (we can dream, right?) would play him in the quarters. You’d think this would be a nice surface for Gasquet to make a breakthrough on, but I’d take Baghdatis in their match based on his confidence from last year and continued enthusiasm for the Aussie courts.
Sleeper: Juan Carlos Ferrero. He’s been to the semis here and showed signs of life in 2006.
Semifinalist: Roger Federer
Second Quarter
Ivan Ljubicic is the big dog in this section (he’s the No. 4 seed in the tournament), but he’s got a test right off the bat against Mardy Fish, who has played some decent tennis Down Under this year and is never an easy guy to break. The match to hope for, of course, is a third-rounder between Roddick and Safin. Roddick showed up ready to play in Kooyong this week. He must sense a good chance to make his second straight Slam semi; this may be the softest section of the draw, and he has a winning record against Ljubicic. We all know Safin can play on Rebound Ace, and he finished 2006 on his first high note in two years by clinching the Davis Cup. Which means he’ll go down in straights to Benjamin Becker in the first round. No, he won’t. I hope.
Sleeper: Joachim Johannson. He hit a world-record 51 aces in a loss to Andre Agassi down here one year. He’ll probably win if he does that again.
Semifinalist: Andy Roddick
Third Quarter
This is the aficionado’s section, where Nikolay Davydenko and David Nalbandian have been set up for a quiet quarterfinal showdown. In between are a few landmines, however. Nalbandian may have to face down two former Melbourne semifinalists, Sebastien Grosjean and Tommy Haas. If the German is ever going to reach another Slam semi, it’s probably right here, right now. On Davydenko’s side, there’s a shorn Xavier Malisse, who already has a tournament win in 2007, as well as two monster hitters in Dmitry Tursunov and Tomas Berdych, whose likely third-round encounter will be blast-and-mope tennis at its finest. Tough call here: Both Davydenko and Nalbandian have been hurt recently, but nobody else seems like a good bet to step up his mental game at the right moment.
Sleeper: Luis Horna. He won two rounds last year. (I would give this honor to Chris Guccione, the giant left-handed Australian, but he’s got a tough match-up in the first round against the veteran Olivier Rochus.)
Semifinalist: David Nalbandian
Fourth Quarter
The bottom of the draw will hopefully end in a duel between second seed Rafael Nadal and fifth seed James Blake, who has upset Nadal all three times they’ve played. But we’re a long way from there right now. First Nadal has to get past American Robert Kendrick, who led the Spaniard two sets to love at Wimbledon in 2006 (it was one of the best matches of the year). Blake has an even tougher opener with Carlos Moya, who he’s also playing in the final in Sydney (brutal!). In between there’s Fernando Gonzalez, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Murray, and a curious and completely unpredictable first-round encounter between Robby Ginepri and Nicolas Almagro.
Sleeper: Kristof Vliegen. The tall, smooth-hitting Belgian could be a tough second-round test for Nadal.
Semifinalist: Rafael Nadal
 The Women
First Quarter
With Henin-Hardenne out, Maria Sharapova has moved to the pole position in the draw. Her first interesting match may come in the fourth round, against the talented but inconsistent teenager Ana Ivanovic. But I’ll be curious to see the Serb’s first-rounder, against diminutive American youngster Vania King, who showed a surprising amount of game late last year. Also lurking in that vicinity is a third skilled teen, Poland’s Agnieszka Radwanska. Sharapova’s quarterfinal match is scheduled to be against Patty Schynder, who has had her best Slam results Down Under; she’s 26-10 overall in Melbourne and has reached at least the quarters the last three years.
Sleeper: Alicia Molik. Home-country favorite and wild card will try to start a comeback.
Semifinalist: Maria Sharapova
Second Quarter
Kim Clijsters and Martina Hingis are the top seeds here, though Hingis may have to get past Dinara Safina, who beat her last week, in the fourth round. This may be Clijsters' last best shot at a second Grand Slam. She should be match tough after pulling out three-setters in the semis and final in Sydney this week, and she must be loving the absence of Henin-Hardenne, who beat her in two majors last year. There’s really no one here to challenge Clijsters until the quarters, and Hingis has already been overpowered twice in 2007 by players who don’t hit as big as the Belgian. Clijsters' likely showdown with Sharapova in the semis is looking like the match of the tournament.
Sleeper: Li Na. The top Chinese player is constantly improving and had chances to beat Clijsters in Sydney.
Semifinalist: Kim Clijsters
Third Quarter
On paper, Russians Nadia Petrova and Svetlana Kuznetsova are set to duke it out in the quarters. The trendy pick here is Jelena Jankovic, who won her opening tournament of 2007, then beat Hingis and Mauresmo and had a match point against Clijsters in Sydney. I think losing that final may have helped her, though; now the expectations won’t be quite as sky high (just high). Remember how Petrova came into the French Open last year on a long winning streak and went out in about 45 minutes in the first round? Jankovic has already had the reality check. Still, while Kuznetsova has been injured recently, she beat Jankovic twice at the close of 2006.
Sleeper: Serena Williams. Remember her? If the two-time Aussie champ can navigate her way past Italy’s bizarre Mara Santangelo in the first round, she’ll probably get Petrova in the third, and she’s 5-1 against the Russian.
Semifinalist: Jelena Jankovic
Fourth Quarter
This section features a potentially intriguing quarterfinal, between second seed and defending champ Amelie Mauresmo and long-limbed Czech teen Nicole Vaidisova, who ousted Mauresmo at the French Open in 2006. Vaidisova looked good despite losing to Jankovic in Sydney; she dictated the action and had chances to win. This could be a second breakout major for her, if she can keep her temper in check and get past Elena Dementieva in the round of 16 (the Russian won their only encounter). Mauresmo was bageled in the second set by Jankovic last week, which is not an auspicious way to go into a title defense. But the nice thing about the women’s draw is that she should have a couple rounds to play her way into the tournament. That’s what she did at the year-end championships in Madrid last November, and that’s what I think she’ll do to make it to the semis here. Being the defending champion will give her extra motivation.
Sleeper: Francesca Schiavone. The Italian has beaten Mauresmo the last two times they’ve played. They’re scheduled to face off in the fourth round.
Semifinalist: Amelie Mauresmo
Enjoy the tennis; it starts Sunday evening on ESPN. But remember to fit in some sleep this week (time to get a DVR!). I’ll try to post every other day or so; in between, check out our friend Kamakshi Tandon’s blog from Melbourne on TENNIS.com. Pete Bodo joins her there for the second week.
I played it pretty straight with the picks. Anybody willing to go out on a few limbs?
 The tough thing about watching sports is how much movement it requires—it can be exhausting. Yesterday a friend and fellow Philadelphia Eagles fan (yes, I’m going to talk football to start, as a man must do on Mondays; skip to the next paragraph for tennis) came over to watch our team play the hated—nay, detested—New York Giants in the opening round of the NFL playoffs. For the first half, we were content to stay seated in the same spots, occasionally leaning forward at crucial junctures. By the third quarter, I had begun to spend long periods staring downward and taking deep breaths, my fingers on my forehead. Finally, by the start of the fourth quarter, I was lying on the floor 2 feet in front of the TV, and my friend was pacing through my apartment. I began to pace soon after that, and we passed each other a couple times in the kitchen. By the time the Eagles had set up for the final-second field goal to win the game, I was down in a sprinter’s starting position, my face about a foot from the screen. Fortunately, the kick was good; if the game had gone to overtime, I was anticipating having to walk around the block until it was over. “I couldn’t even watch it, I almost passed out,” said Philly’s Doug Pizzica, who was at the game, about the final kick. Sad to say, but I hear you, Doug.
Is this passion or insanity? I can’t quite decide. I’m trying to remember the last time I acted like that during a tennis match; it was probably the 1999 French Open final, when Andre Agassi was trying to complete his career Grand Slam. I had to be in the right position for all crucial points that day.
The tennis this past weekend—it was the opening week of the 2007 season (we don’t waste time in this sport)—never got me out of my rocking chair, but there were quality performances and a few new faces to begin the new year. And there was that trademark blast of summer Australian sun to brighten our late-night January TV watching. You can almost feel it through the set. Here’s a weekend highlight reel:
Novak Djokovic: The no-frills, wired-tight Serb won in Adelaide and moved to No. 14 in the rankings. What I noticed for the first time in his wins over Joachim Johansson and Chris Guccione in the semis and final is how good Djoko’s return is, particularly on the backhand side. This isn’t a surprise, considering his strokes are compact. But watch him move on a diagonal on his backhand side in the ad court to cut off the serve's angle; that’s how every coach draws it up, but it's not as easy as it looks.
Otherwise, Djokovic played with controlled ferocity over the weekend. As a competitor, that’s how you want to be: He’s intense, but that doesn’t keep him from making the judicious shot choice—I don’t think any of the younger pros play it quite as safely (that’s a compliment). As a person, those contradictory qualities make Djoko a mystery to me. At one point, he snarled at a ball boy, “Towel, towel!” But in his trophy-presentation speech, he was the essence of class and worldliness, thanking the ball boys in near-perfect English.
Chris Guccione: My initial reaction to seeing the 21-year-old Aussie was, “This guy is a pro?” Something about the lanky, 6-foot-6, red-haired, red-faced kid with the stained trucker’s cap just didn’t say “world-class tennis player.” He beat Juan Carlos Ferrero three years ago, but I hadn’t heard a single thing about him since. Still, after two matches from Adelaide, I was duly impressed by his lefty serve, his commitment to serving and volleying on both deliveries (he’s in the Wayne Arthurs mold), and his level-headed mental approach. In the final, he could have caved to Djoko and called it a good week, but he fought him until the final point.
Best of all is Guccione’s forehand; the acceleration he gets through the contact zone is pretty obnoxious. The question is, can it make up for a shaky, one-handed backhand and an inconsistent return? His upcoming match with Nadal in Sydney will be interesting. I imagine that one of the sets will go to a tiebreaker—Guccione is tough to break, but I don’t see him doing a lot of breaking himself.
Martina Hingis: For the first time I found myself a little frustrated by Hingis. She lost to the more powerful but less-talented Dinara Safina in a three-set Gold Coast final. Yes, there were the “only Hingis” moments, such as a running forehand crosscourt drop shot winner (ridiculous). But watching her lose to someone she really should beat, I began to wonder if Hingis is willing to change her game at all to move up further and challenge for Slams. Her comeback has been remarkable, no doubt, mainly because she’s made the Top 10 without altering those old loopy, open-stance strokes one iota. The problem is, she simply can’t dictate play with them in today’s game (or even in the game of, say, four years ago). Is she willing to retool those strokes a bit, lean into them more, take them earlier? Can she change anything after all these years? It’d be nice to see her give it a shot.
Juan Martin del Potro: The kids just keep getting bigger—or, as they say in the NBA, longer. Del Potro, a 6-foot-5, 18-year-old Argentine, made the semis in Adelaide before losing a tight match to Guccione. Del Potro’s all limbs, but surprisingly smooth. His high-loop forehand is his best stroke, and it comes with a little added flair: He turns the hitting side of his strings backward at the top of the backswing, then whips it back around on the downstroke. He’s also got good hands, and he improvised a couple winning athletic plays near the end of the match. Weak point: Right now, he’s not getting the consistent power that he could from his serve; there’s a hitch in his motion somewhere. Other than that, he’s one to watch, and should have a bigger long-term upside than Guccione.
Xavier Malisse: Del Potro and Guccione be warned: It's not a long road from up-and-comer to mid-career underachiever. Malisse, physically smooth and mentally fragile, will be 27 this year—can you believe it? But at least he’s started on the right note. He cut off that godawful ponytail! And, yes, he beat Rafael Nadal on his way to the title in Chennai. It’s probably too late to believe in Malisse as a Slam contender, but there are worse potential tournament spoilers to watch. His game looks effortless. Unfortunately, much of the time it really is.
Joachim Johansson: A quick word on another former young gun. Johansson, who will be 25 in July, made the semis in Adelaide before losing to Djokovic. But it was on a winning point that the quiet giant reminded me of why, like Malisse, he hasn’t fulfilled expectations thus far: On a mid-court sitter, Pim Pim (can a Slam winner ever be called "Pim Pim"?) took the ball with his forehand at the service line and proceeded to drill it as hard as he could into one corner. He could have won the point with a shot half that speed, a quarter of that speed. Like every ball he encounters, he had to hit this one as hard as possible. It was interesting to see that Djokovic, at 19, was already playing a smarter game.
Channel 7 announcers: The Tennis Channel picked up the feed from Adelaide and brought us a surprisingly honest Aussie broadcaster in the process. You can generally tell when an announcer is reading facts about a player from the tour’s media guide (did you think Cliff Drysdale just happened to know that Carlos Moya’s favorite basketball player was Karl Malone?), but I'd never heard one come out and admit it until Saturday. That's when the color guy in Adelaide gave us this insight: “Djokovic’s mother and father have owned a pizza and pancake restaurant on a mountain in Serbia for the last 15 years. According to the ATP's media guide.”
Enjoy Sydney, those of you who can catch it. I’ll be back with more uncontroversial predictions for the Australian Open (yes, it is upon us) at the end of this week.
 Is it a slow day at the office? It is at TENNIS Magazine’s HQ in the glamorous lower Murray Hill section of Manhattan, where I can gaze out my eighth-floor window at the world-famous Dunkin’ Donuts/Taco Bell combination store on the corner below. Theoretically, this is a good time to get some work done, but I’ve spent the last five minutes on Netflix trying to decide whether to move Dodgeball or A History of Violence to the top of my queue (you can feel my pain, I’m sure).
Other than that, I’m left with only one thing to do this afternoon: See into the future! For some reason, this is now a major part of the job description of all sportswriters. Very, very few of our prognostications come true—upsets are upsets because no one, including the most tediously informed observer, sees them coming. But fans want predictions in part because they want you, the know-it-all wannabe athlete, to be wrong. I myself return to Pardon the Interruption every evening just to see how Kornheiser and Wilbon avoid eating crow.
That said, I will now answer the important questions for the 2007 season, which, because this is tennis, actually begins on the final day of 2006.
1. Can Roger Federer win the Grand Slam?
Federer now dominates the sport so thoroughly that a writer can’t pick anyone else to win a big tournament—with the exception of Rafael Nadal on clay—without provoking gales of laughter. Davydenko winning Key Biscayne? Impossible!
With that in mind, here are the upsides and downsides to Federer's Slam quest:
For Him: It’s three-out-of-five sets at the majors, which rules out a quick ambush by a hot opponent, and makes a fatal off day for Sire Jacket unlikely. Someone’s going to have to go out and get the best of Federer for two or more hours, which is almost unimaginable right now. As for his one weak point, the French Open, Federer has three things going for him: (1) He’ll be more motivated than ever to win it; (2) He’s already established himself as a serious contender, which will give him confidence; and (3) He’s known for eventually figuring out his nemeses (see Hewitt and Nalbandian), and two straight losses to Nadal in Paris must have taught him something.
Against Him: That list of positives about his chances at the French Open? It's pretty much what I wrote as Federer went to Paris last year. In the long run, winning the calendar-year Slam will mean that he’ll have won six consecutive majors (counting the 2006 Wimbledon and U.S. Open) and 42 straight matches at those events. That’s a lot to ask, particularly from a physical standpoint—how long can he stay injury free? Not to mention that the pressure would be unprecedented by the time he got to Flushing Meadows. No man has been in that position in 38 years. But I think Federer is well-equipped to handle that, and would even welcome it. He’s also made the Open his home for three straight years. The keys are the Australian and the French; if he wins those, he’s going all the way.
2. Will there be changes at the top among the women?
Justine Henin-Hardenne: Her win in Madrid felt like an important one. I can see her using it as a jumping off point for two majors in 2007 (plus, she’ll come into Melbourne looking to make everyone forget her foolish retirement in last year’s final). Henin-Hardenne is not just No. 1; she really is the best player in the world in the post-Williams era, more explosive than Mauresmo, more versatile than Sharapova, tougher than Clijsters. She just needs to find a way to shake off those debilitating Grand Slam nerves when she gets to the second week—they cost her three majors last year, and almost the fourth.
Maria Sharapova: There could be a surge here. She’ll be dangerous at each Slam other than the French, and she won’t be content to go back to her semifinal routine after winning the 2006 U.S. Open. The Russian will always be at a disadvantage athletically against Henin-Hardenne, Mauresmo, and Clijsters, but she has somehow improved her movement over the last two years, and you know she’ll be ready to play each day. The question is whether she can find the right level of controlled aggression at the right moments, the way she did at Flushing Meadows. In the big matches, it may be a question of getting a little less intense.
Amelie Mauresmo: She’ll turn 28 in July, and she certainly has another Slam in her. But she’ll be hard-pressed to match last year’s double. Henin-Hardenne turned the tables on her pretty convincingly at the year-end championships. Last season may have been Mauresmo’s peak.
Kim Clijsters: She’s the wild card. If this really is her last year, she’ll be more relaxed, which makes her much more dangerous—not relaxing has been her one problem over the years. Clijsters played some strong, hungry tennis in Madrid. If she matches it in Melbourne in January, she’s got a great shot at the year’s first major, where the Rebound Ace bounce puts the ball in her high strike zone.
Others: Svetlana Kuznetsova will remain the flaky, fun-to-watch, utterly unpredictable dark horse; it’s time for Nadia Petrova to make a serious Slam run, I’m thinking at Roland Garros; Martina Hingis, at No 7, will struggle to go any higher, but she has a chance in Melbourne at least.
3. How high can Andy Roddick and James Blake climb?
At 24 and 27, respectively, it’s fast becoming now or never time for the top Americans. I would guess that Andre Agassi’s retirement will help them—now, finally, they are the guys. Last season was encouraging for both of them as well. Blake got a taste of the big time by reaching the final in Shanghai. While his blowout loss to Federer must have left a bitter taste, he’ll be stronger and more confident for having finished the year at a career-high No. 4. He’s had the explosiveness; it was confidence he lacked. Now Blake has proven to himself that he can beat everyone except Federer. His high-risk game will always result in hiccups and head-scratching losses, but there’s no reason Blake shouldn’t seriously contend at each non-clay major and Masters event and earn a return trip to the Masters Cup.
As for Roddick, I would advise him to pretend every opponent is Roger Federer. Roddick used to come out and overhit against the world No. 1, but by barreling forward and pressing the action relentlessly this year, he stumbled on a style that troubles Federer. So far, though, Roddick hasn’t felt that same urgency to make the points short against the other guys, and Nalbandian and Berdych, among others, were able to expose his lack of variety and foot speed late last year. The way forward is there for Roddick, and it’s just that—the way forward. I think he’ll use it and have another successful season, return to the Top 5, reach a Slam final, and win one Masters event.
4. What’s in store for the Federer-Nadal rivalry?
Their last get-together, in Shanghai, was a blistering slugfest and may have been the year’s best match. It’s going to be a good 2007 if we can get them to face each other five or six times. The question is whether Nadal can live up to his side of the bargain, which he was unable to do for the second half of 2006. The problem is that nothing comes easily for him; baseline bruising is how he wins, and it took its toll late last year. I see Nadal starting strong Down Under and during the March hard-court swing, where the courts have been to his liking in the past. Even in his two losses to Lleyton Hewitt in Melbourne, Nadal looked comfortable (though the surface is apparently playing faster this time around). His serve improved last year; now it’s his backhand he’s got to shore up and make more consistent if he’s going to be a threat all year and on every surface.
From Federer’s standpoint, he has begun to turn the tables, but they’re not reversed just yet. In Shanghai he used his wide serve in the deuce court to tremendous effect, but once a rally began, Nadal was able, even on a quick court, to push Federer onto his back foot, something no one else in the world can do on a regular basis. In 2007, they’ll continue to have close, exciting, exhausting matches on clay and slow hard courts—everywhere except Wimbledon, where I don't see Nadal repeating his run to the final. This year I like Federer at the French, and Nadal at the Australian (cue the gales of laughter).
5. Which young gun will have a breakthrough season?
Richard Gasquet: This should be the year for Baby Federer (or is that Baby Leconte?) to shine. He’s got a Masters title in him, anyway, and a Slam semi.
Ana Ivanovic: Her weapons are in place, but needs another season on tour before she’s consistent enough with them to put together a big run.
Marcos Baghdatis: I wonder if a slump is in order? Mr. Loose is always a potential upset victim, but watch out if he wins three rounds at any major.
Novak Djokovic: More quiet improvement, a Top 15 ranking, a Slam quarter or two, more titles, more annoyed opponents, more losses to Federer, a win over Nadal.
Nicole Vaidisova: The power is there (if not the smoothness), and she’s further along than Ivanovic. There’s that pesky temper, though.
Andy Murray: The partnership with Brad Gilbert is an ideal one, as long as he can stand him—Murray’s talented, Gilbert’s motivated. The kid almost has too many ways to win right now; he’s got to choose the most efficient one. And then get stronger. And fitter. And less whiny. Still, those deficiencies won’t keep him from having some big wins by the end of 2007. (Side note to all Federer militants about the Murray-Federer match in Cincy last year: Tennis matches don’t have “asterisks” after them. They have periods. You play a match and you either win it or lose it, and Murray beat Federer. Period.)
6. Who will win the Grand Slams?
Australian Open: Nadal, Henin-Hardenne
French Open: Federer, Henin-Hardenne
Wimbledon: Federer, Sharapova
U.S. Open: Murray, Clijsters
Last year, I was 4 for 8 in Slam predictions; think I can beat that in ’07? I’m guessing you’ll be happier if I don’t!
On that note: Happy New Year, everyone. I’ll be back in a couple weeks to talk about the opening of the new season, including the Hopman Cup, a relaxed warm-up event that usually produces some good tennis.
 This week I'm discussing "The Agassi Story," the 2004 autobiography of Mike Agassi, Andre's father, with TENNIS.com editor Kamakshi Tandon.
Kamakshi,
College basketball breeds maniacal drill-sergeant coaches with bad haircuts. The NFL produces prickly, efficient, CEO types (that dope who coaches the New York Giants notwithstanding). Tennis? That’s the home of the stage father, of course. Usually he’s marching his little girl around the court—think Roland Jaeger, Stefano Capriati, Yuri Sharapova, Richard Williams, among others. While Mike Agassi is best known as the father of a successful male player, that’s how he got his start as well, by wrecking the early life of his daughter Rita. So how does Mike measure up against his competition? Would either of us have wanted him as a father?
On the whole, I have a slightly more positive view of Mike than the other loose-cannon tennis dads, though that may be because I’ve only read his side of the story. He does himself a huge favor by coming across as at least semi-honest about how he treated his kids, particularly Rita. But it’s also with her that he did real damage. Not only did she end up tanking tennis matches, she rebelled by rushing into a relationship with the decades-older Pancho Gonzalez. Mike learned his lesson and cooled it a bit with his other kids, though he had all of them out on court ASAP, hitting, as he claims, thousands of tennis balls every week. Neither Phil nor Tami, both of whom played college tennis, seem to have come away with serious scars. Still, Andre’s love-hate relationship with tennis must be a product of the way he was pushed into the game. He always seemed thrilled by winning matches, but burdened by having to live up to the outrageous expectations of his father. Mike Agassi, after all, visited Centre Court as a young, unmarried man and walked away thinking: “Someday someone from my family is going to win a championship here.” Who does that?
Maybe the best way to assess Mike is to go over his various pros and cons. This is guy with more than his fair share of both.
Pro: As Ernie commented on my last post, Mike was as an outsider to the country-club game, and that allowed him to be very clear-eyed about how the sport would evolve. Taking his cues from boxing, he saw the future importance of being able to hit on the rise and with power from all over the court. When Andre got to the pros at 16, he was already the hardest hitter there.
Con: Mike says in a number of places that in Iran, family is everything, which isn’t true in America. Yet he let his own family shatter. He said Rita was “dead to me” at one point, and it took a determined initiative by Steffi Graf—another “family is everything” type—to get Mike and Andre talking again after years of silence.
Con: He walked out of Andre’s wedding to Brooke Shields without explanation.
Pro: Andre eventually admitted Mike had been right about Brooke and that the relationship was a mistake (Mike never explains exactly why he thought this in the first place).
Pro: There was a debate going on over at Pete Bodo’s blog recently about how early is too early with a tennis prodigy. If you go by the Andre model, timing and technique, like language skills, are best formed as soon as possible. Mike fed Andre more balls than he did to his other kids, and he said one of the reasons that Andre didn’t bother to practice when he was a young pro was that his strokes had been completely grooved years before. This is the main reason that Andre could compete at the top of the sport even as his body gave out at 35 and 36—nobody has ever matched his timing.
At some level, U.S. fans want to have it two ways: We complain that our kids are too soft to compete with the best from around the world, but we’re repelled by the Mike Agassi-like methods that do produce champions. Mike’s best move with Andre may have been handing him over to Bollettieri, a savvier drill sergeant, before Andre lost it and quit the game for good.
Con: “Earlier the better” is not the model that produced the two best U.S. players of recent decades, Pete Sampras and John McEnroe. Each took longer to grow into their games. Andre’s conflicted attitude toward tennis, which can be traced back to Mike’s early onslaught, cost him many productive years in the middle of his career, years where Sampras remained at the top of the sport.
Pro: What was Mike’s motivation, a normal American parent might wonder? Yes, there was his immigrant status, which made him driven to succeed in his adopted country. But less than some other tennis parents, he didn’t seem to be after the money. And while he had to work his whole life, he wasn’t a grind or an overachiever. From what I can tell, his motivation came from his love of tennis, which was all-consuming. He was a talented enough boxer to make the Olympics, but he always loved tennis more than boxing—more than anything.
There are worse sins than that, right Kamakshi?
Steve
 This week I’ll be discussing "The Agassi Story," the 2004 autobiography of Mike Agassi, Andre’s father, with TENNIS.com editor Kamakshi Tandon.
Hi Kamakshi,
By the time I finished this book, I found myself thinking, “Wow, Mike Agassi really doesn’t know much about his youngest son, does he?” There’s very little in terms of personal detail about Andre after he left Las Vegas for Bollettieri’s at about age 13. I always knew father and son had a “strained relationship,” as the saying goes, but they barely seem to have been in the same room for much of Andre’s adult career. Mike seems to have gotten most of his information about what Andre was thinking from press conferences and magazine interviews.
In other words, if you want inside dope on Andre, Steffi, Brooke, Barbra, etc., this is not the place to go. Mike is not without his opinions, of course (he walked out of Andre’s wedding to Brooke, if that tells you anything about his opinion of her), and he does offer up a nugget or two. According to Mike, Andre lost to Sebastien Grosjean at the French a few years ago not because, as everyone thought, Bill Clinton was in the front row, but because he tanked so he could be with a dying friend back home. He also claims Andre and Barbra Streisand were just friends, and he never forgave Bollettieri for changing Andre from a serve-and-volleyer to a baseliner. I never knew Andre served and volleyed as a kid, but I tend to think Bollettieri made the right move—Andre doesn’t strike me as having the serve, the height, or the range to have been successful as a net-rusher. As a pro, he certainly didn't have the right instincts up there.
The best parts of the book are the earliest. Mike describes a youth of relative poverty in Tehran, two trips to the Olympics as a boxer for Iran, early immigrant experiences in the U.S., and finally admits to “ruining” the life of his first-born, Rita, by bullying her into tennis. It got to the point with her that the minute she saw him watching, she would start to tank by hitting balls over the fence. But if she didn’t know he was around, she was great. Mike maintains in the book that she “would have been better than Navratilova” if she hadn’t rebelled. What exactly he did to her, and to Andre, he never really says. But it’s clear he was beyond stubborn. For years he and Rita would see each other at tennis events and walk right by each other without talking. Reading that gave me a shiver.
At the same time, Mike is clean-living, a family man, and a little naïve in general—this is a guy who has lived in Vegas for decades and gambled one time. He begins the book with this line: “Believe me, I know what it’s like to be on the outside.” And he was, particularly in the rarefied world of tennis. My favorite early section is his description of his first encounter with tennis.
For me, it was love at first sight. Until then, my game had been soccer, which I played barefoot. And like most boys I knew, I’d engaged in my share of street fights. But something about tennis piqued my interest like nothing ever had, something I can’t quite define. I loved the thwack of the ball, the arc of a well-played stroke. I loved the sheen of the wooden racquet, the twang of the steel-wire strings. I loved the variability of the game, the way you rarely saw the exact same shot twice. I sifted through the game in my mind, analyzing why the ball behaved the way it did, dissecting the techniques players used to make it behave differently.
Mike Agassi wasn’t brought to the game by his parents; he came to it out of desire and an attraction to its basic elements. It reminded me of the story that Guillermo Vilas told once about his introduction to tennis as a kid. He was at a fancy club to see some of the Australian greats (I think) play, and he was just taken by everything about the sport. Vilas had never seen anything like it: the white clothes and ball, the strange scoring, the look of the racquets, the sound of the shots. These are all the old gentlemanly aspects of the game, which tennis has tried to leave behind at various points. It seems that tennis has a reputation as the ultimate insider’s sport, but that’s exactly what’s attracted so many outsiders. It has, or had, an archaic style all its own. And the modern game has been defined and mastered by outsiders: Ashe, King, Gonzalez, Connors, Navratilova, and most recently Andre Agassi.
Mike Agassi loved the sport as it was, but he also claims he could see its future—power, hitting on the rise, taking the ball early. And that’s what he taught his kids.
It makes for an interesting argument in favor of maintaining the classical elements of the sport. In some ways, those are the things that are most attractive to a certain type of outsider.
As a tennis purist, I’m guessing you’ll agree, Kamakshi.
Steve
 Hank,
As always, it’s been a long tennis season, so long it almost seems too late to go over it anymore. But it isn’t! This was a good year for the pro game, I thought, no matter what it may have lacked in scheduling logic, volleying skill, and unified marketing efforts. Looking back at the many great matches and strange occurrences of the last 12 months, these are the 10 moments I would say are deserving of that highly subjective term “most memorable.” Taken together, they reminded me again of why we love tennis: for the rawness and wildly swinging emotions on display. Who could possibly look at this list and say the game lacks personality?
10. Marcos Baghdatis Takes a Drink
Of rainwater, that is, in his semifinal at the Australian Open. Rather than curse an untimely rain delay at the end of his titanic five-set match with David Nalbandian, Baghdatis opened wide, stuck out his tongue, and enjoyed every moment of his debut in the spotlight. The game had a new star for the new year
9. Martina Hingis Makes It Look Easy
Like everything Hingis does on a court, she made her comeback after four years away appear effortless. She cruised to the quarterfinals of her first major, in Australia, as if she had never been away; won a prestigious title, the Italian Open, while beating one of the women who drove her from the tour, Venus Williams; and finished the year all the way up at No. 7 (I predicted No. 15). The power game had indeed passed her by—Kim Clijsters outslugged Hingis at both the Aussie and French Opens—but it was nice to see a top woman so content just to play tennis. In other words, to do what she does best.
8. The Bryans Brothers Finish the Job
You may not have even seen a highlight of this one, but Bob and Mike Bryan’s Wimbledon win was as historic as anything Roger Federer pulled off this year. The bros became only the third men’s team in the Open era to complete a career Grand Slam (after the Woodies and Haarhuis/Eltingh). OK, they’re still deeply uncool, but they’re no joke now (not to mention, they promote the sport as energetically as anyone). I liked Mike’s comment after their win: “It’s going to be sweet to say, ‘We’re Wimbledon champions.’” That’s a nice, Cali-style way of saying it was a long-time dream finally come true.
7. Andre Speaks
When Andre Agassi announced his retirement, we all knew the scene at Flushing Meadows would be a farewell of epic proportions. But what happened at Wimbledon was a testament to the American’s appeal beyond U.S. borders. After his loss to Rafael Nadal, the tournament broke custom and had Sue Barker interview a non-finalist on court for the first time. Quite an honor, when you think that this place has said its goodbyes to every great player in tennis history. I’ll always remember Barker’s last words: “Ladies and gentlemen, the great Andre Agassi.” Well said.
 6. Amelie Mauresmo Wins, Hangs with the Loser
One image that will stick with tennis fans for a long time: Mauresmo at the Australian Open, on the same side of the net as the woman who had just handed her her first major title, Justine Henin-Hardenne. The best part, though, was the sly smile that crept across Mauresmo's face once she had done her duty. It doesn’t matter how you win, it still feels really, really good.
5. Amelie Mauresmo Wins, Drops to Court
Well, the first one might have felt really good, but this one looked like it felt much, much better. In a tight, well-played Wimbledon final, Mauresmo “shut a lot of people up” by holding off the year-end No. 1, Henin-Hardenne, 6-4 in the third set for her second major. Joy and relief at its rawest.
4. Jose Acasuso Staggers and Gets Helped Up
When Acasuso netted the final ball of the Davis Cup to give Marat Safin and Russia the championship, the TV cameras stayed with the Argentine. It was appropriate, because he was utterly stunned by the moment, so much that he staggered a little as he walked to the net. Seeing that, his teammates—who had fought tooth and nail all weekend to get Acasuso into the decisive match—quickly circled the wagons around him, while the Argentines in the audience paid tribute to a brilliant, dramatic weekend of tennis. Davis Cup will never go out of style.
3. Rafael Nadal Kicks Up Some Italian Dirt
The summit of the season came in Rome, where the world Nos. 1 and 2, Federer and Nadal, played their best match, a see-saw, five-hour marathon that Nadal won in a fifth-set tiebreaker. After all the high-kicking forehands, diabolical drop shots, and total absence of double faults (they hit one between them in five hours!), the moment that sticks with me was the way Nadal came out at 1-4 in the fifth, with Federer on a serious roll and the match seemingly lost. Nadal won the first point and did a furious fist-pump and leg kick combo, as if to say, “I’m still here.”
2. Roger Federer Loses It in Shanghai
The other Federer-Nadal classic was just two sets and something less than five hours, but what it lacked in operatic drama it made up for in hard-nosed, prize-fight intensity (if Rome was the 14-round Thrilla in Manilla, Shanghai was the famous Hearns-Hagler three-round bloodfest). The two rifled each other around the court at top speed until Federer found one last gear at match point. He tracked down a Nadal drop shot, flicked an all-or-nothing winner past a racing Nadal into the corner, and fell to his knees in a wild, spontaneous burst of emotion. Uncharacteristic? Maybe. Fitting? Absolutely. Federer had ended the season by pushing himself to a new peak to vanquish his one remaining rival.
1. Andre Chokes Up
What did you expect the No. 1 moment to be, Tommy Robredo winning Hamburg? This one is even more special to me because I was in the audience in Ashe Stadium. There was an eerie quiet as Agassi lost the last few points to Benjamin Becker. I even began to wonder if people realized that this was it. But of course, we did, and a tearful Agassi was more affected by our standing ovation than anyone thought he would be. Credit him for being a pro even in good-bye—he dried his tears just long enough to dismiss Mary Joe Fernandez, take the mike out of her hands, and get through a well-memorized speech. That was all anyone could ask.
 One of the first words Andre got out was something about our “loyalty.” I cringed at first—“wrong word, too much”—but I came to think it was a good choice, and likely the honest one. He seemed to be speaking to me, because I can’t think of single time in Andre’s 21-year career when I rooted against him. The same must have been true of a lot of fans, because Andre obviously felt that loyalty from thousands of us. What inspired it? For me, it was the emotion and desire he always showed so transparently—it made you want him to succeed. He couldn’t hide a thing when he played, when he won, or when he lost. And he couldn’t hide a thing when he said goodbye.
Thanks, Hank, for taking time to do this. You had great insights about the sport, as usual.
Steve
PS to everyone else: The Andre-fest will continue tomorrow with the next episode in our book club: The Agassi Story, by Andre’s father, Mike.
This week I'm discussing the 2006 season, and looking forward to 2007, with ex-pro and expert analyst Hank Moravec (also known as Dunlop Maxply here and at Tennis World).
Steve,
I think it was actually very interesting to see the outpouring of respect the old WCT tour got this week.
However, interesting, but not that surprising. Although many a writer and poster has his or her own take on what would make the schedule better, almost every proposal agrees with a basic structure that spaces out the Masters Series events a bit more. There also appears to be a consensus that more combined mens/womens events would be good, and the tour is heading in that direction at least.
The WCT tour basically had all of this, but, of course with no women. I would love to hear about one potential criticism, though, perhaps from Chris Lewis if he has not already used up his allotment of posts this week. The main flaw in the WCT tour was that if you sign players up for a year, every player not signed has to find anothe job for that year. Because the current tour allows entries to vary week by week, the fairness for the guys at the margins is probably better.
But it also makes one wonder whether the ATP and WTA tour will ever evolve closer to the PGA tour system, where players qualify for "the tour" on a year-by-year basis. This is what WCT basically did. The advantage is that you can really promote the lower ranked playes in the draw. Of course, this development awaits a more unified tour, which could be a long wait.
But in the final analysis, who is to say that one of the keys to the tennis boom in the United States in the 1970's might not have been the fact that if you caught one WCT tournament on TV or live, it was much, much easier than it is now to know when the next WCT tournament would be held and how you could watch it.
There are probably some marketing people out there wondering how tennis administrators can all be so stupid, but I think we've taken the speculation train as far down the track as it will go, at least for this year.
Becuase it would not be much fun to simply agree, I must say the whole World Team Tennis concept never struck me as even remotely interesting. It was so very, very obviously made up out of whole cloth that when the "innovations" were added it ended up as almost a joke.
One of the benefits of having lived through the tennis boom years here is that I witnessed what "worked." In my opinion there has never, never been any benefit in terms of general interest to making tennis more of a "regular guy" sport. It is not a "regular guy" sport.
To really do the team tennis concept right, you need what the NCAA has, which is players committed to a team for a number of years, plus a built-in fan base which considers, say, UCLA vs. USC to be relevant from the start. The Houston Double Faults vs. the Nebraska Popcorns just doesn't have it.
Finally, thanks very much for the back and forth, your posts raised many more interesting points than I had a chance to address, so we'll circle back in 2007.
I look forward to your last post. Writing this much in one week is actually harder then my loose, unfocused, stream of conciousness prose would indicate. After a certain point, its best to leave things to the professionals.
Time to go back to being a random chap on the boards.
Hank
 This week I'm discussing the 2006 season, and looking forward to 2007, with ex-pro and expert analyst Hank Moravec (also known as Dunlop Maxply here and at Tennis World).
Hank,
Well, it seems that Lamar Hunt and the WCT had the answers to our problems two decades ago. Why didn’t anyone mention this secret before yesterday? It comes as a bit of a shock to me that the WCT is so mourned today. But that’s because I came to the tour late, in its fading, early-80s incarnation. My main memories of WCT events were the loud, dull thud the ball made on that rubberized court in cavernous, quiet arenas; Ivan Lendl cashing in on the then-lucrative $100,000 winners’ checks against largely second-tier competition (was that how he built such an amazing record in 1982?); and one funny incident between Bjorn Borg and Ilie Nastase (I think it was WCT, anyway, but it may have been an exhibition; funny nevertheless). Borg tuned up an aged and lumbering Nasty in the first set. In the second set, Nastase decided that every time he won a point he would stop and stare, mock-menacingly, at Borg’s coach, Lennart Bergelin, who was in the second row (and who, like Borg, was a famously poker-faced). The crowd loved it, and Borg himself cracked up, which was pretty much unprecedented. Nastase even got on a little roll doing it, until Borg got back to business.
Despite its eventual demise, the simple logic of WCT does seem inescapable: Give each tournament a stake in the other events’ success; select a limited number of recognizable, top-quality players; and get them out there for singles and dubs. Even the indoor courts made sense; sitting in sweltering conditions from Key Biscayne to Flushing Meadows to Cincinnati and beyond, I’ve often thought how much more spectator-friendly—despite the thudding echo of the ball—indoor tennis is. What’s depressing now is realizing that, as you said, each tournament has almost no stake in the success of any other. Looking at it that way, I’m amazed that tennis is as popular as it currently is.
Of course, even WCT itself was only halfway to the best answer for tennis: turning it into a team sport (while keeping the Slams, of course). Billie Jean King had the right concept in the 70s; it’s too bad she tried to change the sport so radically. World Team Tennis has never had the gravitas, the seriousness, the class that attracts tennis fans in the first place, and which make the Slams such grand events. But there’s no doubt that team tennis in some form would take a lot of pressure off the sport. We would never have to worry about whether a match was well-played, whether the game was “in decline,” or whether baseline tennis is more entertaining than serve-and-volley. We could just root for our team, like normal sports fans.
Speaking of baseline versus net play, I think we’re in agreement that more volleying and touch would be welcome to in today’s game, and that one way to do it would be to force everyone to play doubles. As I mentioned before, a senior player I met in New Orleans recommended making doubles points count toward singles rankings. My first thought was, “Man, what century is this guy living in?” (The 20th, I guess). But now I’ve come around to the idea, at least as a theory. I guess that’s because no matter how much TV coverage of doubles there is, I don't think I would get engaged unless the game’s great players and personalities were out there taking it seriously. I want Roger Federer, not Nenad Zimonjic (apologies in advance to the Zimonjic fan club). The Bryan brothers strike me as an anomaly among today's teams. I don’t love their games, but as twins they have the benefit of seeming like an act as much as a team, which get fans involved and makes them easier to market than say, that dynamic Canadian/Bahamian duo, Knowles and Nestor. (Now that I mention those two guys (as well as Zimonjic), what’s up with doubles specialists having such hot wives? We shouldn’t feel too bad for them, really.)
One racquet-tech story I have to mention: A few years ago a guy at my club pulled out an old wood frame (Davis, I think; the thing’s like a work of art it feels so solid). He tried it for a few weeks and realized he had to change his game. He was getting less topspin but he hit a heavier ball, so he started hitting flatter, using less backswing, and coming in more. His serve was also heavier, but he couldn’t kick it easily. By the end of a month or so he said he was having the same results against his opponents that he had always had, he just played a different style against them. I think he may have even won the club championship with it (I wonder what the reaction was from his opponents!). He’s gone back to a modern racquet but still gets out the wood now and then.
Not that that proves anything at all. It’s just interesting to me that he was no worse with a wood racquet.
Back to the pros. I don’t want to sound dire about today’s game. This season may end up being part of another evolution in the sport, from baseline play toward all-court skill. Think back just a few years, to when the game was dominated by Lindsay Davenport, the Williams sisters, and Lleyton Hewitt—you might say that was a pretty dire time, from a style standpoint. But as you said earlier, Hank, we’ve now got all-courters Henin-Hardenne, Mauresmo, and Federer, as well as guys like Nadal and Davydenko who do about as much with the baseline game as a fan could ask. And the new generation I mentioned earlier, which includes Gasquet, Baghdatis, Djokovic, Monfils, and Murray, is hardly a group of cookie-cutter grinders.
Two end-of-season semifinal matches stick out for me. They were displays of what the sport could offer on the right night in 2006. Clijsters vs. Mauresmo in Madrid was a wild mash-up of high-flying movement, all-out baseline power, and acrobatic net forays. Federer vs. Nadal in Shanghai was simply baseline shot-making at its most intense, and as dramatic as anything Borg and McEnroe put together in the glory days. Both of these matches came at WCT-style, big-money, big-name, indoor round-robin events. Lamar Hunt should have been proud.
Any last thoughts, Hank? I’ll be back with a 10 most memorable moments of '06 list to finish.
Steve
This week I'm discussing the 2006 season, and looking forward to 2007, with ex-pro and expert analyst Hank Moravec (also known as Dunlop Maxply here and at Tennis World).
Steve,
I'm going to try to tie a few of the threads together from the last couple of posts, because I think much of this stuff is interconnected, and I'd love to hear what you think and what the other commentators think.
As for those commentators, I'm assuming Juan José is so happy that Manchester United is 5 points clear of Chelsea that he's basically unable to post due to pure ecstasy, but perhaps he'll weigh in soon.
The "rising stars," the "arrivals,' scheduling, ATP, WTA, TTC: I'm fully with you on the fact that the Masters Series events, with their mandatory entry system, is a great development. What is lacking at the moment is comprehensive TV coverage of all of those tournaments. By "comprehensive," I mean not only that you could, in theory, watch each of them, but that, ideally, one network would cover all of them so you could have some cross-promotion.
The lack of this coverage and cross-promotion, in my mind, next affects the entire way tennis is covered, at least the way it is covered in the United States. Its hardly surprising that you and other professional sportswriters are to a certain extent burdened with having to not only report on the players, but also to drum up interest in any player who is not at the very top of the game. It is somewhat of a travesty that players like Ljubicic and Davydenko may get a couple of minutes of television coverage out of the U.S. networks at the Grand Slams. Not that the younger guys are not interesting; I mean, as an Australian Open finalist Baghdatis wrote his own story, but the reality is that a sport where four of the top eight players in a given week lose before the weekend had better figure out a way to get press coverage of those matches, or suffer the consequences.
For those who follow the game closely, this is hardly news, but, looking ahead to 2007, I think the relatively new development of streaming video on demand on the internet may be the thing to watch. Coverage of earlier round matches in Master's Series and Tier 1 events would, I think, have a real cascade effect on the sport.
Its sad, and ironic, that Lamar Hunt passed away this week. For those to young to remember, the original WCT tour signed a group of 32 players to play the entire year. I believe there was a co-ordinated TV contract, and there certainly was plenty of cross-promotion. Ironically, the WCT tour was seen at the time as a half-step between the old Jack Kramer tour, in which it was almost a barnstorming exhibition of four to eight guys, and the "modern" era of separate, independent tournaments with separate entries was seen as a huge step forward, which, obviously it was in certain ways.
But one of the intersting things is that guys who were not particularly famous on the WCT tour of 1972, such as, say, Marty Riessen, recieved much more promotion than Davydenko does in 2006.
I'm willing to hear an opposing view, but I don't think there is much argument that the WTA is a bit behind the ATP on thier player commitment requirements.
Doubles and Playing Style: I think the lack of top class net play is certainly fueled by the fact that doubles is so out of favor these days. You should be aware that its affected the junior tournaments as well; the dubs draws don't seem to be one-half of the singles draw, that's for certain. Plus, in the U.S. college tennis de-valued doubles a number of years ago.
A couple of things need to happen before it comes back. First, see my thoughts above. Without TV coverage of doubles players and doubles matches, I frankly don't see how any support for the doubles side of the tour. People already overwhelmingly play doubles at the club level, but rationally they know that who is the "best" is determined by singles play.
In 1972 on the WCT tour all players played both, and although I am not sure its possible they were required to do so. If Bob Hewitt and Frew MacMillan did not occasionally beat Laver and Rosewall and Smith and Lutz, there's no way they could become famous.
But, we already know that in 2007 there are bascially going to be no rule changes vis a vis doubles, so its seems that there is not much to be on the edge of our seats about. Other than eliminating it on the tour completely, I am not sure how much lower it can go.
Really, if Roddick wants to continue to develop his net game, he ought to play doubles every week. At his age it can't possibly be physically draining. Will Connors notice or recommned this? Connors had a great volley compared to Roddick and many of the modern guys, so perhaps Jimbo will suggest it. If Roddick started playing doubles every week, and then beat Federer a few times in big matches with his newfound skill, that might—repeat, might—change things in a hurry.
All that said, I don't think you can underestimate how the change in grips affects the comfort of the players at net. With a Western grip no one is going to hit a flat/slice approach, even if the court allows it. If you're coming in on a topspin groundstroke, you pretty much have to wait until you have the other player on the run. That's only going to happen one out of every four points at the most.
And, of course, the reverse is true: If you're not comfortable at net, doubles is simply not that much fun.
Connections, connections. Anybody else see others?
Hank
|
