Scud Locking On

Don't look now, but Mark Philippousis is looking like yet another comeback is bringing him back.

After dispatching the crafty Sebastien Grosjean (one of the more underrated players of the last decade) in three sets, the Scud has a date Thursday with Fernando Gonzalez. That's a perfect matchup for Mark, as Fernando is a guy who has none of the skills necessary to win on grass, nor the restraint to do anything but hit the ball as hard as he possibly can or keep his temper under control. Heck, he barely squeaked by Antony Dupuis in two breakers. After that, though, it gets a bit tenuous. Roddick most likely awaits in the quarterfinals unless Srichaphan can summon some of that 2002 magic again.

Don't forget about the other Aussie, Lleyton Hewitt, either. He's always played well at Queen's Club (three titles), and he's looks to be in fine form and healthy now. If he can get by the Beast, which is no small task, he'll have himself setup for a quarterfinal date with Nadal.

Speaking of Nadal, he was able to prove me wrong and beat Mardy Fish in straight sets today. I don't know if that means Rafa is finding his grass feet or if Mardy's still not at the level he can be, but it has to be an encouraging win for the Spaniard. He did lose with Feliciano Lopez to the dynamic duo of James Auckland and Jamie Delgado in doubles, but he's in this for the experience, not the dubs title. It's a disappointing result for Fish. I want him to succeed because of his committment to serve-and-volley and the fact he's coached by Todd Martin, but the man has some game to justify it. I refuse to believe he peaked in 2003. He won this year in Houston, and if he can produce some encouraging results in the hardcourt season (he's always played well in Cincinnati), he might have a breakthrough at the US Open.

The draw at the Stella Artois (say that five times fast) is holding up very nicely. We could have a quarterfinal of Nadal-Hewitt, Tursunov-Henman, Philippoussis-Roddick, and Blake-Ljubicic. If you're in the London area, I'd be getting tickets if I were you. It's going to be a good weekend.

Federer, meanwhile, continues his stampede to the consecutive grass court record and a fourth title at the Gerry Weber with a win over Rohan Bopanna. Not much to say here. Meanwhile, Kiefer withdrew with a wrist injury (presumably the same one that caused his retirement in France), allowing hanger-on Arnaud Clement to advance into the second round. Safin seems to be playing well; we'll see how his doubles adventure goes.

Meanwhile, Maria Sharapova is looking very much like the favorite for the ladies' title at Wimbledon. Her breezy win over Ahsha (gezundheit) Rolle gives her 11 straight victories in Nottingham. Most importantly, she's healthy right now, which is something most of the contenders can't claim.

Halle-ujah

With a snap of fingers, it's grass court season.

Argentines won't be seen for a month, half the Spanish Armada are on vacation, and otherwise obscure Croatians are suddenly major threats. It's a magical time of the year, when the tennis world gets turned on its ear. In grass world, those old-fashioned net rushers (when they remove the antique dust) will beat the baseline bashers. Breaks of serve usually mean the end of a set. Diving is safe and encouraged. Andy Roddick has reason to live.

And, of course, the Roger Federer mystique grows and begins anew. Apparently nobody wants any part of this guy on sod, judging from the disparity in quality between the Gerry Weber and Queen's Club. The Stella Artois Championships is a veritable murderer's row of big names: Nadal, Ljubicic, Roddick, Blake, Ancic, Hewitt, Agassi, Grosjean... the list goes on. This is a Masters Series-quality draw. The Halle entry list, on the other hand, is a bit more lacking. There's Federer, Nalbandian, Kiefer, Baghdatis, Haas, Safin... that's about it. We don't know if Baghdatis is a factor on grass, and Haas and Safin probably aren't going to get especially far (but they could). Aside from a possible finals matchup against the crafty Keifer, Roger should steamroll this field (though a Santoro-Federer matchup on grass would be a lot of fun to see). People are simply afraid of Roger on grass and they'll do anything they can to play him. That or the fact Queen's Club is a stone's throw away from All-England... but that reason isn't as fun.

Agassi made his return to the ATP after skipping the clay court season (a wise decision, seeing as he can't play on clay without hurting himself these days) in a 6-4, 6-4 loss to Tim Henman. First, it's great to see Henman playing well and winning; I'd love to see him make a deep run. Andre- as usual- was disappointed in the loss, saying he hoped to play better. I'm not sure what planet AA has been living on, but when you play three tournaments since the US Open and you're against one of the most celebrated grass court players of the last decade, 4 and 4 is pretty good. You got a pretty crappy draw, sure, but you're simply too rusty. Send some flowers to the draw committee over at Wimbledon so you can get a couple matched under your belt before playing anyone threatening. Sorry, but you just can't take a virutal nine-month layoff and expect to jump back into it, especially when that's your first match on grass since 2004 (a loss to Igor Andreev), even if you did practice with Andy Murray. I don't know how he'll fare at Wimbledon. It really depends on the draw.

Nadal is entered into the singles and doubles for Queen's Club, a move I really like. That's going to force him to work on the volleying and get him more match play. All players under 21 should be playing as much dubs as they can, it's a great way to get better quickly. That said, I like Mardy Fish's chances against him Wednesday.

There are a lot of interesting doubles pairings in this tournament as well: Blake/Fish, Grosjean/Murray (does the French Federation know he's working with a Scot? Is this allowed?), Mathieu/Monfils, along with many of the usual suspects. That's one of the benefits of the truncated grass season; you see more players playing doubles. Maybe Johnny Mac can be convinced to play in Nottingham next week; I bet he'd show some players how to do it on grass.

Wayne Arthurs lost in the first round of qualifying Saturday. I remember when he was a guy people didn't want to see because of his height and his serve... now he can't qualify for Queen's Club. It's amazing how quickly some people fade (I'm talking to you, Rainer Schuettler).

Messin' With the Kid

How could such an up-and-down match have been so boring, so vanilla?

On the face of it, it could've been thrilling: the world's #1 charging out to a set lead against his nemesis, primed to vanquish him at least and ascend to the pantheon of tennis immortality. But the young gun, too young to know when he's beat, turns the tables with the panache of a kid gunslinger at high noon. Flustered, the veteran doesn't find an answer until he's two points away from losing the title, when he plays one of the most brilliant points anyone has ever seen. Energized, he forces a tiebreak and, it seems, a fifth set. A tense breaker ensues, with the defending champion fending off the champion of everything else and claiming the Musketeers Cup once more.

If I were in the business of writing political speeches, that's how I would have described Sunday's tilt in Paris. But anyone who saw it knows they witness a display of nerves, weakness, and errors. In other words, it was about as disappointing as can be. Most of us were expecting some titanic clash, clay's version of Borg-McEnroe. This expectation was not without cause; anyone who saw the terrific final in Rome when it semed Federer had the title all but in his hands and lost it. We reasoned that because it was a bigger stage, that more was on the line, that history was on the line, that it would be even better. Maybe 30-28 in the fifth set in the seventh hour of the match.

Instead, we saw a match that was as uncomfortable as a Venus-Serena final. It's almost as if the two guys didn't really want to play each other after all, that they had too much respect for each other and didn't want to be the reason the other guy won. Or maybe the weight of the occasion was pressly down too firmly on their shoulders. Nadal was looking at a 60th straight win on clay, running his record in Roland Garros to 14-0, and scoring the most significant victory in the Federer-Nadal saga so far. Roger was attempting to complete a contiguous (if not calendar) Grand Slam and join Budge, Laver, Emmo, and Agassi. He was also trying to gain a foothold in the burgeoning rivalry between the Swiss and Spaniard, prove to the world (and himself) Rafa didn't have his number.

For a set, I was convinced he would. Granted, Rafael clearly took Chatrier with some butterflies in his stomach, but they had to have grown in size after a dizzying display of tennis from Roger in that first set. Fed was working Nadal's backhand, keeping his opponent's motor from getting too revved up, stealing into the net and finishing off points. He was playing smart, aggressively yet contained. He had a plan and he was sticking to it. It was as if he was saying, I've figured you out, Rafael. Every match we've played, I've been studying, storing away information. You're mine now.

But at the start of that second set, Rafa got up off the mat, dusted himself off, and stared right back at the man across the net. And here is where Roger gets into unfamiliar territory. Sort of like Mike Tyson, once he throws his knockout punch, people go down, lose their morale, and he gains the upperhand if he doesn't knock the opponent out clean. If you look at his major victories, Roger throws that haymaker and connects. And everyone, Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt, loses their heart, rolls over. You can see it happen. But not with Rafa. He took the prize fighter's best shot and stood back up. He wasn't going to quit.

In a sport where he's used to being unchallenged, Federer blinked first. He changed his entire game after that first set. Maybe he thought he could win the match from the baseline (which reminded me of McEnroe-Sampras in 1990 at Flushing Meadows), because he didn't come into the net like he had. Or maybe he realized he was going to have to play at a level equal to the first set for the whole match, and he wasn't up to it. He sleepwalked through the second set, and looked lost in the third.

It seemed like he figured things out after breaking Rafa in the tenth game of the fourth. He held easily in the next game, and seemed recharged. But he went right back into tentative mode after getting a quick mini-break and relinquished the lead at 3-2. But 4-2 is a point I think he'll regret for a long time. He was in clear control of the point, delivering punishing forehands deep. Nadal was scrambling back and forth, only able to push the ball back, and he returns were landing short. Roger eventually smacked one long, giving Rafael a 5-2 lead. Why he didn't go into the net was beyond me. This was a classic point he would've won at the net, and the way the point was going, that's exactly where he needed to be, but he hung back for reasons only he knows, keeping Rafa in the point and eventually comitting an unforced error. And it looks like he knew he made a tactical mistake, because he promptly approached the net in the next two points and won them both. But had he done that at 4-2, he would've put all the pressure back on Nadal, who would've been serving down 4-5.

It's clear Rafael has gotten into his head. There's a stigma attached for the Majorcan he's not able to shake at the moment. He should have beaten him in Rome, and he should have won in Paris. Instead, he lost them both. It's becoming clear Roger's mental toughness isn't as strong as we thought it was. He's becoming passive when he should be aggressive, staying at the baseline when he should be closing in and finishing points. Getting to net was a wise strategy; he won 73% of his net approaches Sunday. On clay!

Nadal, to his credit, has the heart of a lion. The man refuses to give up and fights through everything. It's amazing. He won that title through sheer strength of will rather than any inspired play (his -3 differential was his worst since his opening match). There's no way I'm going to criticize a man that's 14-0 at Roland Garros. What he is doing is obviously working.

Federer, though, has some questions to answer. His backhand was simply awful (reminescent of his pre-major champion days). It's fairly obvious he has trouble handling high shots to his backhand side. That's a classic problem of the one-handed backhand. But running around it is not the answer; he needs to take that ball earlier, spend more time on the practice court, or even slice a few of those back. That ineffective backhand led to him going for more than he should've on his forehand side, which led to more errors (his differential was -16!) He also needs to stick to strategy that works. Looping, spin-heavy shots to Nadal's backhand, keeping the pace of the point contained, keeping Rafael in the middle of the court, and finishing points at the net when able. Rafa wants to get into a wild slugfest. Most importantly, he is he going to respond to losing in a Grand Slam final for the first time?

Prelude to History?

I suppose I should feel good about this. The anticipation of a Federer/Nadal matchup in the French Open final is so hyped, so anticipated, they mentioned it on Pardon the Interruption. Michael Wilbon said he was excited for the potential matchup, adding "Roger has no chance against Nadal." Brad Gilbert has gone so far as to suggest the only reason the tournament is worth watching is the promise of a Federer-Nadal final.

So be it. But does Rogi really stand no chance against Rafa? Is the gap between these two on clay that wide? Perhaps it is to the untrained eye, but anyone that has been following these two knows Nadal has been the only thing between Roger and the Roland Garros title. Unless, of course, you think Mariano Puerta would have beaten him in last year's final.

Nadal's 5-1 record against Federer is well-documented. People have been saying Roger has been getting closer every time, but I'm not so sure. The only straight set win between the two was in their first match against each other, a 6-3, 6-3 Nadal triumph in Key Biscayne. Since then, there was the 2005 Ky Biscayne final that Roger won in five (but Rafa with two points from winning), last year's right French semifinal, and this year's finals in Dubai, Rome, and Monte Carlo. They have all been close.

The only thing this suggests is that we're in for a tight match. I don't think it will be a five-hour affair; someone is going to emerge from this. But who? Both men come into this with so much riding on it, it's incredible. Federer is 7-0 in major finals and has that little 27-match winning streak in the Grand Slams going. Nadal hasn't lost in Paris, and he hasn't lost to Roger this year. He has a little streak of his own going as well. So something has to give here.

For Nadal, the early concern was that he was spending too much time on court after lengthy battles against Mathieu and Hewitt. Shorter affairs with Djokovic and Ljubicic have removed that concern, though Rafael might be able to run the Ironman Triathlon and pick up his Babolat afterwards.

Federer has to be a bit more troubled with the way Nalbandian made him look ordinary early on Friday. In fact, he got spanked. The Argentine came out and took the world #1 by storm, breezing through the first set with a double break. Federer regrouped in time for Nalbandian to quit, but he did not look good in his abbreviated match. Nadal, on the other hand, was sharp in dismissing Ljubicic in straights.

There's enough to suggest either guy will win. Federer has been untouchable in the finals of majors; nobody has taken more than a set from him in one. Nadal's run in Paris is extraordinary; at no point has he looked like he was going to lose a match. So where do we find the telling factors? The weather looks like it'll be in the high-80s, which would help Federer. On the other hand, the weight of the pressure of history is firmly on his shoulders. If he beats Nadal, he likely has the calendar Grand Slam in hand. That's a huge mental burden to overcome. Rafa just wants to go out there and battle. He's the defending champion, and he goes out there with the mindset that you have to beat him and he'll go down fighting to his last breath.

Roger always has risen to the occasion. Nadal always has outclassed his opponents. However, Rafael has the Lleyton Hewitt factor on his side. Therefore, he will win in four sets.

What is This, Anyway?

Tennis sometimes seems like a cult to me. Their fans are hidden and tucked away in little places you don't know about... unless you already know about it. The sport appears on TV for the majors and the occasional tournament on a Sunday, usually unadvertised. But if you want a steady source of tennis, you have to read Jon Wertheim, Greg Garber's occasional pieces, or pony up the money for the Tennis Channel.
I don't travel with the players, talking to them daily. I'm just like you, I get what I can, when I can. I check the ATP's website for updated score from Europe and confer with my friends, wondering when Mauresmo is going to lose in Paris.
The thing is, I have a lot of opinions about this sport. It's my favorite, the only one I played with any consistency in leagues and in high school. It's the sport I understand best. Why? Part of the appeal is its niche status in America; the people who follow it really follow it. Fans know what they're talking about. I love the fact that to succeed as a pro, you have to do everything. Barry Bonds can't run or field, but he can hit homeruns so that makes him valuable. That doesn't fly in tennis; you can't have weaknesses in your game or you'll be exposed. James Blake couldn't crack the Top 10 until he improved his backhand; Andy Roddick can't beat anyone in the Top 10 because he hasn't. It forces you to be a complete players, to strive be optimal.
The cerebral nature of the game is unequaled. You don't get a coach, you don't get to call timeout (unless you "cramp"). You have to figure it out yourself, make the adjustments yourself. And you have to stay strong on your own, nobody is right off to the side to the court encouraging you. People say that sport doesn't build character, but I think tennis does.
I love the way you can watch the pros can hit the court and emulate what they do. You can employ their strategies. If you see Rafa hit a serve wide to the ad court and set himself up for a cross-court winner, you can do that. Most people aren't watching baseball and thinking, "you know, I should open up my stance and turn my hips quicker on the inside fastball and spray it to the opposite field." We can't play at their level, but we can pretend.
I love the fact you can win in so many different ways. Mardy Fish plays differently from Fernando Gonzalez, who plays different from Marat Safin (though I can argue Marat plays differently from set to set). There's no one magic way to win. The only way you win in basketball is by putting it in the basket more times than the other guy.
You have to beat your opponent, you can't simply stop him from winning. Either you are winning the point, or the person across the net is. A football team can go a half without scoring and still win. Tennis is as active as you're going to get. You have to win. At the same time, you're never out until it's over. There's no clock, you can always come back.
I love the different surfaces, how they present different challenges and how it defines history. It goes back into being a complete player. If you can win on any surface, you're a true great.

Mostly, I just want a place to talk to whoever will listen. I want to break down the matches I see, analyze the nitty-gritty. I want to talk about tournaments, the game in general, the people, whatever. I want to see if I'm better than Garber like I think I am.

I want to see if I'm not the only one out here who cares.

I'm writing this for tennis fans out there, not the people who watch it once or twice a year. I'm assuming you know what an inside-out forehand is, how many majors Ivan Lendl won, the difference between the eastern and semi-western forehand grips. I'm writing this for us, the tennis fans.