Topspin and Backhand Slice

How I Learned to Stop Hating and Love the Federer

2007-07-07T15:03:00.000-05:00

One of these days, I'm sure, we're going to learn. We keep lining them up, and they keep getting knocked down. Maybe we're trying to manufacture drama, or maybe we're just hoping for it. But we keep saying that someone is going to challenge Federer, that someone is going to touch him, and all Roger does is go out and destroy his opposition.

It's incredible, really. Gasquet performed at an incredibly high level yesterday. And you'd think that would be cause for concern. Nope, not for the Swiss master. Once again, he comes out of the gate cocked and locked, blowing his opponent away. I thought yesterday that Gasquet stood a fighting chance... well, that was just like my idea that Safin could give him a run.

Tomorrow is Federer-Nadal in the finals of a Grand Slam tournament for the fourth time in two years. And this time, I've learned my lesson. I won't think that Nadal can challenge Federer. Not now, not on this court. It could be a very short affair for Breakfast at Wimbledon tomorrow.

But Rafa deserves all the credit in the world for getting this far, beating quality competition in the process. He may have lucked out a bit, though, as Djokovic clearly had nothing left in the tank after some marathon matches this fortnight. The Serb has had a breakthrough year, but he's had to retire a handful of times the last two years. His conditioning needs to get better if he wants to be reach Nadal and Federer's level. I have no doubts he can do it, though, considering the improvement he's shown in his game and his fitness in the last year alone.

Blowing a Gasquet

2007-07-06T18:19:00.000-05:00

I said before the tournament that this was the time for Richard Gasquet to step up and make a statement at a major. At 21, he needed to make his move now. A couple days ago, I said a quarterfinal contest with Andy Roddick was the perfect opportunity. I had no idea he would seize the moment, and I could not have imagined that he would do so in such a spectacular manner.

And boy did he ever. After losing the first two sets, he broke Roddick's tiebreak streak and charged to a win in the fifth set, a remarkable and amazing turnaround. It looked for all the world that Andy was headed for another straight set victory, but Gasquet found a level he never has before at a Grand Slam event and felt him behind. The third set was almost like the butterfly emerging from the cocoon, as the Frenchman started ripping backhands, gliding around the court with ease and finding an answer for every move Roddick had. It was a display I will not soon forget.

To his credit, Roddick did not go away or allow his frustration get the better of him. He clearly was frustrated, but unlike a certain Davis Cup teammate, he channeled his frustration and joined Gasquet in battle. By all accounts, he played winning tennis: 22 aces, 60 winners, won 59% of his points at net, only 29 unforced errors (a differential of +31, hardly a small number). Gasquet, quite simply, beat him: 23 aces, 90 winners with 29 unforced errors (a staggering +61 differential), and won a tidy 70% of his net approaches.

It was surprising how quickly Roddick got worried. Typically, someone who is up two sets to one wouldn't be so upset. But when Gasquet ran through that tiebreak in the third set, Andy had the "uh oh" look on his face. And rightfully so, because everyone could see that he was in for a battle.

Once again, Roddick's lack of versatility was thrust into the spotlight. As the commentators noted, there simply isn't a plan "B" for him. He's like the Mike Tyson of tennis: If his haymaker doesn't knock you out, he doesn't know what to do. He lacks the nuance and the moxie to scrap out victories. He's going to simply keep doing what he's doing and hope it works. This is why he kept going to the Gasquet backhand, even as those backhands were screaming past him, out of reach. For most people, it's inexplicable that a guy wouldn't figure out how to adjust like that. For Roddick, though, it's par for the course. It's surprising that with a coach like Jimmy Conners, he can't figure out how to be headier on the court.

And so Gasquet moves onto the semis and faces Federer. If he plays like he did today, he can absolutely beat him. Playing at such a level for two straight days, though, might still be too much to ask. And Roddick has deal with a stinging defeat. With Djokovic winning today, he'll also lose his #3 ranking. This could be danger time for him; if he wants to be a factor in major tournaments going forward, something clearly has to change. He's still a world-class player, but more people are starting to pass him. Federer is past him, Nadal is past him, Djokovic is past him, and now, it seems that Gasquet is past him.

The Fantastic Four

2007-07-06T18:17:00.000-05:00

Perhaps we can fit this tournament in on time after all. The London clouds have decided they've screwed with us enough, and the men were able to complete the quarterfinals today. And, oddly enough, the person who had the easiest time of it today was Rafael Nadal.

Yeah, Nadal, the same guy who needed five sets in each of his last two matches, had a surprisingly routine straight sets win over Berdych. Many thought the Czech had a great shot at knocking Rafa. Berdych, after all, was the greatest beneficiary of the sort-of subjective seeding. Nadal had racked up considerable court time his last two times out, and there was still doubt as to his prowess on grass, and... well, so much for that. Nadal breezed past Berdych in progressively easier sets.

What wasn't easy was his semifinal opponent, Novak Djokovic's, victory. In what was probably the match of the tournament, he emerged from a titanic, five set, five-hour slugfest with Marcos Baghdatis. Indeed, the audience of Court 1 had a great day of tennis play out in front of them with this match and Gasquet's ascention (which will be addressed in a separate post). But this had it all (except serve-and-volleying): Competitive sets, grinding, battling points, comebacks, momentum swings, explosions of emotion, two men that both wanted it badly... what else could you want? The first three sets going to tiebreaks, Baghdatis coming back from down two sets to level the match, Djokovic finally trimphing at the end. 413 total points played, and Djokovic only won seven more than Baghdatis. That's a pretty competitive contest, don't you think? Ultimately, Novak's superior serving- he served at 70% to Marcos' 50%- carried the day.

And hey, waddaya know... it turns out not playing for a week can leave you rusty. Federer dropped a set to Ferrero, but rebounded to win the next two without much trouble. He'll now face Gasquet, a prospect much less appealing than getting to whip Roddick around again.

Nadal Must Hate the Locker Room

2007-07-05T16:03:00.000-05:00

Apparently Rafa missed the memo that you're allowed to win a match in less than five sets. In an apparent effort to make up for his lost time on court the last week, he's labored for the maximum sets in his last two encounters. This time, he looked to be on the ropes against Mikhail Youhzny, then sorta just ran him over after Youhzny's back stiffened up. The first two sets took 81 minutes; the final three 104. Maybe the Spaniard forgot to warm up and used the first two sets to take care of that for him.

Nadal now faces a tough challenge from Tomas Berdych, who had only a little trouble in ending Bjorkman's tournament. The highlight of that match? Bjorkman giving the chair umpire the business in Swedish. Bjorn Borg would be ashamed.

Novak Djokovic, a potential semifinal opponent, gave only slightly less effort in defeating Lleyton Hewitt in four tight sets, including three tiebreaks. He'll take on Marco Baghdatis, another fantastic match that won't be shown in the US because nobody at the TV networks has any idea what fans want to see. The Cypriot took out Davydenko, who played surprisingly well at SW 19 after only winning one match in his career there before this year.

Also, I couldn't help but notice that in the men's invitational doubles, Ilie Nastase and Stan Smith were paired together. Can you imagine a more disparate team? That's the oddest pairing since Dennis Rodman and Jean Claude Van Dam.

Finally, it's about time Roger Federer caught a bad break from the weather. The dude doesn't need any more help in winning this thing. He now needs to win three matches in three days, just like everyone else.

It's Almost Like a Tournament!

2007-07-04T17:03:00.000-05:00

Wow, we actually got through a day! Who woulda thought? Nice to see a full day's worth of matches. It's still a little unclear what to expect going forward, though. Heck, Federer hasn't even been seen on court for a few days now. You have to think he'll be a little rusty tomorrow. It must be noted that Rafa finally got through to the fourth round, ridding himself of Soderling 7-5 in the fifth set.

Roddick scored another quick win, disposing of Paul-Henri Mathieu in straight sets. He's looking like he's in top form as he stares another crack at Federer in the face. He only needs to get past Richard Gasquet- who ended the run of countryman and qualifier Jo-Wilfried Tsonga- in the quarterfinals. I wrote previously that now is the time for Gasquet to make the step up to the next level, and he has a perfect opportunity against Andy to prove himself on the big stage.

Novak Djokovic is continuing his great year, advancing past Keifer in four sets. He now takes on Hewitt. History demonstrates that the person who eliminates the Aussie tends to win in major tournaments. Could this be a portent of Sunday? Probably not, but it's fun to think about.

Sadly, it's also worth noting that the top-seeded pair of Mike Bryan and Lisa Raymond were dumped from the mixed doubles on Centre Court by the British pair of Alex Bogdanovic and Melanie South. Doubles doesn't make it onto Centre Court often. It would've been nice for a Bryan to show off his skill better.
On a similar note, the Williams sisters withdrew from the doubles today. After Serena's calf adventures, this seemed like an inevitable decision. Still, it saddens me. How do we know which sister will scream louder now?
The Bryan brothers, however, eased into the fourth round of the men's doubles with a straight set win.

The rest of the picks

2007-07-03T22:28:00.000-05:00

I'm going to pick (explanationless) the rest of the tournament, match-by-match from here on out.

Men's singles:
3rd round - Djokovic over Kiefer; Soderling over Nadal
Round of 16 - Roddick over Mathieu; Tsonga over Gasquet; Davydenko over Baghdatis; Hewitt over Djokovic; Berdych over Bjorkman; Youzhny over Soderling
Quarterfinals - Federer over Ferrero; Roddick over Tsonga; Hewitt over Davydenko (in 5); Youzhny over Berdych
Semifinals - Federer over Roddick; Hewitt over Youzhny
Finals - Federer over Hewitt (in a good match)

Women's singles:
Round of 16 - Sharapova over V. Williams
Quarterfinals - Henin over S. Williams (I'm only going back on my past prediction because of the calf strain); Bartoli over Krajicek (how did this happen); Vaidisova over Ivanovic (either a letdown for Vaidasova, or she is playing the best tennis of her life); Sharapova over Kuznetsova;
Semifinals - Henin over Bartoli; Vaidasova over Sharapova (but only if she gets this far. I'll take Sharapova over Ivanovic, who I genuinely like, just not on grass)
Finals - Henin over whomever gets here

OK. So I didn't get through without comments, so what? Henin gets her slam; Fed continues domination. Though I will say that Henin is lucky and will benefit from that injury.

This is Getting Ridiculous

2007-07-03T18:54:00.000-05:00

Rain has shortened play yet again! What do we have to do to get a full day of play in? We're still not through the third freaking round. Really, this is borderline comical at this point.

But hey, at least Hewitt got through in a relatively routine two sets today. Ferrero also scored a straight set win over Janko Tipsarevic. That's about it, though. Nadal, mired in the third round, didn't even get onto the court today. If he manages to get to the finals, he'll be playing every day from here on out.

Oh Look... Rain

2007-07-02T16:05:00.000-05:00

It's a good thing that there was play yesterday, because today's shortened play could have really logjammed the... oh, wait. There wasn't any play yesterday, and we're looking at a serious backlog. And wow, how charmed is Roger? He gets a walkover on Tommy Haas, so he doesn't even have to worry about any of this. We're into Tuesday now and the men aren't even through the third round. I mean, how insane is that? I don't think Federer really needs that much help to tie Borg.

It's a real shame, because this could've been the best day of the tournament. After Henin dispatched a weak challenge from Schnyder, we had the Serena saga. When the cameras focused in on her calf, I had to cringe. I've never seen a muscle bunch up like that before. That had to hurt. Most every athlete has had to deal with cramps at some point, and everyone who has knows how much they suck. I don't believe Serena for screaming out in pain or her overtures to delay... but I do blame Hantuchova for her butter-like mental toughness. It's pretty pathetic to see your opponent get hurt bad... then roll over. Her killer instinct is as sharp as satin.

Nadal is going to have to wait yet another day to try and get into the fourth round. What looked like a potential routine finish has turned into a fifth set and a serious problem for Nadal in his quest to get back to the finals. He's up 2-0 in the final set, but he needs to finish Soderling off as quickly as possible, as Youhzny had an easy time of it on court and won't be afraid of the bull.

Djokovic and Keifer are locked up in a tight affair, with Djokovic up a set and 6-5 in the second. I love to see the German giving Novak all he can handle; he's a game player. And you gotta love seeing Jonas Bjorkman advancing to the final 16 again, beating Wayne Arthurs in a match you could see in a few months on the senior tour. It's nice to see a guy having his greatest success late in his career.

Hewitt and Canas are locked up in a very non-grass court type of battle. It's bound to be entertaining, but you'll never get to see it in America. Go USA! And Gael Monfils is getting whipped by Davydenko of all people. As if we needed more evidence of the decay of grass tennis, that is further evidence.

But, once again, the combination of rain and poor decision-making have really made getting through this tournament by Sunday a real problem. Could we see another People's Monday? That would make up for everything.

A scream of pain

2007-07-02T12:41:00.000-05:00

As Serena Williams lay on the grass of Wimbledon after announcing before her match against Daniela Hantuchova that she felt healthy again, the collective tennis world wondered what was wrong.

It looked like she had pulled up with a calf cramp.

After winning the first set and being down in the second 4-1, Williams rallied to a 5-4 lead with Hantuchova serving. At 15-15, Hantuchova bounced both her serves. After the next point, Williams was walking to the service line when the turf appeared to grab her a bit.

She had said during the break at 5-4 something that sounded like "calf and thigh," but it wasn't completely audible. Points later her left calf cramped up. She hit at it with her racket while standing on one leg. Then she collapsed.

After some treatment and an attempt at stretching, the trainer brought out the bag of ice. With the application of the bag, Williams let out a scream of pain that seems like it would have come from Dakota Fanning's mouth.

What is even more amazing is that after taking the medical timeout, Williams came back, conceded the game and took service.

She served using only the power in her arm and forced a tiebraker, winning the game point at 30 on a 110 mph serve. Yes, she was only using her arm for the power.

In the tiebreaker, Williams went down 4-0, won two points and was changing sides.

Then the rains came.

At this point, it's 6-2 6-6 (2-4) Williams, and it's just been reported that the injury is a spasm-induced calf strain. This is not going to get better today. The clouds are starting to part, according to the ESPN crew, and Williams is going to have to make a choice — play with pain and see what happens in the next two days (if she wins the tiebreak; I doubt she'll play the third set) or retire now and reduce the risk of further injury.

Tradition and Sense

2007-07-01T14:04:00.000-05:00

I've never been the biggest fan of traditions. I often find them outdated, outmoded, and unnecessary. Some are great; most are not. The same goes for Wimbledon, where some rethinking is needed.

By nature, I'm a pragmatic person, and traditions often are not pragmatic. It's not that I'm against the concept, it's that I don't want them to interfere with what I think is a better way of doing things. Many times the reason for keeping a tradition alive is just because that's the way it's always been done, and that is what I have a problem with. Traditions with reasons are good. Traditions without them are usually dispensable.

For instance, the no advertisements: All for it. Who doesn't love not seeing a bunch of crap all over the court? Putting the "Mister" and "Miss" honorifics in front of people's names: Again, great. A nice nod to English culture.

The all-white? Not a fan. There is no reason for it. People wore all white centuries ago because they were wearing long sleeves and pants (or dresses), and they were quite hot. White is the coolest color to wear, making it a rather efficient choice. Overheating because of clothing isn't a problem anymore. Ergo, wearing all white is hardly needed.

I can live with the rule, though. Not playing on Middle Sunday, though, makes me want to rip my eyebrows off. There is absolutely no reason to suspend play for a day in the middle of the world's biggest tournament. What's more, with the rain of the first week and what has been fine weather today in London, not playing is needlessly making the players suffer. Guys on the bottom half of the draw, who aren't even through the third round, are now at a competitive disadvantage, as whoever advances to the finals will now have to win four matches in six days just to get there.

Please tell me what sense that makes, how that helps anyone. Sure, it makes Monday that much more exciting, but is it worth the cost? The tournament is really costing itself money here. Tournament officials had better hope the skies remain dry for the next seven days, as even one more rainout will cause serious problems.

You Know What Be Great? A Roof

2007-06-30T15:52:00.000-05:00

Three matches today. Three. That's it. This is about the worst time possible for a washout, as tomorrow is Middle Sunday, which means no play. Of course, if the tournament directors had any sense at all, they'd have play. But they don't, so there won't be any. Whatever. I'm sure we'll all enjoy Jimmy Robert's yammering.

Then Again, Maybe Not

2007-06-29T19:12:00.000-05:00

Well, Thursday's action is in the books, and I pretty much feel like an idiot. I don't think I hit on anything except for Gasquet moving into the final 16. Just how wrong was I?
Firstly, I said Safin would give Roger a match. That turned out to be false, as Federer brushed the Russian aside, 1, 4, and 6. Safin didn't even look like he was on the came court until the final set, when he finally started to go blow-to-blow with the Vogue coverboy. Roger, though, was locked in from the first point. His focus was a stark contrast to Safin's wandering temper (and racquets). By the time Marat finally got into the match, it was already too late. Federer put on a clinic, winning 88% of points on his first serve. He continues to not be interested in volleying, only going to the net 16 times. However, he won 13 of those approaches. Once again, people think someone will step up and challenge the king, and he merely swats them away. It's incredible. He hasn't even had to breathe hard in years in England.

Also, I thought Blake would have gotten by Ferrero, but that didn't turn out as well. On one hand, it's nice to see JC really playing well again, but it's just as dismaying to see Blake lose the way he did. Once again, James moped around the court during the last two sets, basically giving up. You'd think a guy in the top 10 would hold himself higher, but confidence deficeits have plagued James forever. Patrick McEnroe rightfully called him out on ESPN. James has absolutely no reason to act like that on the court, especially when he could have won the match. He's never been a big factor outside of hard courts, but that's not an excuse.

Remember when I said Roddick/Verdasco had five sets written all over it? Yeah, didn't happen. Impressive display from Roddick in that match. Janko tipped (pun intended) Gonzalez in five, setting up an interesting affair with Ferrero in the next round.

And lastly, Feliciano Lopez got waxed by Tsonga. I did not see that coming at all. I'm almost afraid to see how wrong I can be tomorrow.

So Far, So Good

2007-06-28T23:08:00.000-05:00

The first four days of The Championships featured little in the way of surprises, and that's just the way I like it. Some people have been complaining about the lack of upsets and compelling first round matchups, but who wants the appetizer to be the best part of the meal? With the first weekend coming to a close, we're just now getting to the juicy steak of the competition. It has shaped up to be an exciting third round. Let's look at what we have.
Firstly, I'm getting what I wanted when the draw came out last week: The Feder-Bear versus the mercurial Marat in the third round. Safin has not looked overly impressive in his first two matches, even though they were both straight set affairs. Federer, meanwhile, really looked locked in against Del Potro, who I thought could give the #1 seed problems. And he really looks spiffy in that white and gold shirt Nike is outfitting him in.

These observations notwithstanding, I still think Safin can give Federer a run for his money tomorrow on the roofless Centre Court. At this point, Marat is the kind of guy that needs external motivation; he can't get himself up for matches. Roger in the tennis cathedral is going to get him going. He plays Federer very tough, and even Roger acknowledged that he has the ability to hit the Swiss off the court. Needless to say, I'm excited. I don't expect Marat to win- he hates grass enough it provides a convenient excuse for a loss- but it wouldn't surprise me.

James Blake is on track to get waxed by Federer in the quarters; he's looked solid thus far and shouldn't have too much problem with Ferrero. Provided he doesn't, he'll face the winner of Tipsarevic and Gonzalez. I originally thought Gonzalez would take care of Janko easily, but I've since changed my mind. It is, after all, the year of the Serb, and Gonzalez is as unpredictable as anyone. I still think Gonzo will win, but it could be a tight affair.

Andy Roddick has a pretty tough pairing with the lefty Verdasco. This has five sets written all over it. And there could be 100 or more combined aces. Fernando will be a good early test for Andy, but the winner of Mathieu-Ljubicic won't be (I like the Frenchman in that one).

There's a lot of French guys in the remaining 32 in the men's draw. Has anyone noticed this? We can't be OK with this. Two of them, Richard Gasquet and Edouard Roger-vasselin, square off on Court 3. First of all, Edouard has one of the weirdest names I've ever seen. Seriously, his parents should be fined. That's terrible. But hey, maybe Gasquet is finally going to make a major move like everyone has been waiting for. He is 21 now; it's time for him to step up if he's going to. He should be able to get past Edouard.

Finally, the bane of the United Kingdom, Feliciano Lopez, takes on yet another Frenchman, Jo-Wilifred Tsonga (what is with the French names?). I gotta take Lopez in that one, and I'm officially giving him "darkhorse" status. He's one to watch.

Saturday's matches look even more enticing, but this ain't a bad first Friday at all. The expanded seeding has done just what it is supposed to, protecting the better players longer in the tournaments. We all benefit from this in the long run. Of the final 32 players, 22 are seeded. The cream is rising to the top.

Henman's marathon win

2007-06-27T01:57:00.000-05:00

I noticed something today while watching the first round match between Tim Henman and Carlos Moya. Tim Henman looked good.

He beat the No. 26 seed Moya, which might sound decent for an aging Henman, but remember that Moya is a dirt baller who wasn't really expected to do well on the grass courts. On the other hand, Henman has always player well on the surface, especially at the Slam known as Wimbledon.

The statistics, though, show an almost dead heat between the two players in the four-hour 11-minute match, which had a nearly two-hour fifth set that ended in a 13-11 triumph for the Brit.

Both men had the same first serve percentage and nearly won the exact same percentage of points, whether on first or second serve. Henman had fewer aces and more errors.

But with the Henmaniacs at Wimbledon rooting him on, he has nothing to lose, and two other statistics show it.

He had three aces in one game of the fifth set at 11-11, escaping two break points with aces; he finished with 10. He turned it on when he had to, which he's done remarkably for years when he was England's only hope to win Wimbledon.

What is even more impressive is the how well the 32-year-old Henman can still move. While he and Moya both won only 59 percent of their net approaches, Henman seemed to be comfortable there, and that can make a huge difference, especially when it comes to winners totals. Henman went to the net 100 times in match, almost 30 percent of all points. this serve-and-volley style is what many multiple title winners such as Borg and Sampras have done to win. Amelie Mauresmo did it to win last year.

The main thing isn't that Henman will win Wimbledon (though he has two possible wins coming up against Feliciano Lopez and either Nicolas Lapentti or Jo-Wifried Tsonga). What we know is that when likely faces Richard Gasquet in the round of 16, he will be able to play winning tennis on the grass how it's supposed to be played, with a calm look and a nice net return for a winner.

Guillermo Coria is Through With Vitamins

2007-06-24T17:45:00.000-05:00

Guillermo Coria and Universal Nutrition settled Coria's lawsuit Wednesday rather quietly, with Coria being awarded an unspecified amount. Coria sued for steroids he claimed were in the vitamins he took, resulting in a positive drug test and seven-month suspension. Personally, he should've sued for not putting more steroids in the pills, as he couldn't finish a five-set match without cramping or getting exhausted half the time.

Murray Out

2007-06-24T16:14:00.001-05:00

Andy Murray has withdrawn from Wimbledon with his wrist still bothering him. This is sure to go over horribly in Britain, but Andy made the right choice here. You don't want to mess around with the wrist, and the risks far outweighed the potential benefits here. Look for him to have a strong summer hardcourt season, as he'll be fully healed. Either way, Kevin Kim, who replaces Andy in the draw, owes him a fruit basket.

The Federer Invitational

2007-06-23T12:50:00.000-05:00

Did you know? This tournament used to be called Wimbledon. Now a mere 21 sets separates Roger from Bjorn Borg's five consecutive titles at the All-England Club. Seven men stand in his way to try and derail him. Will the Swiss star stake a further claim to history at The Championships? Can Novak Djokovic continue his ascent in the men's game? Will Roddick finally break through? Let's wade through the men's draw.
Color me disappointed Roddick drew Federer's half of the draw. I can't be the only one that wanted to see a Nadal-Roddick showdown on Centre Court. We all know the tune of a Federer-Roddick match. And I promise, you won't hear any "This is Roddick's best chance to beat Federer" claims like you do everywhere else if Andy rolls through his quarter of the draw (Well, maybe Ben might. He keeps telling me Andy is going to do it). Roddick's quarter is relatively harmless; Ljubicic lurks as a possible fourth-round opponent, and Gasquet could finally get it together at a major and reach the quarters. However, Roddick should have little problem getting to another Wimby semifinal in his quest to lose as many times as possible to one guy.

Speaking of Federer, interestingly, some possible early-round match ups could present more trouble than later ones. Rising Argentine Juan Martin Del Potro could wait in the second round. You may remember him as the guy who served for the first set against Nadal in the opening round of the French Open. Don't let his country of origin fool you- he's a big boy and a thumper who is likely to have greater success on faster courts. The 18-year-old has risen to 55th in the rankings and has never faced Federer. Roger skipped Halle this year to pout, so he could very well catch a rusty Roger at the perfect time. And maybe Bjorn will have a dog bite him.

And look who is a possible third round obstacle: Marat Safin! It's just as likely he loses as it is he makes to the third round, but he always brings it against Federer, and you can bet Roger was not happy to see the Russian Roulette so close to him in the draw. Marat has the best chance of anyone to beat Federer at this tournament. If he feels like it, that is. The rest of the quarter looks completely nonthreatening to Federer.

Dynamic Serb Novak Djokovic has the hardest quarter of the top four seeds. Ivo Karlovic could wait in the third round, and that's a guy nobody wants to face on the sod. If not Karlovic, it could be Nicolas Kiefer, who gives top players fits. It doesn't get any easier. The fourth round includes Hewitt, Canas, and Max Mirnyi as possible opponents. He could see former finalist Nalbandian or Marco Baghdatis in the quarters. Novak has some choppy waters to navigate if he wants to climb into the #3 ranking.

With Roddick on the other half of the draw, things are shaping up nicely for Rafael Nadal to position himself for another run to the finals. He could run into Sebastien Grosjean in the third round, who can test him. Youzhny is little threat as a possible fourth round match. Berdych in the quarters could be a very entertaining match.

Tough luck draw: Robby Ginepri getting Fernando Gonzalez. The 2005 US Open semifinalist has really fallen fast and hard (injuries haven't helped). He could be headed for another quick exit. But Gonzo is just as likely to implode as to explode...

First round match I really want to see: Fabrice Santoro vs Ivo Karlovic. If you want a contrast in styles, you won't find a bigger one. Fabrice is a tricksy hobbit with every shot in the book (and a few that aren't in the book), while Ivo is a towering figure with one shot only. Of course, living in America, there is approximately -500% chance I'll get to see this.

Upset Alert: Mardy Fish vs Rafael Nadal. Yes, I'm really going out on a limb here, especially after Mardy found a creative way to miss the French, most likely costing himself a seed in the process, and Nadal looked pretty good at Queen's Club (remember, he lost in the quarters there last year, too). But hear me out: I think Mardy can pull this off he gets to the net as much as possible and exposes Rafa's backhand, which is anything but steady on this surface. If his serve is working, he's slicing a lot, and he's moving forward, he can make things very uncomfortable for Rafa.

Breakthrough player: Gael Monfils. Why not? He's been to the third round at SW19 before, and his draw is quite friendly. He has a solid chance of making it to the second week, maybe even the quarterfinals.

Bold prediction: I'll be annoyed with NBC approximately 16 seconds into their first broadcast when Jimmy Roberts shows his face.

Thoughts on the Women's Draw

2007-06-23T04:33:00.000-05:00

Justine Henin’s bracket: Henin has a more difficult draw than at first notice. Patty Schnyder lies waiting in the Round of 16, if she can make it that far. Schnyder has only made it to the third round once at Wimbledon (in 2001), but played well during the clay-court season and at Roland Garros. Henin holds a 7-1 record over her, but all matches on fast surfaces have gone to three sets. Henin then has Serena Williams, which could be a loss in itself. Both Williams sisters dominate in

England

, even without playing warm-ups. The surprise in this bracket might be Katarina Srebotnik. She has world No. 412 Elena Baltacha in the first round and likely Anna-Lena Groenfeld (who is 4-11 this year and has dropped 90 spots in the ranking since January). Her showdown will be with Serena, and Serena will probably own her. Serena and sister Venus are playing doubles this year and that will either energize or wear out the sisters. Winner of this quarterfinal is Serena, who will leave Henin winless at the All-England Club: 4-6, 6-3, 6-4.

Jelena Jankovic’s bracket: Jankovic is the hottest player on the WTA Tour right now, having advanced to the semis on the red clay of Paris and last week beat Maria Sharapova at Birmingham. She is also first in the race this year, but that’s inflated by her 16 tournament appearances. There aren’t any big hurdles for her until Eleni Daniilidou in the third round, who ousted Henin in the first round in ’05. Even with Daniilidou making the third round, Jankovic is too much at this point in the year, and with either a weak grass player in Anna Chakvetadze or a struggling Martina Hingis, who has already lost to Jankovic this year and who’s last title was in Tokyo in February. Jankovic goes to the semis with a 6-4, 6-4 win over Hingis.

Ameile Mauresmo’s bracket: This is the most stacked part of the draw. There’s Nadia Petrova, always a force on any surface; Francesca Schiavone, a good ball-striker who has just never had success on grass; Anabel Medina-Garrigues, who has always played well against this quarter’s favorites, Ana Ivanovic and Mauresmo. Not to mention former top 25 player Shenay Perry, Sania Mirza and No. 14-seed Nicole Vaidasova are in this bracket too. When this all filters out though, it will be either Ivanovic or Petrova, probably Ivanovic, because she’s been playing well of late, against Mauresmo. That match will be a toss up, but the defending champ will win in three sets, 7-6, 4-6, 7-5.

Maria Sharapova’s bracket: Maria has the easiest trip to the semis, as long as Venus doesn’t get in her way in the Round of 16. The top part of the bracket is filled with the likes of an inconsistent Svetlana Kuznetzova and soft-serving Elena Dementieva. So whoever wins the match between Sharapova and Venus will make the semis. In the match that matters I pick a rested Sharapova over an uninterested Venus 6-4, 6-3. Sharapova will relax after that match, though, and drop a set in a wake-up match against Kuznetzova 6-2, 5-7, 6-1.

Semifinal 1: Serena Williams has already recorded a slam this year and has taken plenty of time off to rest. She is 22-4 this year, with most of her bad losses on clay. On the other side is Jankovic, who couldn’t be in this situation at a better time. Serena owned grass for a while a few years ago, but has she been back long enough to hang in with Jankovic? Will Jankovic be fatigued after all of her playing? Can she overcome Serena’s power, placement and backhand? Jankovic will get nervous, just like she did against Henin, and although Serena won’t play her best match, she’ll do just enough to make it look close, but win comfortably, 7-5, 6-4.

Semifinal 2: An untested Sharapova will get her first real match against Mauresmo. This will mark the third time in five majors that the two will have met in the semifinals, splitting the past two as Mauresmo won on the way to the Wimbledon title last year and Sharapova won the semi and the final in New York. Sharapova will be playing her best tennis of the tournament in what should go down as a classic match. Power against power, Sharapova 7-5, 6-7, 7-5.

Final: Sharapova and Serena meet again in a rematch of this year’s Aussie Open. It looks like more of the same as Sharapova has a letdown and Serena just does what she always does, win. In a relatively unexciting match, Serena takes her third Wimbledon and her eighth Grand Slam, 6-3, 6-2.

Planting the Seeds

2007-06-22T02:40:00.001-05:00

The seedings for Wimbledon were announced today, and they bear a striking resemblance to the ATP rankings. The top three remain unchanged- I'm sure Andy's thrilled- and Tomas Berdych made the biggest leap of anyone, jumping from 11 to 7. Yep, the biggest move was a whopping four spots. Nikolay Davydenko, with his career 1-5 record in the tournament, is ranked sixth.
Once, the releasing the seeds for the tournament was actually kind of exciting, because we could expect to see some different numbers next to some people than we normally would. The radically different seeds are part of what made Wimbledon stand out in the tennis world. No longer is this the case.As we're so often told, grass is different. It's a one-month anomaly, an odd transition from the crushed brick to the painted asphalt- and an abrupt one at that. Big men with big serves cut a swatch through the draw on a regular basis, a shooting star never to be seen again (remember Vladimir Voltchkov?). Ivo Karlovic makes ranked players sweat in their sleep.

And it really is different. As well-manicured as a grass court can be, it's still the most inconsistent surface on the tour. Balls can bounce in unpredictable ways. They skid. They slide. They rarely reach your shoulder off a bounce. Slice becomes a bigger weapon, topspin a weaker one. So yes, the All-England Club is absolutely right in adjusting the seeds. Roddick deserves to be the second seed, for instance.

And a few years ago, he probably would have been. But for whatever reason, the club caved to the Spanish-speaking complainers and started making compromises. Why would you listen to the demands of a group of players that didn't stick around past the first week if they even showed at all? What sense does that make? Taking the top 32-ranked players and guaranteeing them seeds is a good compromise. But they've watered it down to some formula that really doesn't make much of a difference anymore. I'm sure Lleyton Hewitt is really thankful his past success bumped him up to the 16 spot. He must be thrilled.

The subjective seeding should return. And if some players don't like it, they should try and overcome their grass allergies. Players who have been successful on grass should be rewarded, and players who suck on it should be punished. I should note that I am of the opinion that all of the Grand Slam tournament should seed subjectively, but it seems easiest to institute it at Wimbledon.

Here They Go Again

2007-06-20T13:45:00.000-05:00

From the pleasant surprise file, the Williams sisters have accepted a wild card into the Wimbledon doubles. The two haven't played as a pair in four years when they lost in the round of 16 to Elena Dementieva and Lina Krasnorutskaya.

This news is a shot in the arm to the event, especially after a French Open with virtually no excitement or compelling action. Win or lose, the sisters of slam are fun to watch together (when they're not playing each other). I have no idea whether or not they're a title threat; 2003 was the last doubles venture for either of them and Venus hasn't looked good at all this year. One the other hand, the Williamses do own a career Grand Slam, including two Wimbledon trophies. As rusty as they might be, they cannot be discounted.

More importantly, it's bound to give doubles a little air time, provided they survive the first couple rounds. Now, can we get some of that love extended to the Bryan brothers?

Of course, they're making some sort of statement while on the lawns. Serena and Venus are going to play with golden racquets, copies of which to be sold benefiting the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. So... doubles and special racquets. We're bound to see some sort of crazy outfit... maybe a tribute to the New Zealand rubgy team. The exciting part is, of course, we don't know quite what to expect. They could crash in the first round, they could storm to the title, we just don't know. Maybe they'll do it again at Flushing Meadows. Heck, maybe Maria Sharapova will team with someone who can stand her.

Scud Locking On

2006-06-14T16:06:00.000-05:00

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

2006-06-12T15:44:00.000-05:00

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

2006-06-11T19:31:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-06-11T02:32:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-06-11T00:17:00.000-05:00

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.