“There’s a fayun here to see you. A fayun. Awll the way from Idaho!” the secretary exclaimed in her thick Philadelphian accent. Upon hanging up the desk phone, she informed me that her boss would be down shortly, and my aunt and I took to a pair of cushioned chairs to wait. Moments later, two figures emerged from a hallway adjacent to the office in which we were situated. One of them, a dark-skinned fellow in a black cowboy hat, I recognized as Smokin’ Joe Frazier.
It was Spring Break my junior year in high school, and I had flown to Philadelphia to visit my sister, who was attending the University of Pennsylvania. From the first, I was keenly aware that these were the streets where walked that mythic pugilist of old whom I had read about, watched and imagined for so many years-- the legendary battler who entered every match with a fire in his belly, who never quit and never backed down and swarmed and hooked and worked and willed his way to victory, even when faced with bigger and more gifted foes. I wanted to stand before one of the greatest living monuments to the power of the human will. I wanted to meet the man, look in his eyes, shake his hand.
In contrast to the soft, squishy palms of we who have lead lives of comfort and privilege, Joe Frazier's hand felt like a leathery mat of sinew, hard and wiry strong. Though his career was now long behind him, his hair grizzled and his gait noticeably hobbled, I harbored no doubt that he could still have easily crumpled me in any contest of fisticuffs. The thought evidently crossed his own mind, for once we had taken adjacent seats and he had graciously signed the two boxing gloves I had brought (one was my own, the other my younger brother's- an unintentional gift, for I had mixed up our left gloves when packing for the flight), he informed me that he had a wayward son about my age (now in military school, he explained) who he used to meet in the ring every day and knock some sense into. I responded to the effect that I was sure he could still give me a good licking as well, at which time his face lit up; "Oh, you wanna fight?" he asked with a twinkle in his eye. It was an offer I could not but decline.
November 09, 2011
November 04, 2011
Glimmers
It is the first round of the 2011 US Open. Andy Roddick, who has had a dismal season to date and fallen to his lowest ranking in nine years, looks to have drawn a "safe" opponent in the tenacious-but-limited Michael Russell. Roddick fairly routinely coasts through the first two sets on the back of his serve and consistent baseline play, but Russell will not go away quietly, stepping up his aggression and beginning to bully his far bigger and more powerful opponent in the rallies.
Before long, it is apparent that Russell has gotten on a roll, and the woefully-defensive Roddick does not appear ready to rise to the challenge. Russell wins the third set, and carries his momentum into the fourth, going up a break within the first five games. For a few moments, it appears to me a very real possibility that the 33-year-old Russell, who has never won a match at the US Open, will rally from two sets down to eliminate this former champion in the opening round- and, indeed, should this happen, I fear that the specter of a Roddick retirement from the ATP tour begins to look very real. Common as it may for many to rashly proclaim a top player's demise every time he suffers an upset or has a slump, this truly feels as though it would constitute the point at which one might reasonably conclude, "He's done."
The moment passes, however; Roddick manages to step up his level of play just enough to break back, and, after a laborious struggle, ekes out the fourth set 7-5 to progress to the second round. I breathe a sigh of relief. The former world-number-one goes on to deliver routine victories over young compatriot Jack Sock and an in-form Julien Benneteau in the second and third rounds respectively, assuring me, regardless of what happens next, that I may shrug and tell myself, "Well, at least he's not done." He goes a step further, however, in the Round of 16, by upsetting the in-form world's number 5 David Ferrer in impressive fashion. Having seen him escape the jaws of ruin and prove once more that he can still compete at a world-class level, I am relatively unperturbed by the trouncing a flat-and-injured Roddick takes at the hands of Nadal in the quarterfinals.
However, I must admit, if Roddick is to go further than merely competing- being "in the mix," so to speak- he must demonstrate that he is still, at this stage, capable of beating the very best. So it is, then, that we arrive at the impetus for today's post.
It was at the Basel event in 2001 that Roddick and Roger Federer, then both promising newcomers, met for the first time in the professional ranks, whereupon Federer narrowly defeated Roddick in a third-set tiebreak. Ten years and a brutally one-sided rivalry later, the two now meet again in the same round of the same tournament. Many will predict a like recurrence in outcome, but through my ever-tinted glasses, I see the hope of renewal.
UPDATE: No such hope, however, when Mr. Roddick is running a 36% first-serve percentage. Let us hope he can at least improve on that for tomorrow's match with Murray.
Before long, it is apparent that Russell has gotten on a roll, and the woefully-defensive Roddick does not appear ready to rise to the challenge. Russell wins the third set, and carries his momentum into the fourth, going up a break within the first five games. For a few moments, it appears to me a very real possibility that the 33-year-old Russell, who has never won a match at the US Open, will rally from two sets down to eliminate this former champion in the opening round- and, indeed, should this happen, I fear that the specter of a Roddick retirement from the ATP tour begins to look very real. Common as it may for many to rashly proclaim a top player's demise every time he suffers an upset or has a slump, this truly feels as though it would constitute the point at which one might reasonably conclude, "He's done."
The moment passes, however; Roddick manages to step up his level of play just enough to break back, and, after a laborious struggle, ekes out the fourth set 7-5 to progress to the second round. I breathe a sigh of relief. The former world-number-one goes on to deliver routine victories over young compatriot Jack Sock and an in-form Julien Benneteau in the second and third rounds respectively, assuring me, regardless of what happens next, that I may shrug and tell myself, "Well, at least he's not done." He goes a step further, however, in the Round of 16, by upsetting the in-form world's number 5 David Ferrer in impressive fashion. Having seen him escape the jaws of ruin and prove once more that he can still compete at a world-class level, I am relatively unperturbed by the trouncing a flat-and-injured Roddick takes at the hands of Nadal in the quarterfinals.
However, I must admit, if Roddick is to go further than merely competing- being "in the mix," so to speak- he must demonstrate that he is still, at this stage, capable of beating the very best. So it is, then, that we arrive at the impetus for today's post.
It was at the Basel event in 2001 that Roddick and Roger Federer, then both promising newcomers, met for the first time in the professional ranks, whereupon Federer narrowly defeated Roddick in a third-set tiebreak. Ten years and a brutally one-sided rivalry later, the two now meet again in the same round of the same tournament. Many will predict a like recurrence in outcome, but through my ever-tinted glasses, I see the hope of renewal.
UPDATE: No such hope, however, when Mr. Roddick is running a 36% first-serve percentage. Let us hope he can at least improve on that for tomorrow's match with Murray.
September 05, 2011
Andy Murray: Grand Slam Champion?
Even before he established himself within the elite tier of professional tennis, there was never any dearth of writers' (now-largely-proverbial) ink spilled nor airtime devoted toward the subject of the career prospects of young British hope Andrew Murray. This furious drumming of keyboards and wagging of tongues has only intensified during the last three years, since Murray claimed his place among the world's top five players. Undoubtedly the most giddily-optimistic prognostication flourished in the weeks and months following Murray's dramatic emergence in the summer of 2008, which saw him claim the championship at Cincinnati and reach the final of the US Open; the most vivid example of this trend to my memory came in early 2009, when the ever-flamboyant Justin Gimelstob enthusiastically proclaimed that there was "absolutely no question Andy Murray will win numerous Grand Slam titles" while covering one of the Scot's matches.
Now, I thought this prediction (and the many others like it which were floating around, to the point at which Murray was made betting favorite for the 2009 Australian Open championship) to be rather wildly jumping the gun, and history has thus far vindicated my perspective on this matter; nearly three years later, Murray has still failed to win a Grand Slam title, and the public discourse has, by and large, cooled to speculation about whether he will ever win one at all- a proposition now seen in some quarters as highly dubious. John McEnroe has announced going into the 2011 US Open that he considers this Murray's "best chance" to win a Major, as if to suggest that it may be a matter of now-or-never for the Scot.
Here, however, I will come to Murray's defense. You see, having spent a fair bit of time sifting statistics, as is my way, it appears to me that he may be, as Roger Federer once suggested, simply too good not to win a Slam. Consider:
-Aside from Andy Murray, every active player who has reached two or more Grand Slam finals has won at least one Grand Slam title (Murray has reached three).
-Aside from Andy Murray, every active player who has reached six or more Grand Slam semifinals has won at least one Grand Slam title (Murray has reached seven).
-Aside from Andy Murray, every active player who has won four or more Masters Series titles has won at least one Grand Slam title (Murray has won six).
-Aside from Andy Murray, every active player who has finished three or more consecutive seasons ranked inside the world's top four has won at least one Grand Slam title (Murray is in line for his fourth).
I do believe there are more such valid comparisons to illustrate this point, and moreover, that most of these comparisons would extend to the entire Open Era of tennis. This demonstrates first, as most are aware, that Murray is already long overdue for a Grand Slam title, and second, that Murray would stand as a truly remarkable historical outlier if he failed to claim at least one Grand Slam title at some point in his career. Now, historical outliers do, of course, exist, but they are outliers for a reason; it is seldom wise to bank on their occurrence. Murray is a healthy 24 years old, and, with continued commitment, likely has three to four more years of elite-level performance ahead of him. Bleak as things may look at a given moment, I do believe the best bet is that it is only a matter of time before Murray makes good.
Now, I thought this prediction (and the many others like it which were floating around, to the point at which Murray was made betting favorite for the 2009 Australian Open championship) to be rather wildly jumping the gun, and history has thus far vindicated my perspective on this matter; nearly three years later, Murray has still failed to win a Grand Slam title, and the public discourse has, by and large, cooled to speculation about whether he will ever win one at all- a proposition now seen in some quarters as highly dubious. John McEnroe has announced going into the 2011 US Open that he considers this Murray's "best chance" to win a Major, as if to suggest that it may be a matter of now-or-never for the Scot.
Here, however, I will come to Murray's defense. You see, having spent a fair bit of time sifting statistics, as is my way, it appears to me that he may be, as Roger Federer once suggested, simply too good not to win a Slam. Consider:
-Aside from Andy Murray, every active player who has reached two or more Grand Slam finals has won at least one Grand Slam title (Murray has reached three).
-Aside from Andy Murray, every active player who has reached six or more Grand Slam semifinals has won at least one Grand Slam title (Murray has reached seven).
-Aside from Andy Murray, every active player who has won four or more Masters Series titles has won at least one Grand Slam title (Murray has won six).
-Aside from Andy Murray, every active player who has finished three or more consecutive seasons ranked inside the world's top four has won at least one Grand Slam title (Murray is in line for his fourth).
I do believe there are more such valid comparisons to illustrate this point, and moreover, that most of these comparisons would extend to the entire Open Era of tennis. This demonstrates first, as most are aware, that Murray is already long overdue for a Grand Slam title, and second, that Murray would stand as a truly remarkable historical outlier if he failed to claim at least one Grand Slam title at some point in his career. Now, historical outliers do, of course, exist, but they are outliers for a reason; it is seldom wise to bank on their occurrence. Murray is a healthy 24 years old, and, with continued commitment, likely has three to four more years of elite-level performance ahead of him. Bleak as things may look at a given moment, I do believe the best bet is that it is only a matter of time before Murray makes good.
July 02, 2011
Sleeping Giants
Those who have known me personally for a long while will know that boxing was once the sport which I followed with greatest passion; tennis, the overwhelming subject matter of this blog, replaced it only within the last two to three years. The driving force behind this shift was what I will call the constipation of modern professional fight game- the elites very seldom fight, and virtually never actually face one another at their best anymore. Case in point, see the way the world's top two fighters pound-for-pound, Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather, have been dancing in circles, pricing or politicking themselves out of an actual in-ring encounter.
The heavyweight division has been worst of all in this regard. It has been several years now that the Klitschko brothers have stood head-and-shoulders above the rest of the division. For understandable reasons, they refuse to fight one another, and the few potentially-interesting challengers (the likes of David Haye and Alexander Povetkin) have been acutely tentative to step in the ring with them, invariably withdrawing from proposed meetings through contractual dispute or timely injury, thus leaving only second-raters like Samuel Peter and an aging Shannon Briggs for our top guns to pick off. In the face of all this, I have grown distant and apathetic toward the modern boxing scene.
However, we are faced today with an exception to this drearying rule, as Haye, the former cruiserweight phenom who has been making waves at heavyweight of late, is set to step in the ring with Wladimir Klitschko within the hour. This is the most exciting heavyweight showdown perhaps since Lennox Lewis and older brother Vitali Klitschko squared off in 2003. Personally-obnoxious as he is, a part of me would dearly like to see Haye pull the upset and shake up the status quo.
The heavyweight division has been worst of all in this regard. It has been several years now that the Klitschko brothers have stood head-and-shoulders above the rest of the division. For understandable reasons, they refuse to fight one another, and the few potentially-interesting challengers (the likes of David Haye and Alexander Povetkin) have been acutely tentative to step in the ring with them, invariably withdrawing from proposed meetings through contractual dispute or timely injury, thus leaving only second-raters like Samuel Peter and an aging Shannon Briggs for our top guns to pick off. In the face of all this, I have grown distant and apathetic toward the modern boxing scene.
However, we are faced today with an exception to this drearying rule, as Haye, the former cruiserweight phenom who has been making waves at heavyweight of late, is set to step in the ring with Wladimir Klitschko within the hour. This is the most exciting heavyweight showdown perhaps since Lennox Lewis and older brother Vitali Klitschko squared off in 2003. Personally-obnoxious as he is, a part of me would dearly like to see Haye pull the upset and shake up the status quo.
June 20, 2011
Wimbledon Whimsy
Good, erm, morning, everyone! I find myself compelled in my restlessness to set down a few choice thoughts, here in the final hours before yet another Wimbledon is set to commence.
We will have to wait until Tuesday for the most exciting first-round match-up on the cards, when- in a development so promotionally fortuitous as to stoke conspiratorial speculation that the draw is rigged- we are to be treated to a rematch of the legendary 11-hour encounter at last year's Wimbledon between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut. Of course, this match also carries with it the potential for a great anticlimax, as neither Isner nor Mahut is a major competitive favorite for the tournament, and a repeat of the kind of epic drama we saw last year seems less than probable.
Andy Murray seems to have had the most promising immediate lead-up to this year's championships, having made an outstanding title run at Queen's Club while Nadal went down meekly against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, and Federer and Djokovic fell dormant. However, it seems clear that the rather-more-grueling clay-court runs shouldered by the latter three contributed to this turn of events, and I expect we will see them fit and refreshed when they take to the court these next couple days. Djokovic reportedly looked back in fearsome form at a recent grass-court exhibition against Gilles Simon, though it remains to be seen whether the sort of magic that seemed to follow him for six months, up until his fateful meeting with Federer at Roland Garros, will still be there for him in London. This year's draw is particularly fascinating because, in contrast to recent years, wherein one could often easily identify a single cut-and-dried front-runner, there are now multiple players (Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, perhaps even Murray) who can be plausibly construed as favorite to claim the title, as well as several darkhorses (Roddick, Tsonga, Berdych) with the potential to upset the apple cart.
Unfortunately, as seen in my last post (juxtaposed with the subsequent thrashing he suffered at the hands of Murray) I seem to jinx Mr. Roddick whenever I say anything terribly optimistic about his competitive prospects, and so I will keep current speculation on his chances here strictly tentative: though he has not often shown it in recent months, I do believe that Roddick is still capable, given the necessary stroke of inspiration, of repeating everything he did in 2009 that carried him so close to the title. However, as we cannot count on this happening, I will say that a quarterfinal showing would be a solid result for him, and encouraging for those of us who are hoping to see him finish in the world's top 10 for a tenth consecutive season, as well as potentially qualify for a ninth consecutive year-end championships- two goals toward which he is a bit behind schedule at the moment.
I shall now wish you well and take leave of the waking world ever so briefly before rousing myself in anticipation of the joys to come.
We will have to wait until Tuesday for the most exciting first-round match-up on the cards, when- in a development so promotionally fortuitous as to stoke conspiratorial speculation that the draw is rigged- we are to be treated to a rematch of the legendary 11-hour encounter at last year's Wimbledon between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut. Of course, this match also carries with it the potential for a great anticlimax, as neither Isner nor Mahut is a major competitive favorite for the tournament, and a repeat of the kind of epic drama we saw last year seems less than probable.
Andy Murray seems to have had the most promising immediate lead-up to this year's championships, having made an outstanding title run at Queen's Club while Nadal went down meekly against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, and Federer and Djokovic fell dormant. However, it seems clear that the rather-more-grueling clay-court runs shouldered by the latter three contributed to this turn of events, and I expect we will see them fit and refreshed when they take to the court these next couple days. Djokovic reportedly looked back in fearsome form at a recent grass-court exhibition against Gilles Simon, though it remains to be seen whether the sort of magic that seemed to follow him for six months, up until his fateful meeting with Federer at Roland Garros, will still be there for him in London. This year's draw is particularly fascinating because, in contrast to recent years, wherein one could often easily identify a single cut-and-dried front-runner, there are now multiple players (Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, perhaps even Murray) who can be plausibly construed as favorite to claim the title, as well as several darkhorses (Roddick, Tsonga, Berdych) with the potential to upset the apple cart.
Unfortunately, as seen in my last post (juxtaposed with the subsequent thrashing he suffered at the hands of Murray) I seem to jinx Mr. Roddick whenever I say anything terribly optimistic about his competitive prospects, and so I will keep current speculation on his chances here strictly tentative: though he has not often shown it in recent months, I do believe that Roddick is still capable, given the necessary stroke of inspiration, of repeating everything he did in 2009 that carried him so close to the title. However, as we cannot count on this happening, I will say that a quarterfinal showing would be a solid result for him, and encouraging for those of us who are hoping to see him finish in the world's top 10 for a tenth consecutive season, as well as potentially qualify for a ninth consecutive year-end championships- two goals toward which he is a bit behind schedule at the moment.
I shall now wish you well and take leave of the waking world ever so briefly before rousing myself in anticipation of the joys to come.
June 11, 2011
Grassy Miscellany
In the aftermath of the historic events of the 2011 French Open, the ATP has turned its attention to the brief-but-crucial grass-court swing, wherein tournaments at London and Halle offer the major warm-up opportunities to the world's finest players. The top performers from the clay-court season seem to be experiencing a bit of burn-out, as Federer and Djokovic both withdrew from their scheduled events, while Nadal, having once more done just enough to maintain his tenuous hold on the exclusive world's number-one ranking (an immediate exit would have created the unique situation of co-number-one status, as Nadal and Djokovic would each have held 12,025 points to their credit come Monday) bombed out in a lackluster showing against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga yesterday afternoon.
I have been pleased to see my countryman, Mr. Andy Roddick, back in strong form this week at Queen's Club; he has dispatched three consecutive potentially-dangerous opponents, each more dominantly than the last, and in so doing set up a semifinal rematch of his gripping encounter with Andy Murray at Wimbledon two years ago. If he brings the same level of play to the Wimbledon championships later this month, he may once more find himself in contention for the greatest prize in tennis.
June 05, 2011
Djokovic Denied
Upon serving one last ace up the tee to complete what will go down in history among the greatest victories of his momentous professional tennis career, Roger Federer gently wagged a forefinger at his conquered foe. "Not yet," he seemed to say.
For the first time in over seven years, it appeared likely that the next week's world ATP singles rankings would show neither Roger Federer nor Rafael Nadal in the number one position. Novak Djokovic, reigning Australian Open champion and winner of 43 consecutive matches, took to the court Friday afternoon but one more victory from seizing the mantle currently held by Nadal, and a clear favorite to accomplish the task; it seemed to many, as pundits had often- though always incorrectly- speculated over the years, that the Federer-Nadal era was at long last coming to an end. In characteristic fashion, however, the Swiss legend came up with a touch of magic at the moment he most needed it, while Djokovic showed what have of late been rare signs of humanity in his sometimes-uneven performance. In one fell stroke, Federer both thwarted Djokovic's immediate number-one hopes and set up the first Grand Slam final meeting between himself and Nadal since the 2009 Australian Open, as if to broadcast the message that their ship still sails.
Powerful heartache surely awaited Djokovic, who fell a single match short of securing the number one ranking and one short of equaling John McEnroe's record start-of-the-year unbeaten run of 1984, but hope still remains. Just as many Nadal fans undoubtedly found themselves in the unusual position of rooting emphatically for Federer Friday, so I expect that Djokovic's supporters will now rally behind their man's conqueror. A Federer win Sunday would enable Djokovic yet still to take the number one position from Nadal, who is defending a championship run from last year.
For the first time in over seven years, it appeared likely that the next week's world ATP singles rankings would show neither Roger Federer nor Rafael Nadal in the number one position. Novak Djokovic, reigning Australian Open champion and winner of 43 consecutive matches, took to the court Friday afternoon but one more victory from seizing the mantle currently held by Nadal, and a clear favorite to accomplish the task; it seemed to many, as pundits had often- though always incorrectly- speculated over the years, that the Federer-Nadal era was at long last coming to an end. In characteristic fashion, however, the Swiss legend came up with a touch of magic at the moment he most needed it, while Djokovic showed what have of late been rare signs of humanity in his sometimes-uneven performance. In one fell stroke, Federer both thwarted Djokovic's immediate number-one hopes and set up the first Grand Slam final meeting between himself and Nadal since the 2009 Australian Open, as if to broadcast the message that their ship still sails.
Powerful heartache surely awaited Djokovic, who fell a single match short of securing the number one ranking and one short of equaling John McEnroe's record start-of-the-year unbeaten run of 1984, but hope still remains. Just as many Nadal fans undoubtedly found themselves in the unusual position of rooting emphatically for Federer Friday, so I expect that Djokovic's supporters will now rally behind their man's conqueror. A Federer win Sunday would enable Djokovic yet still to take the number one position from Nadal, who is defending a championship run from last year.
June 03, 2011
The Final Peak
As of mid-season 2010, Novak Djokovic of Serbia scarcely seemed a serious contender to claim any Grand Slam titles within the foreseeable future. His second serve was dodgy, his forehand was shank-prone, he was exhibiting a disturbing trend toward passivity from the baseline, and his long history of on-court illness-and-injury treatments and retirements had inspired abundant conjecture to the effect that he was either a hypochondriac or a drama queen. All told, the standard of his results had receded since his then-watershed moment at the 2008 Australian Open, and the question hanging over him was not, as it had once been, whether he could advance his ranking further, but rather whether he could so much as maintain the world's-number-three position to which he had so long been wedded.
One year later, all of these faults appear to have vanished without a trace; his service game is rock-solid, he reliably delivers the most consistent and assertive baseline play in the business, he has neither called forth a trainer nor retired from a match even once to my knowledge over the intervening 12 months, and he stands now potentially mere hours from the fulfillment of his lifelong ambition to attain the coveted number-one ranking. His final obstacle will come in the form of Switzerland's Roger Federer, whom he is set to face in the French Open semifinals Friday night. To depose a legend such as Federer- who is the all-time Grand Slam record holder and last man to defeat Djokovic, that coming at the World Tour Finals last November- on a stage such as this would seem a nigh impossible task to most, but Djokovic has already performed the feat on three past occasions, including each of the last two Grand Slam events, and has defeated Federer three times this season alone.
One cannot rule out altogether the possibility that Roger Federer, even in the latter stages of his career, will find some of his old magic now, when he needs it most, but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the outcome of this contest will, in all likelihood, rest ultimately on the racket of the Serb. It may be pointed out that Djokovic has, in the past, shown tension when faced with the opportunity to reach a new high-water-mark in the rankings, as in 2009 when he failed in his first three attempts to claim the number two ranking, including once in a shocking upset to unheralded Finn Jarko Nieminen- yet, as I have described, Djokovic seems by now to have long since risen to a new and higher plane, casting off like an infant's swaddling cloths the physical and mental constraints which once seemed to bind him. This, then, is the moment of truth; will we see a glimmer of Djokovic the man on the red clay at Roland Garros, or will Djokovic the tennis demi-God complete his ascent to the summit of Mount Olympus?
One year later, all of these faults appear to have vanished without a trace; his service game is rock-solid, he reliably delivers the most consistent and assertive baseline play in the business, he has neither called forth a trainer nor retired from a match even once to my knowledge over the intervening 12 months, and he stands now potentially mere hours from the fulfillment of his lifelong ambition to attain the coveted number-one ranking. His final obstacle will come in the form of Switzerland's Roger Federer, whom he is set to face in the French Open semifinals Friday night. To depose a legend such as Federer- who is the all-time Grand Slam record holder and last man to defeat Djokovic, that coming at the World Tour Finals last November- on a stage such as this would seem a nigh impossible task to most, but Djokovic has already performed the feat on three past occasions, including each of the last two Grand Slam events, and has defeated Federer three times this season alone.
One cannot rule out altogether the possibility that Roger Federer, even in the latter stages of his career, will find some of his old magic now, when he needs it most, but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the outcome of this contest will, in all likelihood, rest ultimately on the racket of the Serb. It may be pointed out that Djokovic has, in the past, shown tension when faced with the opportunity to reach a new high-water-mark in the rankings, as in 2009 when he failed in his first three attempts to claim the number two ranking, including once in a shocking upset to unheralded Finn Jarko Nieminen- yet, as I have described, Djokovic seems by now to have long since risen to a new and higher plane, casting off like an infant's swaddling cloths the physical and mental constraints which once seemed to bind him. This, then, is the moment of truth; will we see a glimmer of Djokovic the man on the red clay at Roland Garros, or will Djokovic the tennis demi-God complete his ascent to the summit of Mount Olympus?
June 01, 2011
Nadal-Soderling III
Now, my title is not strictly accurate; their Wednesday evening French Open quarterfinal encounter will actually mark the eighth time Rafael Nadal and Robin Soderling have met in an official ATP match. In fact, this won't even be the third, but rather the fourth time the two have met at the French Open itself. However, following up as it does upon historic clashes at both the 2009 and 2010 Opens, it will represent the third installment in what is becoming one of the most compelling rivalries since the days when Federer and Nadal were contesting two Grand Slam finals a year against one another, and with it will come a crossroads of sorts between several compelling supblots, the most notable among these involving Nadal's tenuous hold upon the world's number-one ranking.
In Rafa's favor, it may be pointed out that he soundly defeated Soderling in last year's final, that he holds the 3-1 career head-to-head advantage on clay, and that Soderling has not so much as claimed a set off him in any of their clay-court meetings aside from the 2009 shocker which saw the Spaniard suffer his first- and, thus far, only- defeat at the French slam. Nonetheless, Soderling's backers may rightly point out that Nadal's form throughout the 2011 clay court run has been significantly inferior to the standard he set last season; for example, Nadal lost only 14 games en route to the 2010 Monte Carlo title, but dropped more than double that total in another title-winning effort this year at 34, and had lost only 34 games (and zero sets) prior to the quarterfinals of last year's French Open, compared with 53 games and two sets this year. Furthermore, the Swede would be continuing the pattern he has established over the last two years were he to once again pull off a shock upset over a legend midway through the tournament.
So, how will this all turn out? Will Nadal keep his hopes alive to retain the title and number-one ranking, or will Soderling once again upset the apple cart at Roland Garros, protecting countryman Bjorn Borg's all-time French Open title record in the process? Truth be told, I really haven't the foggiest.
In Rafa's favor, it may be pointed out that he soundly defeated Soderling in last year's final, that he holds the 3-1 career head-to-head advantage on clay, and that Soderling has not so much as claimed a set off him in any of their clay-court meetings aside from the 2009 shocker which saw the Spaniard suffer his first- and, thus far, only- defeat at the French slam. Nonetheless, Soderling's backers may rightly point out that Nadal's form throughout the 2011 clay court run has been significantly inferior to the standard he set last season; for example, Nadal lost only 14 games en route to the 2010 Monte Carlo title, but dropped more than double that total in another title-winning effort this year at 34, and had lost only 34 games (and zero sets) prior to the quarterfinals of last year's French Open, compared with 53 games and two sets this year. Furthermore, the Swede would be continuing the pattern he has established over the last two years were he to once again pull off a shock upset over a legend midway through the tournament.
So, how will this all turn out? Will Nadal keep his hopes alive to retain the title and number-one ranking, or will Soderling once again upset the apple cart at Roland Garros, protecting countryman Bjorn Borg's all-time French Open title record in the process? Truth be told, I really haven't the foggiest.
April 03, 2011
The Streak Phenomenon and its Predictive Application
With Djokovic and Nadal embroiled in their second consecutive Masters Series final, I am once again inclined to favor the Spaniard. I will further state that the strength of the "Djokovic-for-year-end-number-one" movement, endorsed by figures as prominent as, for example, Patrick McEnroe (who predicts another Djokovic Grand Slam title this season along with a number one finish) reflects the strong tendency among tennis fandom to project a player's current form out across the future in a way which very seldom pans out.
For example, note that in early 2008, Djokovic also won both the Australian Open- defeating Federer in the process- and Indian Wells- defeating Nadal in the process- and was also widely feted as favorite to finish as year-end number one; as it happened, however, Djokovic failed to appear in another Grand Slam final for the remainder of the season and finished the year at world's number three. The next season, Nadal won both the Australian Open and Indian Wells, and was widely ballyhooed as a contender for the calendar Grand Slam that year; as it happened, however, Nadal failed to so much as appear in another Grand Slam final for the remainder of the season, and finished 2009 ranked world's number two. The year after that, it was Federer who won the Australian Open, and who was, once again, slated by many for a year-end number one finish and potential calendar Grand Slam; as it happened, however, Federer failed to so much as reach another Grand Slam final for the remainder of the season, and finished 2010 ranked world's number two.
It is thus the case that in none of the last three years has the Australian Open champion gone on to finish the season as world's number one, nor to win another Grand Slam title, nor even to make another final therein. This also holds true in the two of these seasons (2008 and 2009) which saw the Australian Open winner proceed to claim the Indian Wells title. Now, this is not to say that winning the Australian Open and Indian Wells somehow actively decreases one's likelihood of finishing the season at world's number one, but it is to say that it does not seem to be the predictor of season-long performance standard and year-end ranking which many treat it as.
Now, if Djokovic should win today, completing a trifecta of year-to-date titles in major tournaments, I will perhaps promote him to co-favorite for the year-end number one ranking, but at present, I will regard Nadal as favorite both for the match and the season.
For example, note that in early 2008, Djokovic also won both the Australian Open- defeating Federer in the process- and Indian Wells- defeating Nadal in the process- and was also widely feted as favorite to finish as year-end number one; as it happened, however, Djokovic failed to appear in another Grand Slam final for the remainder of the season and finished the year at world's number three. The next season, Nadal won both the Australian Open and Indian Wells, and was widely ballyhooed as a contender for the calendar Grand Slam that year; as it happened, however, Nadal failed to so much as appear in another Grand Slam final for the remainder of the season, and finished 2009 ranked world's number two. The year after that, it was Federer who won the Australian Open, and who was, once again, slated by many for a year-end number one finish and potential calendar Grand Slam; as it happened, however, Federer failed to so much as reach another Grand Slam final for the remainder of the season, and finished 2010 ranked world's number two.
It is thus the case that in none of the last three years has the Australian Open champion gone on to finish the season as world's number one, nor to win another Grand Slam title, nor even to make another final therein. This also holds true in the two of these seasons (2008 and 2009) which saw the Australian Open winner proceed to claim the Indian Wells title. Now, this is not to say that winning the Australian Open and Indian Wells somehow actively decreases one's likelihood of finishing the season at world's number one, but it is to say that it does not seem to be the predictor of season-long performance standard and year-end ranking which many treat it as.
Now, if Djokovic should win today, completing a trifecta of year-to-date titles in major tournaments, I will perhaps promote him to co-favorite for the year-end number one ranking, but at present, I will regard Nadal as favorite both for the match and the season.
March 20, 2011
A Quick Note...
I've been meaning to get some substantial words in with this all-too-often-neglected little soapbox of mine, and hope I shall finally get around to it shortly, but for now, I simply want to note, having heard that Djokovic is considered the favorite, that I expect a Nadal victory in the Indian Wells final set to commence moments from now; this seems to me a lovely opportunity to look good by way of calling an "upset," and if I should prove mistaken, I shall have all the more incentive to get posting and bury the embarrassment.
Nadal in three.
Nadal in three.
January 27, 2011
2008 Redux?
It has been three years since last a Grand Slam final was contested without at least one of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal numbering among its participants. The 2008 Australian Open saw both crash out in straight sets against inspired foes, paving the way for Novak Djokovic, who was fresh off a runner-up finish at the preceding US Open, and who upset Federer in the semifinals, to claim his first- and, to date, only- career Grand Slam title. As I write, fate seems poised, perhaps, to offer us an eery echo of that peculiar turn of events gone by. Nadal, injured and despondent, has fallen to compatriot David Ferrer, while Djokovic, once again riding the crest of a run to the US Open final, is locked in another Melbourne semifinal with Federer, wherein he has won the first set, and has looked every bit the dynamic and versatile player who claimed the title here three years ago. All the crucial pieces are in place for history to repeat itself.
It has often been the case, however, that the course of events, in unfolding, will tantalize its observers, dangling the prospect of a particular narrative before us, only to unceremoniously withdraw back into the ether that which it once seemed to promise. Should Federer manage to rally in this match, said course may divert itself towards the path it followed last year, when Federer faced down Andy Murray- who stands as a firm favorite in his own semifinal with Ferrer- on this same grand stage.
It has often been the case, however, that the course of events, in unfolding, will tantalize its observers, dangling the prospect of a particular narrative before us, only to unceremoniously withdraw back into the ether that which it once seemed to promise. Should Federer manage to rally in this match, said course may divert itself towards the path it followed last year, when Federer faced down Andy Murray- who stands as a firm favorite in his own semifinal with Ferrer- on this same grand stage.
January 19, 2011
Australian Open Opens
The first major tennis event of the 2011 season is underway this week in Melbourne Australia, with the bottom half of the draw in action today competing for passage into the third round. All of the top men cruised through the first round, with the likes of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Soderling, Murray, and Roddick- incidentally, the same group I will deem to comprise the top six favorites to win the title, and in roughly that order, for reasons I hope to discuss at greater length in the near future- all winning their opening matches without dropping more than five games. The second round has been somewhat more tumultuous, seeing world's #9 Fernando Verdasco snatch victory from the jaws of defeat after saving three match points in a five-setter against an uncharacteristically nervy Janko Tipsarevic, while Roddick had to face down a couple of set points in a tiebreak against Igor Kunitsyn before he could take over his own second-round contest, and Djokovic has, as I write this, just battled his way to a 7-5 first set over Croatian Ivan Dodig.
Roger Federer will take to the court shortly against Frenchman Gilles Simon in what has the potential to be a very interesting encounter. This is, perhaps, a tricky draw for the world's #2; a former top-10 player who was sideline by injury for much of last season, Simon holds a 2-0 head-to-head record against Federer, and has been in very fine form of late, winning the title at the Sydney warm-up event. That said, it may be fairly pointed out that both of Simon's wins over Federer took place in 2008, in the midst of a relative slump in Federer's level of play, and that each of them came in the form of a highly-improbable comeback on Simon's part from a set-and-a-break down. Moreover, Federer has been positively on fire in recent months, having lost only one match since the 2010 US Open. Nevertheless, I will say that Simon is perhaps the most dangerous "floater" Federer could have drawn for a second-round match; I give him at least a 50% chance at taking a set off Federer today, and perhaps a 10-20% likelihood to pull off the upset.
The preceding could represent an instance of irrational optimism on my part, as I do sorely wish to see Mr. Federer knocked out of the draw. This is not out of any personal ire, mind you, but out of concern for certain other players for whom the Swiss legend has long proven an insurmountable obstacle- most notably my countryman, Mr. Roddick, who is theoretically on course to meet Federer in the quarterfinals. Of note tomorrow, Nadal, Soderling and Murray will all be in action against fairly standard-issue second-round opponents, while another past Federer victim and rooting interest of mine, former Australian Open finalist Marcos Baghdatis, is set to contest a very intriguing match-up against comebacking former US Open champion Juan Martin Del Potro.
I am now off to breathlessly fidget and squirm my way through what will hopefully be a gripping three hours or so of elite skill and athleticism, but hope to speak once more to whomever may be listening, or else to my own personal sounding board, very soon.
Roger Federer will take to the court shortly against Frenchman Gilles Simon in what has the potential to be a very interesting encounter. This is, perhaps, a tricky draw for the world's #2; a former top-10 player who was sideline by injury for much of last season, Simon holds a 2-0 head-to-head record against Federer, and has been in very fine form of late, winning the title at the Sydney warm-up event. That said, it may be fairly pointed out that both of Simon's wins over Federer took place in 2008, in the midst of a relative slump in Federer's level of play, and that each of them came in the form of a highly-improbable comeback on Simon's part from a set-and-a-break down. Moreover, Federer has been positively on fire in recent months, having lost only one match since the 2010 US Open. Nevertheless, I will say that Simon is perhaps the most dangerous "floater" Federer could have drawn for a second-round match; I give him at least a 50% chance at taking a set off Federer today, and perhaps a 10-20% likelihood to pull off the upset.
The preceding could represent an instance of irrational optimism on my part, as I do sorely wish to see Mr. Federer knocked out of the draw. This is not out of any personal ire, mind you, but out of concern for certain other players for whom the Swiss legend has long proven an insurmountable obstacle- most notably my countryman, Mr. Roddick, who is theoretically on course to meet Federer in the quarterfinals. Of note tomorrow, Nadal, Soderling and Murray will all be in action against fairly standard-issue second-round opponents, while another past Federer victim and rooting interest of mine, former Australian Open finalist Marcos Baghdatis, is set to contest a very intriguing match-up against comebacking former US Open champion Juan Martin Del Potro.
I am now off to breathlessly fidget and squirm my way through what will hopefully be a gripping three hours or so of elite skill and athleticism, but hope to speak once more to whomever may be listening, or else to my own personal sounding board, very soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
