Showing posts with label Helen W. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Helen W. Show all posts
Quote For The Day
"Mesmerized by what Courier calls Nadal's 'brutish' style, commen-tators still portray Federer-Nadal matches as beauty versus beast, matador versus bull. But Nadal's devotion to craft belies that caricature. No one can match Federer for artistry, but Nadal has two attributes just as valuable: imagination and the audacity to use it. 'He's by far the smartest player of all,' says seven-time Grand Slam champ Mats Wilander. 'He's not afraid of changing. With a mind like that? There's no limit.'"--S.L Price
Are The Draws Fixed?
by Helen W
This year's Australian Open has again raised this question. To some posters, it appeared that Roger Federer got a cakewalk to the quarters, whereas Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal got a much tougher half. In addition, for reasons that Tennis Australia has not elucidated, contrary to tradition, the bottom half of the men's draw played first. This means that the player who reached the final from the bottom half of the draw would get an extra day of rest in comparison with the player who reached the final from the top half of the draw. The beneficiary of this unexplained break with tradition was the winner of the bottom half of the draw, in this case Roger Federer.
At first glance, it appears ridiculous to claim that there is any bias in the draws. People who even suggest it are likened to those who see black helicopters flitting about and fancy that every microwave oven exerts thought control over its household.
But to dismiss everyone who questions the impartiality of the draws as some kind of nutcase, without even considering some of the questions raised over the years, is tantamount to an ad hominem argument. Naysayers need to at least attempt to answer some of the outstanding questions, and to explain why the people that could answer them, don't.
Here are a few of the draws that make me wonder:
I did an order-of magnitude calculation of the probability of this draw, and arrived at the following figure: You can actually calculate the probability that positions 2 through 6 are filled with qualifiers pretty easily. There are 128 positions to be filled, and 16 qualifiers, so the probability =16/128 * 15/128 * 14/128 * 13/128 * 12/128 = 0.0000153
i.e. 0.0015%
Improbable things do happen, just as probability theory says they must. But if they keep happening, and the same people always seem to wind up the winners, I think it is at least legitimate to question the process.
This year's Australian Open has again raised this question. To some posters, it appeared that Roger Federer got a cakewalk to the quarters, whereas Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal got a much tougher half. In addition, for reasons that Tennis Australia has not elucidated, contrary to tradition, the bottom half of the men's draw played first. This means that the player who reached the final from the bottom half of the draw would get an extra day of rest in comparison with the player who reached the final from the top half of the draw. The beneficiary of this unexplained break with tradition was the winner of the bottom half of the draw, in this case Roger Federer.
At first glance, it appears ridiculous to claim that there is any bias in the draws. People who even suggest it are likened to those who see black helicopters flitting about and fancy that every microwave oven exerts thought control over its household.
But to dismiss everyone who questions the impartiality of the draws as some kind of nutcase, without even considering some of the questions raised over the years, is tantamount to an ad hominem argument. Naysayers need to at least attempt to answer some of the outstanding questions, and to explain why the people that could answer them, don't.
Here are a few of the draws that make me wonder:
1. US Open 2007 Women's & Men's Draws
Many tennis followers questioned this draw. WTA "Golden Girl" Maria Sharapova was in the bottom half of the draw, and her stiffest competition was Svetlana Kuznetsova and Nadia Petrova.
From The NY Times Patrick McEnroe, the tennis analyst and Davis Cup captain, said he picked six players capable of winning the women’s tournament. “And out of those six,” he said, “five are on the top half of the draw.” These included Justine Henin, Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Jelena Jankovic and Ana Ivanovic.
On the Men's side, here was Roger's draw, (see Straight From The Horse's Mouth: US Open Draws ):
- Federer, Roger (1)
- Qualifier
- Qualifier
- Qualifier
- Qualifier
- Qualifier
- WC: Isner, John
- ____
I did an order-of magnitude calculation of the probability of this draw, and arrived at the following figure: You can actually calculate the probability that positions 2 through 6 are filled with qualifiers pretty easily. There are 128 positions to be filled, and 16 qualifiers, so the probability =16/128 * 15/128 * 14/128 * 13/128 * 12/128 = 0.0000153
i.e. 0.0015%
Improbable things do happen, just as probability theory says they must. But if they keep happening, and the same people always seem to wind up the winners, I think it is at least legitimate to question the process.
2. Wimbledon 2007 Men's Scheduling
Most tennis buffs will remember this Wimbledon as the Wimby with the worst rain ever. Again, you can read about it on this blog. I'm not going to repeat everything that was said, but it certainly felt that most of Roger's competition was "thrown under a bus" in order for the AELTC to maintain its schedule. And one other item received not a word of explanation: When Rafa was playing catch-up because of all the rain delays he suffered, he was relegated to Court 2 (no Hawkeye) instead of Court 1, even though the match on Court 1 was a lower seed. The beneficiary of this process was, again, Roger Federer.
Roger was also the beneficiary of the "emergency" scheduling due to hurricane conditions at last year's US Open.
If you do a few Google searches on these issues, you will find a lot of thoughtful people asking the same questions.
When this kind of stuff happens, and people ask, Why? and they don't get any answers -- what's your explanation?
Denver or Bust
After a four-hour delay in Chicago due to engine trouble, I finally arrived safely in Denver in the wee hours of the morning. I'll be blogging about the convention on my other blog throughout the week. My first post is here. Unfortunately I can't be in two places and the same time and won't get to see much of the first week of the US Open.
Savannah, MadProfessah, Helen W, and Tangerine will hold down the fort throughout the first week. Enjoy the final Slam and I'll check in from the Democratic National Convention whenever I can!
Photo of the Day
Albert Costa, Feliciano Lopez, and Rafael Nadal celebrating Spain's Euro 2008 win. Yes there was no champagne!
Winners & Errors
by Helen W
Herewith a highly-personal and eclectic review of the Wimbledon Week 1 men's draw.
Winners
Naturally Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal head the list, but I'd like to highlight some of the lesser-known players or unexpected standouts. But before I do, mention must also go to Andy Murray and Richard Gasquet -- are they finally going to play up to their talent?
Andreas Beck
Yes, the 22-year-old lefty qualifier lost in the first round. But his opponent, in his first-ever Slam match, was no less than Rafa. He lost in 3 tight sets 6-4, 6-4, 7-6 and stood tough for the entire match, belying his 122 ranking.
Ernests Gulbis
Who is Ernests Gulbis? Almost everyone believes that he is a future top-ten player. In losing to Rafa (7-5, 2-6, 6-7, 3-6) he became the first player to take a set off him in since heaven knows when. And like Beck before him, he rose to the occasion, playing great tennis.
Bobby Reynolds
No American man made it to week 2, but 26-year-old journeyman Bobby Reynolds, currently ranked 102, was the only one who made it into the third round, before going down to Feliciano Lopez 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4.
Nicolas Kiefer
I used to dislike Kiefer as a player who would do anything to win, including cheat. See this article for an account of an ugly racket-throwing incident in a match against Sebastian Grosjean. But after the latest of his numerous injuries, Kiefer seems to have had an epiphany, and has relinquished his win-at-all-costs attitude and replaced it with a more generous outlook. These are the kinds of stories that always warm my heart.
Anyway, Kiefer also went down to Nadal in straights 7-6, 6-2, 6-3 but showed his amazing shotmaking in the tight first set. In the third , down 5-0, he raised his hands in mock celebration when he finally held his serve, then electrified the crowd by breaking Rafa (for the first time in the match) in the next game. He held his next serve before Rafa slammed the door and left the court, happy that he had managed to complete his match before dark and could now get football finally out of his head on Sunday.
Rainer Schuettler
Remember him? At age 32 he is the oldest man left in the draw. Up until Wimbledon his record for the year is 4 - 13 (ouch). But in 2003, he advanced to his first career slam final at the Aussie open (lost to Agassi), and finished the year ranked 6 in the world. In 2004 he was briefly ranked 5, after which his ranking declined and has never recovered. His last final was Monte Carlo in 2004. His next opponent is Janko Tipsarevic, so I predict that his run at Wimby will end there, but congrats to the veteran for getting into week 2.
Marat Safin
Remember him? Year after year we hope that his life as a headcase is finally behind him. Will this be the year? Well, for the first time in yonks, by his own admission, he has won 2 matches in a row. Perhaps the recent successes of little sis have inspired him? He has told the press that he has been training very hard to get back into top form.
His first surprise at Wimbledon, and it was a shocker, was taking out Novak Djokovic in straights (6-4 7-6 6-2) in the second round. Some fans were unkind enough to suggest to Djokoer that he should first win, then talk. Others commented on how lucky Roger was, with Marat doing the job of taking out his biggest threat for him.
But I digress. Was Marat's win just a fluke? Would he go back to headcaseland in the very next match? Happily, no. He played an enthralling match against Andreas Seppi last Friday (one of the best days of tennis I can remember), where as darkness fell he eventually prevailed 7-6, 3-6, 7-6, 6-4. A fantastic effort by both players -- no-one lost this match, Marat won it against a worthy opponent who gave his best.
Here's hoping!
Andreas Seppi
See above. This year the 24-year-old righty is ranked 30 in the world, and has reached the semis in Hamburg and the quarters at Nottingham.
Janko Tipsarevic
I'm sure most tennisheads remember Tipsy taking Roger to 5 sets at the Australian Open. Well, now we know for sure that that was not a fluke -- he took out Roddick 6-7, 7-5, 6-4, 7-6 in the second round on Centre Court Wimbledon, at the same time as Schuettler was taking out James Blake 6-3, 6-7, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4. He then proceeded to take out Dmitry Tursunov in straights, and his next match is against Schuettler, so I predict he will make the quarters.
Mario Ancic
Finally completely over his case of mono, and sporting his new law degree, Ancic played a thrilling match against David Ferrer, where he eventually prevailed 6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 7-6 on Centre Court on the same day as Marat played Seppi. And again, it was a match of the highest calibre, which was won, not lost.
Honourable Mentions
Besides Murray and Gasquet, the following players also deserve a nod:
Errors
Errors don't get pix. Any guesses?
Andy Roddick
Surprise! (Not). Where has his forehand gone? Oh never mind.
James Blake
Surprise! (Not). Just as Roddick's play desolated Craig & Tangerine, James's play desolated me. I adore Blake, for taking sportsmanship to another level. But the heartbreak! Oh never mind.
Novak Djokovic
For most of us, this was definitely a surprise, and for many of us, a happy one. Maybe he won't be No. 1 in the world at the end of the year, as so many of his fawning followers (JMac is that you?) have so confidently predicted.
Marin Cilic
Herewith a highly-personal and eclectic review of the Wimbledon Week 1 men's draw.
Winners
Naturally Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal head the list, but I'd like to highlight some of the lesser-known players or unexpected standouts. But before I do, mention must also go to Andy Murray and Richard Gasquet -- are they finally going to play up to their talent?
Andreas Beck
Yes, the 22-year-old lefty qualifier lost in the first round. But his opponent, in his first-ever Slam match, was no less than Rafa. He lost in 3 tight sets 6-4, 6-4, 7-6 and stood tough for the entire match, belying his 122 ranking.
Ernests Gulbis
Who is Ernests Gulbis? Almost everyone believes that he is a future top-ten player. In losing to Rafa (7-5, 2-6, 6-7, 3-6) he became the first player to take a set off him in since heaven knows when. And like Beck before him, he rose to the occasion, playing great tennis.
Bobby Reynolds
No American man made it to week 2, but 26-year-old journeyman Bobby Reynolds, currently ranked 102, was the only one who made it into the third round, before going down to Feliciano Lopez 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4.
Nicolas Kiefer
I used to dislike Kiefer as a player who would do anything to win, including cheat. See this article for an account of an ugly racket-throwing incident in a match against Sebastian Grosjean. But after the latest of his numerous injuries, Kiefer seems to have had an epiphany, and has relinquished his win-at-all-costs attitude and replaced it with a more generous outlook. These are the kinds of stories that always warm my heart.
Anyway, Kiefer also went down to Nadal in straights 7-6, 6-2, 6-3 but showed his amazing shotmaking in the tight first set. In the third , down 5-0, he raised his hands in mock celebration when he finally held his serve, then electrified the crowd by breaking Rafa (for the first time in the match) in the next game. He held his next serve before Rafa slammed the door and left the court, happy that he had managed to complete his match before dark and could now get football finally out of his head on Sunday.
Rainer Schuettler
Remember him? At age 32 he is the oldest man left in the draw. Up until Wimbledon his record for the year is 4 - 13 (ouch). But in 2003, he advanced to his first career slam final at the Aussie open (lost to Agassi), and finished the year ranked 6 in the world. In 2004 he was briefly ranked 5, after which his ranking declined and has never recovered. His last final was Monte Carlo in 2004. His next opponent is Janko Tipsarevic, so I predict that his run at Wimby will end there, but congrats to the veteran for getting into week 2.
Marat Safin
Remember him? Year after year we hope that his life as a headcase is finally behind him. Will this be the year? Well, for the first time in yonks, by his own admission, he has won 2 matches in a row. Perhaps the recent successes of little sis have inspired him? He has told the press that he has been training very hard to get back into top form.
His first surprise at Wimbledon, and it was a shocker, was taking out Novak Djokovic in straights (6-4 7-6 6-2) in the second round. Some fans were unkind enough to suggest to Djokoer that he should first win, then talk. Others commented on how lucky Roger was, with Marat doing the job of taking out his biggest threat for him.
But I digress. Was Marat's win just a fluke? Would he go back to headcaseland in the very next match? Happily, no. He played an enthralling match against Andreas Seppi last Friday (one of the best days of tennis I can remember), where as darkness fell he eventually prevailed 7-6, 3-6, 7-6, 6-4. A fantastic effort by both players -- no-one lost this match, Marat won it against a worthy opponent who gave his best.
Here's hoping!
Andreas Seppi
See above. This year the 24-year-old righty is ranked 30 in the world, and has reached the semis in Hamburg and the quarters at Nottingham.
Janko Tipsarevic
I'm sure most tennisheads remember Tipsy taking Roger to 5 sets at the Australian Open. Well, now we know for sure that that was not a fluke -- he took out Roddick 6-7, 7-5, 6-4, 7-6 in the second round on Centre Court Wimbledon, at the same time as Schuettler was taking out James Blake 6-3, 6-7, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4. He then proceeded to take out Dmitry Tursunov in straights, and his next match is against Schuettler, so I predict he will make the quarters.
Mario Ancic
Finally completely over his case of mono, and sporting his new law degree, Ancic played a thrilling match against David Ferrer, where he eventually prevailed 6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 7-6 on Centre Court on the same day as Marat played Seppi. And again, it was a match of the highest calibre, which was won, not lost.
Honourable Mentions
Besides Murray and Gasquet, the following players also deserve a nod:
- Marcos Baghdatis
He of the electrifying smile has reached the fourth round. However, he has had a relatively easy draw so far. Is he back in form? His next match is against Feli, and I predict he will make it to the quarters. - Marin Cilic
At 19 years old, Croation Marin Cilic is the youngest player left in the draw. His next match is against Arnaud Clement (at age 31, the second-oldest player left in the draw), and I predict he too will make it to the quarters. - Arnaud Clement
Currently ranked 145, Clement has taken out 3 higher-ranked players (Jonas Bjorkam, 128; Benjamin Becker, 116; Jurgen Melzer, 72) to reach the 4th round. - Fabrice Santoro
This is probably the last Wimbledon for The Magician. He requested, and was granted, the honour of playing on Centre Court for the first (and last) time at Wimby, where he entertained us all going down in straight sets (6-3 6-4 7-6) to Andy Murray in his first-round match. (He and doubles partner Marc Gicquel also went down in their first-round match to Max Mirnyi & Jamie Murray.)
Errors
Errors don't get pix. Any guesses?
Andy Roddick
Surprise! (Not). Where has his forehand gone? Oh never mind.
James Blake
Surprise! (Not). Just as Roddick's play desolated Craig & Tangerine, James's play desolated me. I adore Blake, for taking sportsmanship to another level. But the heartbreak! Oh never mind.
Novak Djokovic
For most of us, this was definitely a surprise, and for many of us, a happy one. Maybe he won't be No. 1 in the world at the end of the year, as so many of his fawning followers (JMac is that you?) have so confidently predicted.
Marin Cilic
I Wanted to be Jesse Owens
The discussion in Helen W's Roland Garros Postmorten remains on my mind. That's how good it is. She asked what brings a person to a player, pointing out Mad Professah's assertion that those of us who play tennis competitively probably sympathize more with Raja, while those of us who don't probably identify more with Rafa.
I respect them both, though I don't count myself as a fan of either.
I don't play tennis very well. I certainly don't play it competitively. Many folks who have seen me hit a tennis ball would say I don't play tennis at all. I wouldn't disagree.
But for 12 years, starting at age 7, I ran track. Was pretty good, too. Held a national record in the 220 yard dash for a season. I also excelled in the long jump and triple jump.
I was an extremely competitive athlete. I played softball, football, basketball, even swam on my high-school team. But my heart belonged to athletics.
I wanted to be Jesse Owens.
But when I grew too fast one summer, when the extreme pain of the Osgood-Slaughters disease that made my knees feel as though they had separated in their joint, I lost much of my speed and had to settle for hurdles to remain competitive as a sprinter.
I did all of this on a deformed right foot that caused me to feel as though I had sprained my ankle after every practice, after every meet. I would limp home in severe pain. The pediatrician told my parents there was no remedy for my ankle pain short of surgery. But since the deformity was the result of the fusion of the navicular and cuboid bones, even that probably wouldn't help. All I could do was ice it down, tape it up, and get back on the track for the next practice, the next meet.
Or, quit sports altogether.
That wasn't an option.
I enjoy watching any athlete in any sport at the top of his/her game. That includes Roger Federer, whom I simply do not like.
My love for Serena Williams (a narcissist who is growing up) and Andy Roddick (a brat who is growing up) has mostly to do with the fact that these were the two players who brought me back to tennis after not following the sport closely for years.
It certainly helped that I like the way they play tennis. The way they serve. Bludgeon their forehands. How they don't take their gifts for granted but continue to work to improve their weaknesses. The way they have responded to career setbacks, including injury and tragedy, in Serena's case, and the emergence of a player at the height of his career who has (so far) kept him from achieving one of his biggest dreams, in Andy's case. The way they fight to the finish line, win or lose. How they keep coming back, despite what their naysayers say.
They ice down their ankles, tape them up, and get back on the court to face the next challenge.
Comment of the Weekend: Tangerine's Take
In the many insightful comments about the men's final, this one by tangerine, one of our new contributors, stands out (emphasis mine):
Roger was beat from the first break in the first game of the first set. Even though 90% of the crowd was trying to will him on Roger never gave the appearance of really being into the match, a kind of resignation from him, which is shocking. He knows how difficult it is to beat Rafa on this clay but I don't think I've ever seen him give up so quickly before either.
"This is the kind of final that results from lopsided cupcake draws."
There is some truth to this. Cupcake draws for top players can actually be a hindrance (see Sharapova at last year's USO for another example). When they finally face a dangerous opponent several matches later they simply aren't prepared for the onslaught.
"Not the best match to watch for a tennis fan like me...but it was one of Nadal's best performances..."
I've seen many comments like this one and it annoys me. I seem to recall far too many people who were utterly thrilled with Roger's virtuoso performance at [Australian Open] last year, they couldn't get enough of it, and wanted to watch his perfect once-in-lifetime performance over and over again to revel in his gloriousness. But now that it's Rafa playing the role of genius maestro and Roger the victim, suddenly the lopsided matches aren't as much fun to watch, are they?
Roger's trials and tribulations at Roland Garros vs Nadal are parallel to Roddick's vs Federer. Even the ridiculous beatdown is almost exactly the same one Roger handed to Roddick at AO last year, and both losses followed on the heels of their public statements that they were "closing the gap". Both had gone into their matches with the media hyping a potential breakthrough, only to end up losing badly in a lopsided match. Even Rafa's alien lifeform playing in this final was similar to how Roger played in the 2007 AO semi.
It was indeed a virtuoso performance. Credit to Rafa, his subdued celebration was appropriate. There was no need to rub it in Roger's face. It's bad enough Roger had to suffer through the entire match with Borg witnessing the clinical deconstruction of a future GOAT, then stand through the long trophy ceremony holding that ugly cookie sheet trophy, then pose through the photo session with a pasted-on smile, and then deal with the insulting press corps afterwards who want to know what's wrong with you, why can't you beat Nadal, and is this the beginning of the end of your career? The shoe's on the other foot now and it's feeling pretty damn tight.
I was speechless for much of the day on Sunday, and didn't find my voice until after I read this comment.
I wish I had written it.
Roland Garros Postmortem
by Helen W
Routed. Thrashed. Crushed. Devastated. Roughed up. Hiding of his Life. Humiliated. Demolished. Humbled. Thumped. Annihilated. Overwhelmed. Agony for Federer. Destroyed. Drubbing. Clobbered. Steamrolled. Blown Away. Smashed. Taken apart.
These are the adjectives tennis writers are using to try to describe the men’s French Open Final.
Just how true are they?
Before the match, Roger had this to say:
From Greg Garber, at ESPN
From Reuters UK
Meanwhile, what was Rafa doing?
From Neil Harman in the Times OnLine
What happened?
From Paul Newman in The Independent
Christopher Clary in the International Herald Tribune thinks that there is NO solution to Rafa on clay.
Again, from Neil Harman (cite above):
To his everlasting credit, Roger had this to say about Rafa’s play (from Paul Newman’s article, cited above):
What does the future hold?
According to Barry Flatman, Times Online:
It is difficult for me to believe that this match will not have a lasting effect on Federer’s play. To my mind, he has been prematurely concerned by his place in tennis history. This weakness of his has been amplified a thousand times by the media, and the ceaseless discussions on the GOAT. Contrast Federer to Nadal’s steadfast refusal to be drawn into comparisons with tennis legends, most recently Borg.
Nevertheless, Roger is gamely trying to take away any positives he can find.
From Reuters:
From BBC Sports
Routed. Thrashed. Crushed. Devastated. Roughed up. Hiding of his Life. Humiliated. Demolished. Humbled. Thumped. Annihilated. Overwhelmed. Agony for Federer. Destroyed. Drubbing. Clobbered. Steamrolled. Blown Away. Smashed. Taken apart.
These are the adjectives tennis writers are using to try to describe the men’s French Open Final.
Just how true are they?
- No world No. 1 has ever had such a poor result in a Slam.
- The defeat was Roger Federer's most lopsided loss in any Grand Slam match in his career and marked the fewest games he has won in any match - best-of-three or best-of-five sets - since losing by 6-2, 6-1 to David Nalbandian in the second round in Monte-Carlo in 2002.
- It was the second-most lopsided French Open final ever after that of 1977 when Brian Gottfried won just three games off Guillermo Vilas.
- Rafael Nadal won 18 of 22 games against the player many feel will go down as the best in history. It was the fewest number of games won by a No. 1 seed in any Grand Slam final in the four decades of the Open era. Federer had 11 service games and won only three.
- At 1hr 48min this was the shortest slam final since Bjorn Borg beat Vitas Gerulaitis in 1980, which was just two minutes quicker.
- Federer is the only player in Grand Slam history to lose to the same player in three consecutive finals.
Before the match, Roger had this to say:
From Greg Garber, at ESPN
All through the clay-court season, Federer talked about the improvements in his game -- new schedule, new coach, new attitude toward drop shots, etc. But in the end, Nadal improved even more.
"Of course I believe very strongly this is my year."
"I just have to keep doing what I've been doing against Rafa," Federer said. "I feel better every year. It's no joke."
From Reuters UK
Federer, looking to complete a career grand slam, had swaggered on to court with great expectations of narrowing his lopsided 1-8 claycourt record against Nadal.
On the eve of the final, he also chose to remind everyone that: "So far I've never lost (to Rafa here) in three sets."
Those words would come back to haunt him just 24 hours later.
Meanwhile, what was Rafa doing?
From Neil Harman in the Times OnLine
It was a wonder to watch Nadal prepare for this annihilation with Carlos Costa, his agent, guarding one side of the opposite court and Toni, his uncle and coach, stationed in the other. They could hardly get a ball back across the net between them.
What happened?
From Paul Newman in The Independent
Over the last two months Nadal has taken his game to a new level. We knew already about his thunderous forehand, biting topspin and wonderful athleticism, but the improvements to his serve, returns and backhand slice and a new-found aggression have added greater depth to his play.
(...)
In the past Federer has taken on Nadal at his own game here by slugging it out from the baseline. This time the world's second best clay-court player tried a different approach, going for his shots even more than usual and attacking the net when he could. With Nadal playing some points from well behind the baseline, Federer clearly thought he could catch him out with stop volleys and drop shots.
The theory sounded fine, but the reality turned out to be a very different matter. The stop volleys worked briefly in the second set, but for the most part Federer was a sitting target when he ventured forward. Approaches that were marginally short or lacking in pace were punished by thunderous passing shots and even when Nadal was stretched the Spaniard responded with beautifully judged lobs.
Under pressure, Federer's game started to fall apart. His forehand, usually his most potent weapon, started to misfire, drop shots fell short, routine volleys were netted and his approaches became reckless. One attempt to chip-and-charge a second serve was punished by a contemptuous passing shot and another lunge towards the net left Federer looking like a novice as Nadal lobbed him with ease.
Christopher Clary in the International Herald Tribune thinks that there is NO solution to Rafa on clay.
So what was Roger Federer to do with the elusive French Open trophy once again in sight and Rafael Nadal looming larger than ever across the net?
Stay back and rally? Definitely not. Nadal was too quick, too powerful and too steady, with unforced errors creeping in as rarely as sunshine during this tournament.
Why not attack the net? More sensible indeed, yet Nadal's dipping passing shots were so precise, so forceful that they kept requiring the swooping Swiss to dig balls out of the dirt or twist his neck - smoothly, of course - to watch a winner land on the sideline or the baseline.
No, the answer for the millions of Federer fans worldwide who would like nothing better than for their man to win the only Grand Slam singles title he lacks is that there was no solution available to Federer in his current state of form and Nadal's current state of grace.
Again, from Neil Harman (cite above):
Once more, as he marched out, the crowd roared the louder for Federer, their desperation for him to win this cherished title made explicit. At that moment, one recalled the conversation with him on Friday evening and the conviction with which he said that he finally believed he had Nadal's measure. Based on what? Not his displays in the previous rounds, when he had dropped sets to Gaël Monfils, Fernando González and Albert Montañés and been pushed all the way by Julien Benneteau. Was he serious, or was it, more likely, simply wishful thinking?
By its shattering close, people did not know where to look as Nadal, the behemoth from Majorca, completed a 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 victory over Roger Federer, the worst performance by a world No 1, in terms of games won, in a grand-slam tournament final.
To his everlasting credit, Roger had this to say about Rafa’s play (from Paul Newman’s article, cited above):
"He played an excellent match," Federer said. "He hardly made any unforced errors and when he's on the attack he's lethal. On the defence he played some unbelievable shots. I can only praise him for the level of play he's had for the last two weeks and today again under pressure. It's not like it's easy for him. He handles it very well. To come up with a performance like this under pressure shows what a great champion he is."
What does the future hold?
According to Barry Flatman, Times Online:
Rafael Nadal claims title of 'The Greatest'
Many expert judges, with Bjorn Borg paramount, could not have been more wrong. Plenty of others had their worst fears confirmed. The signs previously were ominous and Rafael Nadal produced probably the most emphatic performance of his tennis career to grind the morale of Roger Federer so deep into the clay of Roland Garros that it might never recover.
(...)
But what now for Federer? Never before has he been subjected to such personal torment with the whole of the tennis world watching. This was the title he craved more than any other. This was the opponent he knew he had to overcome. This was the match he had been thinking about for exactly a year since losing last year’s final. This was the tactical dilemma that he had been trying so desperately to solve. Could things have honestly turned out worse?
For Nadal this was a stunning achievement, yet it might only turn out to be a staging post in a great journey that takes him to many, many more triumphs in the game. For Federer it was his own worst nightmare and the aftermath over the next few months will be intriguing to behold.
It is difficult for me to believe that this match will not have a lasting effect on Federer’s play. To my mind, he has been prematurely concerned by his place in tennis history. This weakness of his has been amplified a thousand times by the media, and the ceaseless discussions on the GOAT. Contrast Federer to Nadal’s steadfast refusal to be drawn into comparisons with tennis legends, most recently Borg.
Nevertheless, Roger is gamely trying to take away any positives he can find.
From Reuters:
"I still definitely feel very strong about my chances and being the big favourite going into grass," said Federer, who will start his grasscourt season at the Halle tournament which begins on Monday.
"It's so far away, grass and clay, that losing in four or five (sets) or no chance like today, I don't think it has a big effect on me mentally."
From BBC Sports
Roger Federer insists he remains a strong favourite for Wimbledon despite being thrashed by Rafael Nadal in the French Open final.Surely this match will remain with Federer a long time, despite his public posturing.
The world number one will head to London looking for a sixth straight Wimbledon title after his 6-1 6-3 6-0 defeat by Nadal at Roland Garros.
"I haven't lost on grass for five years now, six years?" said the 26-year-old.
"I still definitely feel very strong about my chances and being the big favourite going
into grass."
He added: "You know, it's so far away, grass and clay, that losing in four or five or no chance like today, I don't think it has a big effect on me mentally.
"I mean, I've beaten Rafa 6-0 in a set. I've beaten him in finals before. I've beaten him also quite comfortably on previous occasions. Didn't really give me the edge on clay against him, you know."
Who is Ernests Gulbis?
by Helen W, new contributor
Gulbis who? Who the heck is Ernests Gulbis?
Around the boards a lot of folk are wondering where this guy sprung from.
Ernests Gulbis is only 19-years-old (birthdate Aug 30, 1988) and was born and currently resides in Latvia. Like Rafael Nadal, he played very few ITF junior events, electing instead to turn pro in 2004. Currently his ranking is No. 80 although that will undoubtedly spike on Monday with his quarterfinal performance at Roland Garros.
He first got my attention at last year’s US Open where he survived until the fourth round. Along the way, he took out No. 30 seed Potito Starace in straight sets, Michael Berrer in straight sets, and then No. 8 seed Tommy Robredo in straight sets 6-1, 6-3, 6-2 before losing in the fourth round to No. 17 seed Carlos Moya 5-7, 2-6, 7-6, 4-6. I was impressed and I'm still surprised how little anyone knows about him.
Here’s a blog entry describing him at the US Open 2007 that illustrates his charm.
He is the first tennis player from Latvia -- land of 2.2 million people -- to be ranked in the top 100, and the first to make the quarterfinals of a Slam. “Tennis in Latvia has never been a popular sport but once I got into the top 100 the interest grew - and after I did well at the US Open last year the courts started to get booked up,” said Gulbis. “Now, if I go to practise at home, I can't find one. Our federation is gradually getting bigger sponsors to help some of the younger players but it is tough for them.”
After taking out No. 7 seed James Blake and Frenchman Michael Llodra, he finally bowed out of Roland Garros today to No. 3 seed Novak Djokovic in three tight sets.
Like Djokovic, Gulbis spent time in his youth at the Niki Pilic Academy in Germany where the two of them became friends.
Here’s a fan website, which is the only website dedicated to him that I could find.
Maybe that will change soon.
Related Articles
Latvia's Ernests Gulbis is going places
::
[Editor's note: We picked Gulbis as one of the players to watch for 2008. We also gave him an honorable mention nod as best ATP newcomer in the Second Annual Gonad Awards.]
Gulbis who? Who the heck is Ernests Gulbis?
Around the boards a lot of folk are wondering where this guy sprung from.
Ernests Gulbis is only 19-years-old (birthdate Aug 30, 1988) and was born and currently resides in Latvia. Like Rafael Nadal, he played very few ITF junior events, electing instead to turn pro in 2004. Currently his ranking is No. 80 although that will undoubtedly spike on Monday with his quarterfinal performance at Roland Garros.
He first got my attention at last year’s US Open where he survived until the fourth round. Along the way, he took out No. 30 seed Potito Starace in straight sets, Michael Berrer in straight sets, and then No. 8 seed Tommy Robredo in straight sets 6-1, 6-3, 6-2 before losing in the fourth round to No. 17 seed Carlos Moya 5-7, 2-6, 7-6, 4-6. I was impressed and I'm still surprised how little anyone knows about him.
Here’s a blog entry describing him at the US Open 2007 that illustrates his charm.
He is the first tennis player from Latvia -- land of 2.2 million people -- to be ranked in the top 100, and the first to make the quarterfinals of a Slam. “Tennis in Latvia has never been a popular sport but once I got into the top 100 the interest grew - and after I did well at the US Open last year the courts started to get booked up,” said Gulbis. “Now, if I go to practise at home, I can't find one. Our federation is gradually getting bigger sponsors to help some of the younger players but it is tough for them.”
After taking out No. 7 seed James Blake and Frenchman Michael Llodra, he finally bowed out of Roland Garros today to No. 3 seed Novak Djokovic in three tight sets.
Like Djokovic, Gulbis spent time in his youth at the Niki Pilic Academy in Germany where the two of them became friends.
Here’s a fan website, which is the only website dedicated to him that I could find.
Maybe that will change soon.
Related Articles
Latvia's Ernests Gulbis is going places
::
[Editor's note: We picked Gulbis as one of the players to watch for 2008. We also gave him an honorable mention nod as best ATP newcomer in the Second Annual Gonad Awards.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)