The Spin

2009-02-01T12:47:00.003-05:00

FEDERER HASN'T DONE IT. Nor did Sampras. McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Becker and Edberg also never did. Laver and his predecessors didn't have the chance to do it. Rafael Nadal joins Jimmy Connors, Mats Wilander and Andre Agassi as the only male players to have completed the Surface Slam, winning major titles on grass, clay and hard courts.

(Apologies to my pal Mats -- I forgot about his his grass-court Australian Open titles for a minute there.)

2008-04-26T22:32:00.001-04:00

CHICKENSHIT. I didn't catch the press conference, but I'm sure Djokovic was dominating as he was losing and quitting.

2007-07-08T22:28:00.000-04:00

ROGER PULLED IT OUT for a fifth straight Wimbledon title, despite all the yelling and cursing directed at him from our living room. Fandom tends to be depicted in happy and sunny terms, when really to be a fan is to be the harshest critic imaginable, and the most pessimistic observer. "AGAIN with the shanked backhand" is the current refrain from this Federer fan who was once an Agassi fan of the "AGAIN with the stupid drop shot" variety.

Many years before that, at the start of my tennis-watching career, I was a suffering Borg fan, and the Federer-Nadal match brought back memories of all those narrow escapes, sometimes against unlikely would-be conquerors -- Mark Edmondson in the 1977 second round (3-6, 7-9, 6-2, 6-4, 6-1), Victor Amaya in the 1978 first round (8-9, 6-1, 1-6, 6-3, 6-3) and Vijay Amritraj in the 1979 second round (2-6, 6-4, 4-6, 7-6, 6-2). Add the less-unlikely five-setters against Gerulaitis, Connors, Tanner and McEnroe and you have seven five-setters in Borg's five consecutive championship runs, compared with just now this one to cap Federer's.

It wasn't long ago that we were wondering whether Rafael Nadal could win matches on grass, let alone Grand Slam titles, but now he's been the runner-up two years running, taking a set a year ago and two sets this year from the man we've been calling the best grass-courter of all time. Borg comes to mind again as I look at Nadal's relative prowess on the surfaces, and the two have pretty much the same profile: nearly unbeatable on clay, very good on slow hard courts and grass, and good but very much human on faster hard courts and indoor surfaces.

The NBC commentators were likening Nadal and Borg in terms of resolve and athleticism, which is true to a point, but really Borg was athletically more like Federer -- lithe and quick, and strong in a wiry way, not strong-like-bull. Vilas and Muster are the predecessors when it comes to Nadal's brand of strength. Temperamentally, too, Borg is more like Federer -- an artist who could be prone to sulking when things weren't going well. Nadal (sorry, Andy) is like Connors with his dog-with-a-bone pursuit of victory.

I'll put Nadal in the Borg camp when it comes to tactical flexibility. The grass (and I think the Wimbledon people stumbled upon some nearly ideal playing conditions for the spectators with whatever they did in terms of landscaping and balls, combined with weather, this year) emboldens Rafa, making him serve harder and come forward more and run around the forehand less and built on his creativity with the slice off both sides. Federer is one creative shotmaker, but as I saw him stubbornly try to drive backhand after backhand, both at Wimbledon and at Roland Garros, I thought of Jimmy Connors and his Achilles heel on the forehand side. With all the easier-said-than-done caveats, I have to think using the slice as his primary tool off the backhand side would have made life easier for Federer on multiple fronts: it's harder for Nadal to handle, especially on grass; it's less likely Federer will miss it; it gives the topspin drive an element of surprise; and it provides disguise to open doors for the drop shot. I've heard it said that Fed disdains the dropper, but it's hard to see why. Until a year or two ago he was effectively using a version I've never seen another player pull off: the power drop shot, executed not so much with touch as with an aggressive dose of underspin.

Federer came pretty close to giving away his streak in a fit of pique. I'll give him credit for being consistent -- he stated his objections to electronic challenges early on -- but I think about HawkEye what I think about any sort of electronic line calling: It's more accurate than humans will ever be, and once it's in place you just have to accept that what it is is what it is. Until a player can prove that he or she can judge where his or her shots will land within 3 millimeters, he or she should just shut up and accept the final decision. My bigger problem with HawkEye is its ascendancy to equal billing with the goddamn players. This is about fairness; it's not about manufacturing an audience-participation stunt to resuscitate a moribund sport. I'm with Mary Carillo: Why wouldn't we want all the calls to be right? Especially when clay-court events are still allowing unlimited 45-second umpire-gets-out-of-chair checks of marks (which are imprecise anyway, once a ball has skidded off a line), what's the problem with unlimited 0.5-second video reviews? (Keep in mind that the 15-second version you're now seeing are elongated for the aforementioned audience-participation angle.) And I've already stated my aesthetic objection to those screens taking over the pristine landscape of the Wimbledon show courts.

Nadal came pretty close to making the case for Federer no longer being No. 1, especially given that Roger has U.S. Open and Masters Cup points to defend. It will be interesting to see whether Rafa can finally turn in an impressive performance at Flushing Meadows (see above about fast hard courts). This performance cements the fact that Nadal is very, very unfortunate to have come along during Federer's time. Look at lull-in-the-game placeholder number ones such as Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, Gustavo Kuerten, Marat Safin, Patrick Rafter, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Carlos Moya, Marcelo Rios and Thomas Muster, and you're looking at guys with nowhere near Nadal's court cred. Having said all that, I have to say: I don't like Rafael Nadal. I've written about my problem with his diva complex, and the skill of his distant-second-language attempts to explain all that away have just made me more angry. For a guy who doesn't speak English, he is one slick little shit. "Oh, I don't know about the speed of which the speed I play is problem of it is. If someone just say something I get faster, yes? I can has cheeseburger?" I think Nadal is a phenomenal and even revolutionary tennis player, but I also think he's a ass.

For a butt-crack-picking testosterone machine like Nadal, he's also rather dainty about the idea of Robin Soderling or Tomas Berdych daring to look at him during a match. His on-court persona (contrast this to the great Federer's or the great Borg's or even, to some degree, the petulant McEnroe's) is very in-your-face, very uberjock. It's like Andy Roddick's, and Roddick's "I'll tell Jo-Winifred Tsonga to go fuck himself if I want to, thank you very much" presence is a large part of the reason I'll never root for Andy Roddick, along with his Becker-esque artless-brute game. On the other hand, I fall in love with Roddick when I listen to his interviews or press conferences. The guy is just plain honest and articulate and even humble. I wont root for him, but I wouldn't mind having a beer with him.

I have to wonder, though: Is Andy Roddick such a good loser because he is, ultimately, a loser? So much has been expected of him, and he did get to No. 1, but I have to think he was No. 1 because there was an opening at the time, not because he's a guy who otherwise was destined to be No. 1. (See above on placeholder champions.) It's not quite as bad as the "When will [Tim Mayotte/Pam Shriver] ever step up to the top?" crap I had to deal with in the '80s, but it's along the same lines.

I have more Wimbledon-related and tangential thoughts, but enough for now.

2007-07-07T01:24:00.000-04:00

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, we have a special announcement before today's semifinal match between Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic.

Mr. Djokovic, you have surpassed your limit when it comes to ball-bouncing. In fact, you surpassed that limit midway through the first set of your first-round match, but our tally has lagged. And so, for today's match, you will be allowed no pre-service bounces. Not 17 instead of 18, or 12 instead of 13, but none. Do it once and you're disqualified.

Mr. Nadal, you have surpassed your time-between-points limit. And so today you are not allowed a single second between points. The second a point is decided on your serve, you must sprint to the baseline and serve again. And don't even think of bouncing the ball first (see above).

A guy can dream, can't he?

2007-07-06T14:05:00.000-04:00

I DON'T WANT to carry this comparison too far, but you know how your dog or cat is too stupid to realize it's on a loose rug or slippery tile, and every attempt to start running begins with that cartoon-character slipping-in-place bit?

Well, watch Novak Djokovic try to change directions on grass. I'm just sayin' -- I'm no professional athlete, but I know about that little push-down-and-then-off move you have to use on a slippery surface.

I also know that sometimes the ball doesn't bounce precisely where you expect it to. I'm talking to you, Tomas Berdych.

2007-07-04T02:01:00.000-04:00

QUOTES OF THE DAY:

"I say, jolly old chap, is it not better to respect tradition and skip play on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and start play on the other days at 3 p.m., concluding it no later than 4 p.m., than to actually complete the motherfucking tournament?"

-- the Wimbledon committee

"Yo no soy player who is able to play if I do not take cuatro, cinco minutos before the point bouncing the ball and tending to the crack of my ass."

-- Rafael Nadal

2007-07-02T14:46:00.000-04:00

MEMO TO DICK Enberg:

Servers don't serve from the service line. That would be a heck of a foot fault.

2007-06-29T02:33:00.001-04:00

WIMBLEDON, that most visually pleasing of sporting backdrops, is having a bit of an aesthetic crisis this year.

There's the roof thing, which perhaps is unavoidable. In this constructionally transitional year in the move to build a retractable roof, Centre Court, which with its mansard overhang felt more like a cathedral than an athletic venue, is now just another sweat-filled bowl.

BEFORE

PHOTO BY SPIRALZ

AFTER

And then there's the replay thing. I applaud the staid All-England Club for getting onboard with electronic line-call challenges. I applaud it even more for allowing three erroneous challenges, rather than the usual two, before the privilege is cut off (it should be an infinite number, but that's a cross for Mary Carillo and me to bear). But this issue isn't the most important thing in the sport, and there's no reason for a tournament that presents the score in such a subdued and dignified fashion to presnt the minor detail of how many challenges the respective players have remaining with a humongous video screen of tacky player mugshots.

And then, at least for viewers of American television, there's the shame of Sir Paul.

Is there anything that can come to the aesthetic rescue?

Here's hoping.

2006-06-07T14:11:00.000-04:00

FRENCH OPEN NUTCASE ROUNDUP:

Exhibit A: Novak Djokovic. After failing to win a set or even complete three sets, he sits there in the press room and talks about how he played on equal terms with Nadal and how you don't have to do anything special to beat Nadal.

Exhibit B: John McEnroe. For a long time I bought the story about how he yelled at officials purely because he got frustrated that they couldn't do their jobs as well as he did this. The "Rage for Perfection," as Richard Evans titled his Mac bio. Now I learn that others were right: It was all about the gamesmanship. McEnroe admitted as much when he argued with Mary Carillo against using the new line-calling technology to achieve perfection in that area. Mac doesn't give a rat's ass whether the calls are right; he just wants to be able to argue the calls to throw off his opponent. I like the guy in a lot of ways, and he'd be on my short list for the dream dinner party, but he really does have a screw loose. Listen to his commentary and, amid some excellent insight well delivered, you'll hear how every innocuous detail is calculated to rattle the opponent. "Federer's wearing those white shorts again to get inside Nadal's head!"

2006-03-14T01:50:00.000-05:00

WATCHING AGASSI'S HISSY-FIT VICTORY over Rockville, Md.'s own Paul Goldstein and listening to the commentators lament Goldstein's weakness in the face of Agassi's celebrity, I had to think:

Everybody's right.

Agassi had gone off the boil, in Fred Stolle terms, and was headed for defeat when it started raining in Indian Wells. It wasn't raining hard, but it was definitely raining. Ullrich kept testing the court and kept saying it wasn't even remotely slippery. Agassi, who had already received a warning and a point penalty for an obscenity and a very uncharacteristic racket-smash, was an infraction away from default, so it was in very clean language that he told Ullrich to go frig himself.

Agassi was finally persuaded to play, and he proceeded to give away a bunch of points with impatient play against the nothing-but-patient Goldstein. I had said at the outset that, no matter how rusty Agassi was, his pride would not let him, the tennis equivalent of the homecoming king, lose to Goldstein, the tennis equivalent of the audiovisual geek.

Andre seemed to remember this, eventually, and went on a tear of winners and near-winners. At one point it had occurred to me, "Wouldn't it be something if Goldstein fell and hurt himself?" -- and sure enough, Goldstein fell. He didn't hurt himself, but he sure did give Agassi a reason to stop hitting winners and start whining again. This was when things went way wrong, to Tennis Channel commentators John Barrett and "Doug" (Flach? Spreen? I never heard him identified, and I'm still trying to think of what other Dougs there are in tennis). Agassi pulled Goldstein into the argument, and Paul said he wouldn't mind waiting a bit if the rain was "in the back or our minds."

Then came the most hilarious umpire announcement ever. Ullrich: "Ladies and gentlemen, because rain is the in the back of the players' minds, play is suspended."

The players stayed on the court, and there was more discussion, and finally Agassi agreed to play if Goldstein said the rain didn't cause his fall. Goldstein said the rain didn't cause his fall, and play resumed. Goldstein scarcely won another point, and Barrett and "Doug" attributed this to Agassi's mind games.

They're no doubt right that Goldstein, who admitted afterward that he agreed to the stoppage out of respect for Agassi, lost his mental edge. And they're no doubt right that Agassi milked the situation.

What they never mentioned, however, is how it's pretty much gospel that, on a hard court, not a single point is played if anyone is even thinking about rain. I mean, really. How many times have we heard during the French Open that, while hard-court matches stop immediately in a drizzle, you can play on and on on the clay. And it's not as though Agassi isn't a guy who could stand to lose a whole lot with a patch of bad footing, given his back and leg and hip difficulties. Yes, he was a baby. Yes, in a sense he stole the match. But he was right.

2006-01-28T12:04:00.000-05:00

ENNA. EH! What more can be said about Justine Henin's disgraceful bellyache? Peter Bodo reports that Patrick McEnroe said she "pulled a Roberto Duran." She did indeed. Sonny Liston also comes to mind -- quite the resolute punisher when on top, but not willing to see a defeat through to the end.

In other news:

Baghdatis? Told ya!

2006-01-16T11:53:00.000-05:00

A STAR IS BORN, it's tempting to say after watching Bulgarian teenager Tszvetana Pironkova take out Venus Williams, 2-6 6-0 9-7, in the first round of the Australian Open. Then again, we've seen plenty of girls pull upsets and fade into women's tennis's bulging second tier.

Venus and Serena do need to be reminded that being a top player isn't a part-time job. But I saw someting encouraging in Venus's play. She got in trouble by coming to the net, but she came to the net. And kept coming. With so many women hitting such great groundstrokes (add Tszvetana Pironkova to that list, even if you need to use the cut-and-paste function), it would behoove a woman so tall and with such reach to get the heck up there and dare them to hit passing shots. You don't become expert at that style overnight, but this losing effort was a start.

I've said this before, but it's also nice to see a smile and some eye contact in a Williams handshake, after a win or a loss.

2006-01-14T03:29:00.000-05:00

JARKKO NIEMINEN must be doing something right, though I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is.

I first got a good look at the Finn in his ouchy-back victory over Agassi in the first round of last year's French Open. Nieminen's loll-and-roll Andres Gomez style was the perfect one to keep him standing until Andre could no longer stand himself. And then came Wimbledon, where I was amazed that that style won more than a game or two on grass against Henman. And now the Jarkmaster is winning tournaments on Rebound Ace over the hottest players in the world. Sometimes I wonder whether I know anything at all about this game.

2006-01-04T01:18:00.000-05:00

THE NEW YEAR IN TENNIS. Some thoughts on what might be the stories of the year:

Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal seem destined to continue their reign as No. 1 and Distant No. 2. If not for Nadal, Federer would be closing in on that elusive French Open title by now. If not for Federer, Nadal would be picking up some major hard-court titles.

Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt might fall a bit as they press to make a dent in the Federer armor.

Andre Agassi (I hope I'm wrong) seems likely to succumb to injuries and call it quits.

Marcos Baghdatis and Andy Murray are the up-and-coming men to watch. Look for both to end the year in the top 20, if not the top 10.

Martina Hingis has a golden opportunity to restake her claim as a contender for Grand Slam titles amid the chaos that is women's tennis. She's a little shit, but I'll be rooting for her. What a game.

Electronic line calling should become the norm. Look: Even if the fucker is off by a hair on occasion, how about just playing until the damn thing tells you a ball is out? And all this business of regulating challenges is ridiculous. Reviewing a call takes 0.0 seconds. Review every call. Better yet: Get rid of the linespeople and hook up the machine to a beeper. That's where we'll end up eventually.

Doping policy needs to become (a) sane and (b) ruthless. I still don't understand what's going on, but for now, at least in official statements, it appears that the people being suspended are either taking substances shoved down their throat by the ATP (Rusedski) or taking microscopic amounts of innocuous over-the-counter medications that couldn't help their performance even by the gallon jug (every Argentine who has ever picked up a tennis racket). But wait: Why would the Argentines bother? Obviously there's a communication problem. We need a clear voice to go with that stern hand, and then we need that hand to get even sterner. Suspend the hell out of Puerta if it's merited, but then don't go telling me that it was because he accidentally licked a Dristan.

2005-09-09T16:49:00.000-04:00

THIS CAN'T KEEP HAPPENING. As obscene as it was to watch Shuzo Matsuoka writhing in pain unable to accept help, the abuse of the resulting rules is more obscene. I was rooting for Mary Pierce, but she should not have been allowed to fly to Palm Springs for a three-hour spa treatment in the middle of a match.

2005-06-22T11:18:00.000-04:00

DAY 2. Angela Haynes didn't go out there thinking she was fortunate to be playing Serena Williams. I was impressed that she seemed to be pissed to lose, even to a superstar.

Tim Henman made a great comeback, but he had no business being down two sets to Nieminen, who looked lethargic and too clay-courty even on clay courts.

And, in another name game, Llagostera Vives is Llagostera Vives, not Vives. Why the hell do you think the Llagostera is up there, guys?

2005-06-20T15:02:00.000-04:00

WIMBLEDON, Day 1.

Marat Safin showed me for the first time that he could be a Wimbledon champion. Facing Paradorn Srichaphan in what was not a kind first-round draw, the often moody Russian calmly smacked winners all over the place, aside from a tough final game and an "I'm bored" stretch of slicey-dinky play that cost him a second-set service break.

Note to broadcasters: Safin beat Srichaphan. Or Marat beat Paradorn. Not "Safin beat Paradorn." (Srichaphan for some reason has fallen victim to the Davis Love III affliction -- if your first name sounds enough like a last name, the TV people stop right there and use it as a last name.) Meanwhile, Patrick McEnroe still can't get enough of broadcast partner Enberg's first name. Dick. Dick dick dick. Dick this, dick that.

Also, Zanetti did not defeat Schnyder. There is no Zanetti. Antonella Serra Zanetti beat Patty Schnyder. Antonella and her sister are not Zanettis, Justin Henin-Hardenne is not Hardenne, Arantxa Sanchez Vicario is not Vicario, and so on. Please hire human editors rather than programming your computers to pick out the last group of letters (or fire your robotic and incompetent human editors, if that's the case). I'm available.

Roger Federer had a tough draw, too -- Paul-Henri Mathieu -- but had even less trouble than Safin.

Perhaps nobody had less trouble than Lindsay Davenport, who handled Alina Jidkova like Steffi Graf handling her young son.

Too bad Taylor Dent and Dick Norman -- two members of that rare species, grass-court specialist -- had to play right away. Norman beat Stefan Edberg (!) and Pat Cash (!) at Wimbledon in 1995, but the older version couldn't take out Dent this year.

Also too bad: Two of my favorite dark horses, Mikhail Youzhny and Marcos Baghdatis -- also played in the first round. I picked it right: Youzhny.

French Open finalist Mariano Puerta pulled a surprise by actually showing up, but he managed only six games against journeyman Lars Burgsmuller.

In an even more embarrassing loss, Tommy Robredo, who is known for having decent grass-court chops for a Spanish dirtballer, lost 1, 2 and 5 to countryman Fernando Verdasco.

A British winner other than Henman and that Canadian guy? Yep. The boy-next-door-named David Sherwood straight-setted Ricardo Mello to make the second round.

2005-05-31T00:22:00.000-04:00

PATRICK MCENROE Dick needs to stop saying Dick Dick three times in every sentence Dick. I know Mr. Enberg's name, Patrick. Now keep your potty-mouth shut.

2005-01-26T15:32:00.000-05:00

C'MON! This is often an appropriate thing for an athlete to say in the heat of battle.

Say you're a tennis player and you get lazy and miss a shot. "C'mon!" you say to yourself.

Or you've been playing poorly and you finally get it together. "C'mon!" you say, meaning "More of that!"

The Australian tennis player Lleyton Hewitt has a different idea of what the words "come" and "on" mean. Here's how Hewitt uses the phrase:

He's playing his grandmother, and she double-faults to go down 6-0, 5-0 when her hip breaks as she tries to hit the ball.

"C'MOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!" Hewitt says. Come on, break your hip again? Come on, let me win already? Only Lleyton Hewitt knows. This annoying habit is moot, I think, because other professional athletes should have thick-enough skins to ignore it, but it's still pretty annoying. And Hewitt is old enough and English-speaking enough to know what words mean.

2004-09-10T18:18:00.000-04:00

TENNIS IS a cruel, cruel game. So, think CBS is happy about its prime-time Dementieva-Kuznetsova extravaganz-va?

2004-09-09T02:05:00.000-04:00

WHAT THE FRICK is CBS's U.S. Open highlight show doing having musical guests? It was one thing when Patrick McEnroe wanted to give his wife some air time, but now it's just silly. You have only half an hour, guys -- let's use it for tennis.

2004-09-01T12:47:00.000-04:00

MOST RIDICULOUS GRUNT, men's division: Luis Horna of Peru. He doesn't even grunt when he hits the ball, which you'd think would be the whole point of the grunt. He has a pre-hit grunt and a post-hit grunt, the latter being a cheating maneuver that extends into his opponent's stroke.

Uuuuuuuuh, [hit], aaaaeeeeeeh.

Uuuuuuuuh, [hit], aaaaeeeeeeh.

Uuuuuuuuh, [hit], aaaaeeeeeeh.

I can't believe the excitable Spadea hasn't beaten the shit out of him yet, or at least whined about it.

2004-08-26T12:08:00.000-04:00

ELENA DEMENTIEVEA stepped up to serve against Claudine Schaul yesterday in New Haven.

Fault.

Double fault. Love-15.

Fault.

Let.

Let.

Let.

Double fault. Love-30.

Let.

Fault.

Let.

Double fault. Love-40.

Fault.

Double fault. Game, Schaul.

Thirteen serves, none of them in. This is the kind of fun that pro tennis needs!

2004-08-09T10:43:00.000-04:00

I HAD WRITTEN OFF Agassi yet again, when, bam! Another Masters Series title, beating three former No. 1s along the way.

And it's nice to see Amelie Mauresmo playing well. She remains one of the sport's most talented underachievers at the Slam level, perhaps because of her tendency to lapse into Gabriela Sabatini Memorial Physics Experiment mode. You know, where she and Gaby use these huge roundhouse swings while falling over backward, apparently in an attempt to use maximum power for minimum result. Not this week. In the final she steamrolled an Elena Likhovtseva who was playing pretty well herself.

2004-07-30T11:32:00.000-04:00

I THINK I'M IN LOVE.

Here's the story: I need a new racket. I realized this even when I thought just one of my pair was cracked, but now I know they both are. I thought I'd stay loyal to Yonex, even though the frame I've used for the past several years -- the Super RQ 1000 Long -- is many generations past. The 1000 is the "Big Yonie," the frame Monica Seles used for quite a while. It's huge -- 130 square inches -- but relatively light. I love it for its stability, and for the way that huge face lets me put spin on my serve. It isn't quite as maneuverable as I'd like, though, and so I saw this shopping expedition as an opportunity to try out its lighter successor, the Ultimum Ti 2000. The fact that this racket is a beautiful metallic green helped a bit, too. I'm very shallow.

The trouble is, even the successor is a few generations old. I finally found the racket on eBay, and I bid as high as necessary to win it. It was a 4 1/4, a grip size or two too small, but I figured I could build it up. (The building-up was rather comical, but I'll skip that part.)

I had never tried a really light racket before, and I was surprised. It was too light. My forehand, whippy and topspinny, was great, and my serve was fine, but my flatter backhand seemed to go nowhere. The volley was the worst part -- any passing shot threatened to knock that toothpick of a racket out of my hand.

What now? I thought of continuing with my current frame. I couldn't find any online, new or used, but it just so happened that my tennis shop had one or two -- at $279 each. No, thanks.

I did some research, still mainly in the Yonex product line, and found that the company has pretty much abandoned the huge-and-light-but-suitable-for-pros niche. I dug a little more, though, and found that the Yonex MP-2i seemed to fit the bill. Shallow me again: I wouldn't have given this frame a second thought if it were still red and black, but the new yellow-and-gray cosmetics seemed appealing enough. Speaking of looks, this is Anna Kournikova's racket. So what? Well, so my game is sort of like Anna's. Really. My boobs are getting to be about the same size, too, but that's another story.

The aforementioned local tennis shop didn't seem to carry this model, but a demo was readily available from Tennis Warehouse's convenient try-by-mail program. A couple of vacations got in the way of my taking advantage of this program,but eventually the UPS guy arrived with my would-be new Yonex. It was the old red-and-black version, but how it played was my concern. The shipping charges made it cost-effective for me to pick one other racket, and this was a bit of a lark. I only had eyes for the MP-2i, but I labored to come up with a second choice and settled on whatever Head racket Sebastian Grosjean uses.

It turns out that the French clone of Mikael Pernfors uses the i.Prestige MP (a frame on the opposite track in the battle between red and yellow cosmetics). I thought that was what I was asking for, but I ended up with the Liquidmetal Prestige MP. I don't think it's that far removed, but it's one of the top choices of male touring pros, players who don't need any extra power and might as well be using a heavy old wood racket.

I actually liked the Head racket better than the Yonex, but neither was anywhere close to light enough, big enough or powerful enough to succeed the Super RQ 1000.

I did a little more Internet research and reluctantly decided that maybe I needed to swallow my pride and go down the recreational-player path on the fork that Yonex created when it stopped making my racket. The Muscle Power series didn't work, and so maybe I should try the V-Con series. The V-Con 30, at 117 square inches, is as close to a Big Yonie as there is these days.

In idly surfing through some more racket reviews, however, I happened upon Head's Liquidmetal 2. This seemed like a direct response to my complaints about the too-light Yonex Ultimum Ti 2000, with an emphasis on light weight but stability befitting a heavier racket. I approved of the cosmetics --- black and yellow (call me Sting!) with a beautiful light-gray grip -- and the shape, which was reminiscent enough of the Grosjean racket and even the senior-tour Pernfors racket to at least give me a frame of reference, poser that I am.

I can't tell you exactly why I'm so sure this is going to work out, but I just am. I've never endorsed Head before, although back in the late '70s, when I first got into tennis, I admired Head's great magazine ads and lusted after the fiberglass Head XRC. Even got a demo at one point, but its triple-digit price tag was far beyond my high-school means. I had soured on the company somewhat since then, even though the senior-tour Borg and the modern Agassi and Grosjean and Pernfors and countless others were in the camp. There just didn't seem to be anything in my in-between niche -- Head made those pro-tour candy-apple-red clubs and it made those whisper-light rec-player rackets.

So, we'll see. I wish the Liquidmetal 2 were longer, and maybe a teensy bit bigger and heavier. I'm thinking I'll demo the aforementioned Yonex V-Con 30 and also the V-Con 17 (Hingis's last racket, which upon further research seems perhaps a better fit) as well just to be sure.

2004-07-02T18:38:00.000-04:00

A RECENT Slate article trotted out the tired old "rackets are too powerful" theme.

I'll weigh in at some point, but somebody beat me to it.

P.S.: How bout that Maria Sharapova?

2004-05-31T02:56:00.000-04:00

OK, SO Maria Sharapova can play. With that build and that aggressive nature, she reminds me of Venus Williams.

I'm not sure I'm sold on Sharapova as fashion model, though. She's striking, at least for an athlete, from a distance, but up close she's no Anna Kournikova. I must admit, though, that the Weingartner match even softened my opinions on that subject a little.

But the shocker of the day was learning the identity of Sharapova's coach:

Mauricio Hadad!

Hadad, the dimuinutive Colombian, is up there with Pozzi and Santoro among my favorite little guys. I first saw him in Washington, walking onto the court to play Todd Martin. Jacqueline and I burst out laughing when we realized he wasn't a ballboy, he looked so tiny next to Martin. He probably looks pretty tiny next to Maria Sharapova as well.

2004-05-30T22:38:00.000-04:00

HENIN LOSES and suddenly the commentators forget that they were calling her unbeatable and writing off the Williams sisters a couple of days ago. As when Lindsay Davenport was the flavor of the moment not so many years ago, I think it's always a mistake to write off either Williams sister.

2004-05-26T12:52:00.000-04:00

TATHIANA GARBIN, the Colleen Haskell of tennis?

2004-05-26T12:41:00.000-04:00

"NOWADAYS you have to be a hundred percent Dick in order to compete and contend at these majors."
-- Mary Joe Fernandez to Dick Enberg on ESPN

(Then why haven't I won Wimbledon?)

2004-05-26T01:21:00.000-04:00

IT'S VERY IMPRESSIVE that ESPN showed the entire continuation of the Santoro-Clement match, though it's clear that the people at the network thought it would be over in a couple of games.

2004-05-24T12:42:00.000-04:00

UNKNOWN FRENCH QUALIFIER beats former champion and all-time great, past his prime but still well inside the top 10, in the first round at Roland Garros?

It's not the first time. See Stephane Huet (q) d. Ivan Lendl (7), 3-6, 7-5, 6-0, 7-6, 1993 French Open.

Andre Agassi loses in the first round of a Grand Slam to quite possibly the worst player in the draw?

It's not the first time. See Doug Flach (q) d. Andre Agassi (3), 2-6, 7-6, 6-4, 7-6, 1996 Wimbledon.

2004-04-13T01:22:00.000-04:00

THE BJORN BORG FILA SHIRT! It's available from Urban Outfitters, of all places.

The good news: The design is faithful to the 1970s original. The bad news: The design is faithful to the 1970s original. So, if somehow you weigh a little more than you did in 1977, you may want to buy three or four sizes bigger than you normally wear. Even then, the cling factor may relegate this item to novelty status.

2004-03-10T11:41:00.000-05:00

I'M NOT A BIG Greg Rusedski fan (is anybody?), but hooray! Now how about some suspensions for the people on the tour who were behind this strategy of slipping people banned substances so they could suspend them?

2004-03-08T11:53:00.000-05:00

VINCE SPADEA finally wins a title! That must feel good for a lot of reasons, but beating James Blake and Andy Roddick along the way must have been especially satisfying.

Spadea has been one of the top 5 American players off and on for a while now, right up there with Blake, Mardy Fish, Robby Ginepri and Taylor Dent. Here were the U.S. rankings before Scottsdale:

1 Andy Roddick (3)
2 Andre Agassi (5)
3 Mardy Fish (18)
4 Robby Ginepri (27)
5 Vince Spadea (29)
6 Taylor Dent (35)
7 James Blake (37)
8 Jan-Michael Gambill (59)

But nobody talks about Spadea as an American star. Nobody talks about Spadea playing Davis Cup. After Scottsdale:

1 Andy Roddick (3)
2 Andre Agassi (5)
3 Mardy Fish (19)
4 Vince Spadea (22)
5 Robby Ginepri (28)
6 James Blake (39)
7 Taylor Dent (43)
8 Todd Martin (60)

I don't think Spadea will stay ahead of Ginepri, Blake and Dent for long, but for now the vindication will be sweet.

Not that I'm a big Spadea fan. He was a jerk the last time I saw him live. He was losing to a resurgent Mats Wilander in Washington and acting as though Mats Wilander had no business being on the same court with Vince Spadea, let alone beating him.

But you have to have some sort of admiration for a guy who has come back from humiliation the way Spadea did. The last time he was ranked 22nd in the world, in 1999, he was coming off a pretty hot summer and playing well into the fall. Runner-up in Indianapolis, round of 16 at Flushing Meadows. A few indoor losses and then the semis at Lyon, beating Schalken, Courier and Kafelnikov before losing to Hewitt. And then that was it. The win over Kafelnikov was his last victory until the following summer -- 21 straight defeats.

The way Spadea snapped the losing streak was more than a little unlikely: The baseliner beat Greg Rusedski at Wimbledon.

Trivia fact: It's hard to spot -- not nearly as obvious as it was with Alberto Berasategui -- but Spadea hits his forehand and backhand groundstrokes with the same face of the racket.

2004-01-28T03:19:00.000-05:00

IF MARAT SAFIN is really back, wow. Roddick, Federer, Ferrero, Agassi and Safin would make one heck of a top five. And I could be wrong, but it's hard to imagine Safin being the boy in the man-vs.-boy scenario that Federer sets up when he's at his best.

2003-12-26T01:28:00.000-05:00

THE SPORTSTICKER YEAR-END TENNIS ROUNDUP wouldn't normally merit a mention, but I stumbled upon it and I haven't posted to this blog recently. Good: reminding me that David Nalbandian was beating the hell out of Andy Roddick in the U.S. Open semifinals.

Bad: Who can forget that Borg-Becker rivalry?

2003-11-20T02:35:00.000-05:00

THE NEXT THING TO WATCH FOR is how Roger Federer will manage to squander his immense talent. Oh, he will. Players that talented always do.

Speaking of the Tennis Masters Cup, I hereby name the Nalbandian-Coria-Schuettler impossibly hard-hit backhand down the line the Shot of the Year.

In other news, R.I.P, Nailbags.

2003-11-13T03:23:00.000-05:00

AGASSI, 2-6, 6-3, 6-4. Amazing. Ferrero was beating Agassi at his own game, painfully so. At one point the commentators and I were angry at Ferrero for rubbing things in too much, when he won a point with dismissive ease on a drop-shot-and-lob combo. To me it felt as though Ferrero was continuing to get the better of the rallies even as the score turned around, but somehow Agassi came out on top. I doubt Agassi will win too many more of their meetings, but this one was sweet. Ferrero may be the best player to ever lose his first two matches at a Masters.

2003-10-25T02:30:00.000-04:00

CORRETJA? KUERTEN? This is so late-1990s!

2003-10-23T02:34:00.000-04:00

A TENNIS STORY from the Cynical Tyrant, one of the bloggers I check in on. I'll forgive the spelling; I'm not sure whether Steffi will. :-).

2003-10-21T01:42:00.000-04:00

NICOLAS MASSU has no competition for most improved player on the men's side this year, does he?

2003-09-06T12:09:00.000-04:00

LAST NIGHT brought us an instant classic.

Henin-Capriati started with the violent intensity of Hagler-Hearns, with Henin playing Hagler. No two women have consistently hit the ball at each other the way Justine and Jen did for the first half-dozen games. The slugging abated a bit as Capriati pulled herself off the canvas, and suddenly it was Connors-Krickstein, with Capriati playing Connors, chasing down would-be winners to slug winners of her own.

Then it was simply an epic, with the requisite lead changes and, of course, a third-set tiebreaker. Henin once again demonstrated that you don't need to be as big as a Williams, or even a Hingis, to be one of the game's biggest hitters. The only shame was that, ultimately, such a great match became yet another Capriati three-set defeat.

2003-09-04T02:21:00.000-04:00

ROGER FEDERER keeps getting compared to Pete Sampras for his shotmaking ability. I have to disagree. Sampras was a great shotmaker, but he wasn't an elegant and effortless shotmaker. You have to go back a decade or two further to find a player worthy of comparison: to the 1970s and the elegant and effortless Ilie Nastase. In fact, with his more solid build and more powerful racket, Federer is even more effortless than Nastase, and almost as elegant.

The comparisons of Federer's temperament to that of Bjorn Borg, however, are right on the money.

2003-09-03T00:53:00.000-04:00

I'M NOT QUITE SURE what this is all about, but it is intriguing. (I found it when I did a Google search on "Francoise Durr's backhand," so I'm in no position to call anybody weird.)

2003-08-23T03:46:00.000-04:00

PETE SAMPRAS'S LEGACY, to a lot of people, is all that understated-classy-guy crap. I don't buy it, but I do admire Sampras for another reason. To me, this is his legacy:

Pete Sampras is the last No. 1 player to play tennis essentially the way we were taught to play tennis when I learned to play tennis. He's almost the last top player, period, although Henman's still around. I'm thinking largely of the forehand grip. "Shake hands with the racket" was probably the first tennis tip you got if you learned to play tennis in the 1960s or 1970s. That's the Eastern grip: If Sampras extended his arm with the thumbnail pointed toward the sky, you'd see a racket face perpendicular to the ground. He could drive a nail with the edge of the racket.

Most players nowadays use the Western grip, which demands a more baroque stroke but affords more topspin and more power on high-bouncing balls. If you'd get an Eastern from picking up a racket balanced precariously on its edge and its grip, you'd get a Western from picking up a racket simply lying face down on the ground.

With the Western, my thumbnail-pointed-up demonstration would produce a racket face parallel to the ground, like a chef preparing to flip an omelette. Imagine the ball being struck with the bottom of the frying pan, a stroke that places the meaty butt of the hand firmly behind the racket handle rather than over it. Most Western players rotate the racket 180 degrees to find their backhand grip, allowing them to hit forehands and backhands with opposite sides of the racket just like non-Western players (Eastern players do a similar rotation, but they don't have nearly as far to go). The classic Western technique, however, from the days when almost nobody used that grip, is to simply keep the same grip and strike the backhand with the same face of the racket as the forehand. Vince Spadea is the only current pro I know of who uses that same-side technique.

Even more old-fashioned than the Eastern grip, by the way, is the continental. This is the grip you're still supposed to use for serves and volleys, but such all-time great players as John McEnroe, Stefan Edberg and Fred Perry used it for all strokes. Recent retiree Gianluca Pozzi was able to confuse younger opponents not used to having flattish continental strokes coming their way. (Rod Laver used something approaching the continental.) With the continental, the meaty butt of the hand is pretty much in front of the racket handle. The thumbnail-up pose would produce a racket face open to the sky at a 45-degree angle, as though a seated pupil were showing his strings to a standing teacher. The continental grip is versatile, obviously, because of that whole never-change-grips thing, and it is ideal for scooping low balls up over the net, but it is a fundamentally weak grip, especially on high balls, and it tends to be erratic, because it demands good timing for a solid hit.

For a while there, the natural order of things seemed to be that baseline players used Western grips and two-handed backhands while serve-and-volley players looked like Sampras or McEnroe or Edberg. As the Western grip and, to a lesser extent, the two-handed backhand have become the norm, however, players of an attacking bent have simply built attacking games that incorporate these baseliner tools.

Me, I try to keep up but I remain a child of the '70s. I recently switched from the continental grip to something between Eastern and Western, but on the rare occasions when I play on a fast, low-bouncing surface such as grass or artificial grass, I switch back to the continental and let my inner McEnroe free (though usually minus the tantrums).

2003-08-22T12:42:00.000-04:00

THE 15 MINUTES for which the women's game was more interesting than the men's is over. Please stop repeating the cliche.

Women's tennis was interesting when Williams and Williams and Capriati and Hingis and Davenport were all playing well, with old Seles and the young Belgians able to occasionally rise to the occasion. It was interesting when the idea of Kournikova winning a tournament seemed a little less like the idea of Al Sharpton winning the presidency.

Today, even if you forget about Serena missing the Open, all we really have on the women's side are the Williamses and the Belgians. Clijsters is No. 1 without having won a Grand Slam title, which is mathematically defensible but intuitively just plain wrong. At least Henin is fun to watch, even if she is a big cheater. Clijsters is sweet as all get-out and works her butt off, but her style is boring.

Look at men's tennis, on the other hand, and things are very interesting. No longer is Hewitt dominating by default while the others nap. Agassi still seems strong, Ferrero finally has a major, and no fewer than three players -- Federer, Roddick and Coria -- are on significant hot streaks. Then you have Schuettler, Nalbandian, Philippoussis and Grosjean taking turns as major threats, plus the resurgent Ferreira and the newly surgent Mardy Fish. And I'm not ready to count Hewitt out either.

Too bad Safin's in exile and Kuerten's floundering.

2003-08-16T19:57:00.000-04:00

AS YOU WATCH BRAD GILBERT as Andy Roddick's coach this week in Cincinnati and beyond, don't forget what an accomplished hard-court player Gilbert was. ESPN keeps mentioning his 21-1 run-up to the U.S. Open in the summer of 1989, and so I looked up those results at Tennis Corner.

One week -- in Cincinnati, as it happens -- Gilbert beat Pete Sampras, Michael Chang, Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg in succession to win the title. All in three sets. Wow.

He then went to Flushing Meadows and lost in the first round to Todd Witsken, proving the axiom that you don't want your Grand Slam warm-ups to go too well.

2003-08-11T12:45:00.000-04:00

FABRICE SANTORO gets some ink from Sports Illustrated's Jon Wertheim. Allow me to elaborate, starting with a primer on spin:

Most good players, not only today but throughout the modern history of tennis, drive their forehands. They hit off that side either flat or with topspin. When good players slice the ball, hitting it with underspin, it's almost always on the backhand side. The slice was once the prevalent backhand stroke even among the pros, but today almost all players are capable of hitting flat and topspin backhands as well as slices, and the slice is reserved for desperation "gets" or tactical change-ups.

Topspin causes the ball to dip into the court and then jump off the court when it lands. It allows players to swing harder and create more power without hitting the ball long. Underspin slows down the ball, causing it to "float," which enables players to get decent depth with less effort. The ball tends to stay low after bouncing; depending on the roughness of the surface and the degree of underspin, it skids, stops or even bounces back toward the striker.

All right, then: On the backhand, where slice tends to live and breathe, Santoro is almost boring. He hits a two-handed stroke, but utterly conventional and usually a drive with moderate topspin.

It's on the forehand side that things start to get weird. The right-handed Santoro essentially hits a cross-handed left-handed slice when the ball is on his right. Picture the normal two-handed-backhand grip, right hand on the bottom. From there, Santoro draws the racket up and to his right, slices through the ball, and lets go with the right hand, leaving him with a choked-up left-handed grip on the follow-through.

Not only that, but you could hit the ball harder than Santoro typically does with this forehand. The glacial-paced underspin shot has been known to mesmerize some of the best players in the world (Marat Safin, even when he was playing well, is notorious for collapsing against Santoro).

As Wertheim says, see him if you get the chance.

2003-08-09T03:04:00.000-04:00

IT'S NOT QUITE the "I should never be losing to this guy" moment that occurred when John McEnroe fell to Brad Gilbert in the 1985 Masters in January 1986 -- a match that would become the opening to Gilbert's book, "Winning Ugly," and spark a seven-month sabbatical for McEnroe -- but Andre Agassi's comments after his loss to Rainer Schuettler in Montreal had the same sort of ring. Agassi said the match would be his last before the U.S. Open, no doubt pissing off more than a few tennis fans in Cincinnati. Like McEnroe, he won the first set before unraveling.

It couldn't have helped that Agassi knew his first-round opponent next week was to have been Thomas Enqvist, against whom he has a losing record in a series that began with a first-round U.S. Open upset in 1993.

So Schuettler faces David Nalbandian in the semis, with the winner meeting the winner of Andy Roddick vs. Roger Federer, which is a rematch of the Wimbledon semifinal. It's also a third interesting stylistic duel in a row for Roddick. In the round of 16 he beat Sebastien Grosjean, a thinking man's player in the Mikael Pernfors mold -- all spin and variety. In the quarters he beat Karol Kucera, a very different thinking man's player -- smooth, flat strokes taken early with pinpoint accuracy, in the Miloslav Mecir mold. (Yes, anything I talk about has to be addressed in 1980s terms.)

Federer, of course, who rolled over Roddick at Wimbledon, is an elegantly effortless striker of the ball with a lot more power than Grosjean/Pernfors or Kucera/Mecir. Not exactly a thinking man's player (he looks like an idiot when he's having an off day), but one whose artistry you have to appreciate.

IN CASE YOU don't subscribe to the "you never know" theory of junior tennis: Today I was watching a rebroadcast of the 1984 McEnroe-Connors U.S. Open semi. Early on, CBS commentator John Newcombe announces:

"Mark Kratzmann, the young Australian, won the United States junior championship this afternoon, 6-3, 7-6 over Becker, the German boy. That gives Mark the Wimbledon and United States titles. I got a feeling we're going to be calling a semifinal for Mark Kratzmann one day out here, too, in the Open."

Kratzmann's U.S Open record: 1-3. First round 1986, first round 1989, second round 1990. Becker, the German boy, won once at Flushing Meadows and made the semis on three other occasions. (But he never had to play Kratzmann as a pro.)

2003-08-06T01:46:00.000-04:00

HAPPY RETIREMENT DAY!

Tuesday at the men's Canadian Open (or, to you corporate tools, "Tennis Masters Canada"):

Tim Henman d Fernando Gonzalez (14), 6-2, ret.

Feliciano Lopez d. Guillermo Coria (7), 6-3, ret.

Wayne Black (Q) d. Wayne Ferreira, 6-4, 2-1, ret.

Henman-Gonzalez, of course, was a rematch of Sunday's Legg Mason Tennis Classic final, and Ferreira was the winner in Los Angeles. Montreal may be a Masters Series event, but the U.S. Open starts later this month, and those retirements should make it abundantly clear just how much more important the Grand Slams are than any other tournament.

In other results of note:

One of my favorite players, Sebastien Grosjean, won for the first time in his last four meetings with Fernando Vicente, 6-3, 6-3.

Roger Federer (3) came from behind to beat Gaston Gaudio, 6-4, 3-6, 7-5.

An old smoothie, strictly in a tennis sense, beat a young in-the-other-sense smoothie: Karol Kucera d. Jan-Michael Gambill, 7-6, 7-6.

Random thoughts:

It's nice to see Agassi, Ferrero, Federer, Hewitt and Roddick sticking around.

Ancic will start winning matches someday, right? Right?

2003-08-04T00:28:00.000-04:00

WAYNE FERREIRA?

2003-08-01T12:52:00.000-04:00

WITH THE LEGG MASON TENNIS CLASSIC in town, I was all set to make my big move, to march into the Washington Post sports editor's office and volunteer to contribute my 25 years' worth of tennis fandom to help Washingtonians navigate their way to the best matches rather than blindly and blandly following the crowds to the stadium court.

But then I looked at the draw. Bor-ing! For me, that meant not so much that good players didn't show up (although Federer's pullout really hurt), but that the lovable oddballs whom I'd hoped to showcase weren't there. No Santoro! Pozzi's retired!

Looking at the quarterfinals, however, I have to say this might be the best Legg Mason ever. No Kenneth Carlsens this year:

Agassi vs. Blake.

Gonzalez vs. Mirnyi. (That one almost meets my oddball criterion!)

Henman vs. Srichaphan.

Roddick vs. Fish.

This would be the one year I probably won't be attending. Jacqueline and I have some extensive U.S. Open plans, so we're pacing ourselves. Maybe if the final looks particularly good we'll show up, but probably not.

2003-07-30T12:18:00.000-04:00

THE U.S. OPEN is on the horizon, and I'm hoping to get this thing up and running for good. Stay tuned.

2003-06-27T01:34:00.000-04:00

BOY, did Mary Pierce look good against Daniilidou.

2002-08-30T01:38:00.000-04:00

THE WASTE LAND.

That's what I see when I look at the U.S. Open singles draws. I feel good about Lleyton Hewitt, Serena Williams and Venus Williams. The 253 other players are falling stars, underachievers, temporary cripples or none-of-the-aboves.

Last year, the conventional wisdom was that women's tennis had surpassed men's tennis. All those interesting story lines, with the Williams sisters and the comebacking Capriati and the "old" guard of Hingis and Davenport and the still-dangerous Seles, plus the Belgian upstarts Henin and Clijsters.

Going into this year's Open, the story is whether Venus can regain her mastery of Serena. Capriati hasn't been much of a factor since the Australian Open, Hingis and Davenport are coming back from long layoffs, Seles has been away for months and only a minor threat for years, and Henin and Clijsters have fizzled. The identify of the two finalists is more of a sure thing today than at any time since the years of Graf and pre-stabbing Seles.

The men's draw might still be less of a story than the women's, but it never stopped having more depth. The difference is that whereas the parity among top contenders used to be based on positive attributes, today (beyond No. 1 Lleyton Hewitt) it's based on negatives. "Head case" is the most telling diagnosis, and Marat Safin is the king of the head cases. He's a former U.S. Open champion, No. 2 in the world, runner-up at the Australian Open, and nobody expects anything from him.

Marat Safin is at a ping-pong table when his opponents are on a tennis court. He's so big, his strokes are so effortlessly powerful, that he could saunter over to the ball every time and give it a minor poke and he'd never lose. But somehow he makes it difficult. He glances away at the last second and lets that 100-mph minor poke drift wide. He convinces himself he needs to hit spectacular shots when nothing could be farther from the truth. He cannot see the forest for the trees, enraged losing unimportant points but seemingly unconcerned about losing entire matches over and over and over to lesser players.

Today Safin plays Gustavo Kuerten, the Brazilian for whom my wife named our second cat. Safin and Guga (Kuerten's nickname and the cat's name) were neck and neck for No. 1 two years ago. Now, Safin is No. 2 pretty much by default and Guga is in the rankings netherworld after injury and surgery. Because Guga wasn't seeded, he was at the mercy of the draw. Should be a good match, if their hearts are in it. (A big "if.")

2002-08-28T02:08:00.000-04:00

THE U.S. OPEN (tennis, not golf) started Monday in New York, and so I'll be a tad preoccupied over the next two weeks.

I was all set to write a blog entry in defense of Anna Kournikova when Anna went and lost in 40-something minutes in the first round to an unknown 17-year-old from Indonesia. Disgraceful. A horrible performance. Still:

It's dumb-jock-sportswriter horseshit to call Anna a bad player who doesn't belong on the tour. She's an underachiever, yes. A disappointment, yes. Squandering her talent? No doubt. But to say she doesn't belong on the tour with all those non-fashion-model players is nonsense. Even in her understandably distracted state, she's among the top 50 female tennis players in the world by any measure. In terms of talent, she's in the top 10, maybe the top five (hence the "underachiever" business). She has the shots, but she lacks a certain psychological ability to understand how to parlay those shots into victories. (I can relate.)

At the very, very least, Anna is a doubles superstar who has had lesser success in singles. That's still pretty select company.

John McEnroe makes a huge production out of the fact that x player is ranked y despite a mediocre, perhaps losing, record. I love John McEnroe, but if he looked at the records of all the players (and perhaps took a statistics class) he'd find out that not only do a lot of world-class players have losing records, but also that it's mathematically impossible for everybody in the top 128 of what is not much more than a 200-player universe to have a winning record. Half the players who play on any given day are losers. Batting .400-something in pro tennis is pretty darn good.

2001-10-03T02:21:00.000-04:00

A BEAUTIFUL FITNESS CLUB just opened a block away from my house, and my wife and I dutifully joined.

The place was originally envisioned as a squash club, and it has four squash courts. I'm thinking of taking up the sport. It's a good workout (and, boy, do I need a good workout), and someday I want to be just like Woody Allen and discuss my problems over a good game with Tony Roberts. There's another health club with squash courts about three blocks from my house (way too far), and I took a squash lesson there almost 10 years ago (from the same pro who runs the new club's squash program). My main memory from that session is my inability to walk for a couple of days afterward. Squash balls don't bounce much, and all that bending really gets to the gluteus maximus.

You say squash will ruin my tennis game? Yeah, as though I have much to ruin. If anything, I think, the increased fitness will offset any harm that could be done to my strokes. And what an opportunity to buy new stuff!

2001-09-11T01:21:00.000-04:00

A POSTSCRIPT on the U.S. Open men's final: I said a lot of mean things about Pete Sampras, but I have to give him credit for one thing during the fortnight. He wore a sweatband on his right wrist and used it to swab his forehead. That's right: No more Pete Sampras Thumb Squeegee. Bravo!

As for Lleyton Hewitt on that Sunday, the name Borg comes to mind.

2001-09-09T04:19:00.000-04:00

IT TRULY WAS a super Saturday. Oh, the matches sucked (though my heart finally did warm toward the Williams sisters), but the important thing is that I found my white tape!

You know how the racket grips of professional players are often white? Well, that color isn't readily available to us recreational players. Even anything light is difficult to find (I've been opting for "optic yellow"). But I did a Google search on "overgrip" and "white" and, after two or three false alarms, found a Yahoo forum run by the Rayco people in San Diego. As coincidence would have it, Rayco was my chief supplier back in the '70s when I was a little kid stringing and regripping rackets for fun and profit. And, better yet, the white overgrips were from Yonex, the maker of my rackets. This sounds rather minor, but I'm very excited about it.

Oh, you probably wanted to read something about the actual U.S. Open tennis, right? Well, I predicted that Hewitt would be too tenacious for the here-again, gone-again Kafelnikov. Still, I'm a little disappointed that I didn't get to salute Yevgeny as "the occasional champion." If he had won, he would have won three of the four Grand Slam titles in his career. I also have to say how impressed I am with Yevgeny's good-natured articulateness, which he displayed in the USA Network booth with John McEnroe and in an interview after his crushing defeat (this is quite a trend) with Pam Shriver on CBS. I'm not sure I'd be able to talk to Pam Shriver without slapping her on a good day, so Kafelnikov's ability to patiently explain his failure was most impressive.

I thought Sampras-Safin would depend on Safin, but it really didn't. Marat played a good match, but Pete (damn it!) rose to the occasion and overwhelmed him.

Williams-Williams, again, was an error-plagued match, but it was genuine. Serena just pressed too much. And I think Venus, thanks to her awesome wingspan, would win ever if both sisters were at their best.

In one way I'm happy that Sampras won: It makes for a better final. We have a classic contrast in styles, and Hewitt has shown that he can beat Sampras. Pete could serve him off the court; if he doesn't, it will be very interesting.