Girl Talk on Sports

Davis Cup, Day 3

2011-12-04T16:35:00.006-06:00

Well, that was fun.

As though Rafa Nadal needed any other way to establish himself as a hero in Spain, he did it again Sunday by scraping past a determined Juan Martin del Potro in the fourth rubber, 1-6 6-4 6-1 7-6(0).

Delpo seems to be a glutton for drama as this is the second match he's played this weekend that had so many twists and turns that it was never clear who would win until the last few minutes. Just like his match against Ferrer, this match was achingly close. The big man showed no obvious signs of fatigue on the outset as he unleashed one big shot after another to reduce Nadal to a mere clay court mortal. In what might have been the longest 6-1 set ever, Nadal helped out the big man by not holding his serve until the second set. It took a while but Nadal eventually found his range and turned the tide, taking the next two sets, 6-4, 6-1.

The fourth set was a roller coaster, as Nadal's service woes continued. He repeatedly broke delPo's serve only to see the big man erase the advantage in the very next game. Delpo's power got the better of the Spaniard and he was rewarded with the opportunity to take the match to a decisive fifth set, serving at 5-3. But Nadal broke serve again and reeled off three straight games to put the championship on his racket at 6-5. Yet again, the big man wouldn't go quietly, broke serve and forced a tiebreak.

In the tiebreak, Delpo finally seemed to run out of juice and put up little resistance while Nadal stepped up his game and swept the breaker, seven points to zero, sealing it with a forehand winner and giving his country its fifth Davis Cup title since 2000.

On one hand, Nadal deserves a ton of credit. He clearly did not play his best match Sunday, but he hung in there to give himself a chance and take advantage of any openings Delpo offered. For much of the match, he was not in the driver's seat to win, an inconceivable concept in a best-of-five match on clay in Spain. In the end, his experience and gritty nature helped him get the better of a dangerous opponent, just as David Ferrer did on Friday.

On the other hand, what a disappointing weekend this has been for del Potro. He truly gave everything he had in both matches, reminding us why he reached number 4 in the world two years ago. Delpo did not drop the ball here, but rather got outpunched by two more experienced and notoriously tenacious competitors. Still, these are two devastating losses for the big man, who was reduced to tears after both defeats. Both of those matches could have easily gone the other way, giving Argentina a 3-1 victory.

Whew! What a ride. The tension in the arena grew exponentially as the momentum seemed to shift every few minutes. The chair umpire even issued a warning to the fans for refusing to quiet down when the players were ready to resume. The scoreline makes it look like a more comprehensive victory for Spain than what played out on the courts, because it was never clear that the fifth rubber wouldn't be necessary until Nadal had the 5-0 lead in the tiebreak. Who knows what could have happened if Ferrer had to square off against Nalbandian. Sheesh.

Now the what-ifs. Delpo's efforts were nothing short of heroic, but why did Tito Vazquez put Juan Monaco in singles instead of David Nalbandian? I'm not sure it would have made a difference, but I have to think Nalby would have put up a tougher fight than what Monaco was able to achieve. Even if Nalby hadn't won, perhaps he could have worn down Nadal enough that he'd have less in the tank to face Delpo. It seems a shame that Nalby never got the opportunity to put the tie on his racket alone, despite his terrific play in doubles. There's no way Monaco would have player Ferrer in a live fifth rubber, so why not slate Nalby for singles and Monaco or Chela for doubles? Eh, who knows.

In any case, what a great end to the season. Both sides were extraordinary, but in the end, the tie swung in favor of the team with the two top-five singles players who have still yet to lose a Davis Cup rubber on clay throughout their careers. This was a great way for Nadal to rebound from a disappointing ATP finals performance and it's icing on the cake of a terrific year for the underrated Ferrer. Again the Davis Cup ends in disappointment for Argentina but if there's a silver lining here, it's that Delpo played really well and looks to be on the cusp of reclaiming his rightful place among the top ten in the world. Remember, that he started the season ranked outside the top 400 in the world and finished at number 11. Here's hoping the man stays healthy. It's been a long road back, and he's almost there.

Meanwhile, Nadal has already announced that he won't be playing the competition in 2012 because he wants to focus on the Olympics in London. Ferrer also made comments hinting that the no one in current line-up will be available next year for the same reasons, saying that it will be difficult to get them all on the team again. (That, and the fact that Albert Costa would have to be pretty desperate to name the struggling Verdasco to the team anyway, IMHO).

Nicolas Almagro, come on down.

Until 2012!

Davis Cup, Day 2

2011-12-03T19:21:00.004-06:00

Here's what we know:

David Nalbandian, who is prepared to lead his underdog team to a Davis Cup title by sheer force of will, is a fierce competitor and still one hell of a player, rankings be damned.

Albert Costa would have to be off his rocker if he slates Feliciano Lopez and Fernando Verdasco to play doubles in Davis Cup ever again. He might also be nuts if he continues to put Verdasco on the team at all.

Fernando Verdasco has no mojo left and he is quickly regressing into a terrific talent but a miserable headcase.

All that to say that Argentina took advantage of some truly awful play by the experienced Spaniards to take the doubles point in straight sets. Not to diminish the Argentines, however. Nalbandian and Schwank played really well, calmly shooting down any opening the Spaniards had and relentlessly exposing their weaknesses.

Seriously, unless something changes dramatically, Saturday may have been the last time the Spanish BFFs ever play a Davis Cup doubles match together. They had absolutely no rhythm and their strategy, assuming they had one, was all over the place. It was one thing that they had such a tough time in the semifinals in Cordoba. But to do it again in the finals? Fool me once...

It's not like Spain has an obvious doubles pairing on deck, but they clearly need to try something else. Verdasco, much as it pains me to say it, has worn out his usefulness for the team. He has zero confidence. You can't use him in singles and he's lost the last three Davis Cup doubles rubbers with two different partners. Lopez' form is better, so I'd keep him around. But maybe you pair him with Marcel Granollers. Oh, and lest we forget, Spain has another perfectly decent player in Nicolas Almagro. Why Costa hasn't given him a chance to play after the year he's had baffles me. Even Nadal is a better doubles player than anyone else Spain fields, but he understandably needs to be saved for singles.

On that note, it falls to Nadal to be the hero and clinch the tie for Spain. Del Potro meanwhile is tasked with keeping Argentina alive and giving Nalbandian a chance to win the title he so desperately covets. (I write that assuming that Nalbandian will replace Monaco to go against Ferrer, if there is a live fifth rubber).

I've already made my position known on this. I think the doubles win for Argentina is just delaying the inevitable. For all the talk about Nadal's supposed fatigue, he showed no signs of it on Friday. He did the same thing after losing the US Open finals against Djokovic: He immediately went to Cordoba and dominated both of his matches to give Spain a pass into the finals. I don't think tomorrow will be any different. DelPo is Argentina's best chance to trouble Nadal. But if the weeks of rest didn't afford the big man enough energy to pull out the grinder against Ferrer, I cannot imagine that he'll have enough in the tank to go toe-to-toe with Nadal after one day to recuperate. Plus, Nadal only spent two hours on court in thrashing Monaco. I take Nadal in straight sets to give Spain yet another Davis Cup title.

But let's say for the sake of conversation that I'm wrong and delPo pulls off the upset. Then we'll have Ferrer and Nalbandian. After the Spainard curses his teammates for making him have to play again, I see another tough match in his future, but still ends GSM in the Spaniard's favor. Nalby will be no slouch, but I don't think the former World No. 3 has enough match play to hold up against Ferrer. The obvious ex-factor will be if Nalby can keep Iron Man out there long enough that his batteries run down. Maybe. But I'm not sure I've ever seen Ferrer lose a match simply because he was tired. I think the longer the match goes, the more it favors Ferrer, not Nalby. Still, anything can happen in a for-all-the-marbles match and it would be fun to watch--if it got to that point, which it won't.

Davis Cup , Day 1

2011-12-03T09:05:00.004-06:00

Wow, what a great day of tennis in Seville on Friday, which ended with home favorites Spain taking a crucial 2-0 lead over Argentina. It's not just the 0-2 deficit, but the way Argentina went down that makes it highly improbable the visitors can come back to win the tie.

There was very little surprise in the first rubber, as Rafael Nadal creamed his buddy Juan Monaco, 6-1, 6-1, 6-2. Poor Monaco never had a chance from the moment the draw was announced and the King of Clay made it clear from the get-go. There were several amazing, entertaining points that predictably went in Nadal's favor and Monaco wondering, "What do I have to do to win even a point against this guy?" I do not think that Argentina could have fielded anyone that would have accomplished anything against Nadal, but it was hard to watch this and not feel that Argentina kind of threw Monaco to the dogs.

But as expected, Ferrer v. del Potro was considerably more complicated. The two treated the crowd to a long, grinding, topsy-turvy contest with so many momentum swings that it was never clear who was going to win until the last 20 minutes. But in the end, scrappy Ferrer pulled out a 6-2, 6-7, 3-6, 6-4, 6-3 victory in 4 hours and 45 minutes, leaving del Potro dejected, exhausted and in tears.

When Ferrer went down two sets to one, it was not looking good. His strategy of pounding delPo's backhand wasn't working nearly as well and delPo started unleashing on his forehand. But Ferrer toughed out the fourth set after delPo hit two forehand errors and double faulted on set point, then raced to a 5-1 lead in the fifth set while delPo clearly succumbed to fatigue. Delpo broke back to force Ferrer to serve for the match again a 5-3, but Ferrer shut the door with a forehand winner on match point and collapsed to his knees in delight.

I have to say, Ferrer never fails to amaze. I'm going start calling him Iron Man. I predicted that this match would go the distance and picked delPo to pull it out because of the bigger groundstrokes that were getting the better of Ferrer in sets two and three. But the man just doesn't give up. I thought that the longer the match went, the more it would favor delPo because he hasn't played nearly as much. But Ferrer is indefatigable. No matter how tired he says he is afterwards, he will fight until the death. He's the most underrated player in the top 10, IMHO.

This is best start Spain could have hoped for, but it's certainly not a foregone conclusion that Spain will wrap this up on Saturday. As strong as their singles players are, their doubles team is particularly vulnerable and Verdasco stands out as the weakest link. In the semifinals against France, Lopez/Verdasco played an awful match where both were making uncharacteristic mistakes and the teammates stopped speaking in between the points for a time.

I think if the Spaniards can step up their form, they can win this match in four sets. But stepping up your form when you haven't been playing well is very difficult, and it's particularly challenging if your partner is also struggling. This is Argentina's best chance to get into this tie, because delPo has even less of a chance to beat Nadal tomorrow after being dragged through a nearly five hour match. I'm going to be bold and call Argentina for a win today, mainly because I feel confidence will fail the Spaniards just enough to give the Argentines opportunity. I do not think Lopez/Verdasco have the rhythm and flow they need to pull this out. However, I think Argentina is simply delaying the inevitable because Nadal, who spent just over two hours on court Friday, ain't losing to anyone on court on Sunday.

Davis Cup preview

2011-12-02T05:47:00.002-06:00

The finale to the 2011 ATP season is upon us, as Spain and Argentina face off in Seville for the Davis Cup title. In a rematch of the 2008 final, Spain is looking to capture its fifth title since 2000 while perennial bridesmaids Argentina look to capture its first title after falling in the finals three times.

Much has been made of the fact that the last time these two squared off, Spain upset Argentina in Mar del Plata even without Rafael Nadal. As well as the Spaniards stepped up in a difficult situation, the Argentines have admitted that bitter internal strife contributed to their disappointing effort. The Spaniards still relish winning the title on Argentina's turf, and it's not a stretch to believe that the Argentines, with 2008 team members David Nalbandian and Juan Martin del Potro, would love nothing more than to return the favor.

Home team Spain must be considered the favorites mostly because they are led by Rafael Nadal and David Ferrer, both of whom are undefeated in Davis Cup on clay. BFF's Feliciano Lopez and Fernando Verdasco will team up for doubles. But Argentina, led by 2009 US Open champion Juan Martin del Potro, will not be a pushover. I could definitely see this tie coming down to the fifth rubber. Here are the line-ups, which were announced on Thursday.

1: Nadal v. Juan Monaco

2: Ferrer v. del Potro

3: Lopez/Verdasco v. Nalbandian/Schwank

4: Nadal v. del Potro

5: Ferrer v. Monaco

Captain Tito Vazquez' choice to use the in-form Monaco in singles instead of the declining but experienced Nalbandian certainly surprised me. But many feel that if the tie comes down to the final match, Nalbandian will take Monaco's place against Ferrer.

In any case, as well as Monaco has played in the last few months, I cannot see him having much of a chance against Nadal on clay in a best of five. Certainly, there are no sure things in Davis Cup but we're talking about the most accomplished clay court player ever to pick up a racquet. Even a fatigued Nadal can beat just about anyone on clay, anytime. Point to Spain.

After that, it gets very complicated. The always underrated Ferrer is best on clay, as the long, grinding points suit his style perfectly. After sitting out the first round against Belgium with an injury, Ferrer stepped up to give the team two points in singles against the USA and an impressive win over France's Gilles Simon in the semifinals. But lest we forget, delPo is a former 2009 French Open semifinalist. He's a bigger guy with a bigger serve and harder groundstrokes than the scrappy Spaniard. Both will be extremely motivated so that match will be a battle of wills. Ferrer has had the better year but could be somewhat fatigued after a long week in London. Delpo has not played a competitive match in several weeks, choosing to focus his energies on this tie, so he may be physically fresher but slightly out of practice. That match will be very close but I'm going to be bold and tip delPo to win in five (with the caveat that Ferrer winning would not surprise me in the slightest). Point to Argentina.

In any case, I think Argentina should be thrilled if they go to sleep 1-1 on Day 1, because this doubles match is wide open. Lopez/Verdasco are a formidable team but the shellacking they took in the semifinals at the hands of Tsonga and Llodra cannot be overlooked. As that match demonstrated, they can either be really good or really bad. Both Spaniards tend to lose focus mentally when things aren't going their way, which is problematic in singles and catastrophic in doubles. Nalbandian and Schwank have never played together but both have stellar doubles records in Davis Cup. If the Spaniards show the same form that saw them clinch the doubles point in 2008 and 2009, then I like their chances. But this could be a great opportunity for the Argentines to take advantage of a decent team whose recent form leaves a lot to be desired. I cannot predict the outcome on this one.

If we get to Nadal v. del Potro, that will be exciting. Nadal's high bounces and spin don't bother the 6'6" Argentine as much as other players, but I still don't see delPo winning this. Nadal in four sets. Point to Spain.

If there is a fifth rubber and it is Ferrer v. Monaco, then that's an easy choice: Ferrer gets to be the hero and finish a great year on an unbelievable high. But I cannot imagine that Tito Vazquez would pin the country's hopes on Monaco, despite his good form and recent win over the Spaniard. I have to think he'd bring in Nalbandian, himself a former French Open semifinalist. Nevertheless I still don't see Argentina getting that point. Experience counts in these situations, which is why Nalbandian could be the better choice, but form matters, too, and I think Ferrer's relentlessness will wear down Nalbandian. Point to Spain.

This tie could easily end 3-2, but in the best of situations, I don't see Argentina getting three points here. I can see delPo edging Ferrer and the Argentines winning doubles, but I don't see anyone getting a point against Rafa, nor do I see Monaco or Nalbandian beating Ferrer in a decider. Rafa may not have had the best year, is admittedly tired and has taken some gut checks to his confidence. But you know what? Competing with your teammates on the sidelines is a different deal and with all due respect to the Argentines, it's not Djokovic on the other side of the net.

My prediction: Spain wins its fifth title, 3-1.

Semifinal preview

2011-06-03T07:24:00.004-05:00

Whereas the women's tournament is a free-for-all shoot out, the top four men's seeds have advanced to the semifinals of this year's French Open. Nadal will square off against Murray, then Djokovic will face Federer.

Sweet.

Though it hardly needs to be reaffirmed who are the four best players in the world, this is a powerful statement for the world of men's tennis. The order shifts from time to time, but these four continue to separate themselves from the rest of the pack.

This is exactly what's expected of the top four in a Grand Slam, and in this particular case, you cannot ask for better match ups.

Murray, the only major-less of the group, is the surprise of the tournamen. Murray has now made the semifinals or better of all four majors, something I'm not sure I ever thought he'd be able to claim.

Normally I would not give the Scot a chance in hell to beat Nadal on clay. He is clearly the underdog against the five-time champion, but Nadal has not definitely not been on the top of his game throughout the tournament. Murray has earned some major credibility points in the last couple of months. He came closest of anyone to beating Novak Djokovic in a terrific match in Rome, and prevailed in some tough matches in Paris despite a torn ligament in his ankle. I think Murray would have to play the match of his life to knock off Nadal, but if he can simply maintain the form he's shown all week, he could definitely take a set or two. Nadal did not look right until a nice straight sets win over Soderling in the quarterfinals. He might be hitting his stride just at the right time but if there's any drop off, look out.

The more intriguing match is definitely Djokovic against Federer. The Serb, who is still undefeated in 2011, has marched through the draw mostly untroubled as everyone expected him to do. As though he needed more to go his way, his quarterfinal opponent Fabio Fognini disappointingly withdrew from their match with an injury. So Djokovic has not played since Sunday, though I seriously doubt that rust will be an issue. Djokovic is experienced enough to handle it and he's shown that he's mentally tough enough to stay focused despite a long layoff in the middle of a Grand Slam. Federer, on the other hand, has stayed totally under the radar but is the only semifinalist not to have lost a set. Certainly, Djokovic is two steps above any of the other opponents he's faced thus far, but there are worse things than entering a really difficult match with your game working on all cylinders.

Djokovic clearly has the edge, having beaten Federer in all three matches they've played this year. Odd to say this, but it would be an upset if Federer were to get the win here, which I think would have to happen in five sets. Before this year, Federer could remain steadfast in his game and expect Djokovic to falter. No more. If Federer is to win this match he has to be considerably more aggressive than he typically plays. Federer's normal style of working a point and waiting for the perfect shot to hit simply won't work against Djokovic. The longer a rally goes, the more it favors Djokovic who can also unexpectedly hit a winner from anywhere on court. Federer can put his foot on the accelerator to close out a set, but whether he can maintain going toe-to-toe from the baseline with the fitter and faster Djokovic in a best of five is another issue.

All that being said, it's Federer. It's a rare Grand Slam semifinal where he is the underdog and has no obvious advantages over his opponent. I don't expect that the occasion of the moment will have much effect on Djokovic. But you cannot count out experience.

Here's hoping for a couple of grudge matches.

French Open round 1 summary

2011-05-25T10:40:00.003-05:00

The opening round of the year's second Grand Slam was relatively straightforward, but as always, there were a few surprises.

Of no surprise was the easy passage of Novak Djokovic over Thiemo De Bakker in three lopsided sets. Other top players who had little trouble were Ferrer, Tsonga, Youzhny, Baghdatis and Troicki. Federer took care of troublesome Feliciano Lopez pretty solidly, winning a third-set tiebreak.

There were two big upsets in the first round that I absolutely did not see coming. Both 2010 semifinalist Tomas Berdych and 2010 quarterfinalist/recent Nice champion Nicolas Almagro both lost after winning the first two sets convincingly. Berdych lost 9-7 in the fifth to a french qualifier while Almagro lost two tough tiebreaks and 6-4 in the fifth. Not that one way is particularly better than the other. Both losses are major mental breakdowns for two players who have had very good success at this tournament. As though Murray's quarter wasn't already pretty smooth, Almagro and Canadian Milos Raonic are already out. Along with Berdych, Marin Cilic lost in straight sets, results that really make Djokovic's quarter easier.

Other results: Murray, Soderling, Melzer, Verdasco, Wawrinka, Monfils, Gasquet, del Potro, Bellucci, Davydenko, Fish, Querrey, Tipsarevic, Simon, Dolgopolov are all through. Verdasco beat Monaco in four sets, but it was a little dicey as he led 6-2, 5-2 before pulling out the second set, 7-5. Ernests Gulbis lost in straights--which now makes six straight first-round exits at Grand Slams.

Certainly the match of the opening round was Rafael Nadal versus John Isner. I did not give the big man that much of a chance to challenge but he used that booming serve to help him win two tiebreaks and take a 2-1 sets advantage. One would expect Nadal to turn the screws deep into the only fifth set he's ever played at Roland Garros, but it wasn't until the very end that it became clear that Nadal would get the edge. Despite the scare, I would imagine that the five-time champion will rebound with a shellacking in the next round.

Until round two!

French Open preview

2011-05-20T22:27:00.007-05:00

Every major on the tennis calendar is hotly anticipated but the potential story lines flood the 2011 French Open, which starts on Sunday.

Certainly at the top of the list is the man of the moment in the world of sport, Novak Djokovic. Riding a 37-match winning streak and on the heels of four straight victories over Rafael Nadal in Masters 1000 finals, two on clay, he has to be considered the favorite to pick up his first title at Roland Garros. His best result were two semifinal appearances, both of which he lost to, who else, Nadal. But between his diet, fitness, lethal play on court and his unfailing confidence, no one seems to be in a better position to knock off the defending champion heading into the tournament. They are appropriately on opposite sides of the draw, so they could only meet in a final. No disrespect to Federer, but a Nadal-Djokovic final on clay has some serious potential to be a legendary match. By the way, the path to number one is entirely in his hands. No matter how he does, if Nadal does not win the title, Djokovic takes over the top ranking--a deserved reward for his terrific success.
As a sidenote, Sports Illustrated did a lovely profile on the young Serb (he turns 24 on Sunday), focusing less on the streak itself but more on the proud Serbian behind it.

That being said, in six appearances at Roland Garros, Rafa Nadal has only lost once. Twice in his five title runs, he has won without dropping a set, including last year. But his convincing losses to Djokovic has relegated Nadal to the role of co-favorite. Both Djokovic and Nadal are too classy to trash talk each other. Nadal has conceded that he's not the best player in the world anymore, whatever the ranking currently says, and Djokovic has said that his two victories in Madrid and Rome pales in comparison to what Nadal has achieved over the past several years. Both are accurate statements. Nevertheless, Djokovic has turned tennis logic on its head and, strangely enough, Nadal has something to prove.

Speaking of weird tennis logic, if world number three Roger Federer were to somehow pick up his second French Open title this year, it would be an upset. With so much focus shifted to Nadal and Djokovic, Federer lurks in the shadows as a dark horse. Could he win the title, potentially beating both Djokovic and Nadal? Eh, yeah, but his form doesn't suggest he's really in a position to do so. I don't think anyone is. He'd have to kick it into another gear we haven't seen since he won the World Tour Finals in London last year. But he is a former champion, so who knows?

Normally I wouldn't think twice about Andy Murray on clay, but the Scot can definitely make some noise this year. Of all the hopeful challengers to Djokovic's invincibility, it was Murray, oddly enough, who came closest to knocking off the Serb in Rome. He has been battling some injuries, but if he stays healthy, he could definitely go deep into week two.

Of course, one cannot overlook the two-time defending finalist, Robin Soderling. The Swede is in Nadal's quarter of the draw and, until further notice, is still the only man to have beaten Nadal at this major. Others to look out for include David Ferrer, Nicolas Almagro and last year's semifinalists Tomas Berdych and Jurgen Melzer.

Anyway, the intrigue starts right from the beginning, as many of the top players have some tricky first-round matches. The draws, in general, are not particularly kind to any of the top four.

Nadal faces American John Isner. I expect Nadal to come through that in straight sets, but you never know with Isner. The clay slows down his booming serve considerably, and Nadal can pretty easily move the big man around the court. But Isner is not a qualifier and Nadal will surely take the challenge seriously. Soderling is the other big fish in that part of the draw, which also includes Davydenko, Baghdatis, Verdasco, Monaco and Ljubicic.

Djokovic shouldn't have any trouble in his first two rounds, but Juan Martin del Potro looms as a potential third-round opponent. A healthy delPo would make that a nail-biter but it wasn't even definite that the Argentine would play in Paris up until a few days ago. I think he has the potential to play very well, but the longer than match goes, the more it becomes and issue of fitness which favors Djokovic. 2010 semifinalist Tomas Berdych also looms, as do Gasquet, Youzhny, Cilic and Bellucci.

Federer has to be doing a facepalm at the draw, as he faces off against Spaniard Feliciano Lopez in the first round. Remember that Lopez came achingly close to beating Federer earlier this year in Rome. A best of five is a different animal, but Federer had better have his game on point. It gets worse from there: Ferrer, Tipsarevic, Tsonga, Wawrinka and Monfils are all in his section.

Even if Murray is healthy, his draw could be a minefield. Rising stars Milos Raonic and Alexandr Dolgopolov are hiding in there, as is 2010 semifinalist Jurgen Melzer, Almagro, and Serbian Davis Cup hero Viktor Troicki.

First round popcorn matches:

Certainly, keep an eye out for Federer v. Lopez--that is no cakewalk. Lleyton Hewitt against Albert Montanes could be very entertaining, as could Nadal v. Isner.

My most likely candidate for a first-round "upset" is Fernando Verdasco versus Argentine Juan Monaco. Last year, the Madrileno arrived in Paris following a terrific clay court season, including a title in Barcelona. Then he crashed out in the fourth round to Almagro. A year later, Verdasco arrives in Paris on the heels of a months-long slump, ranked outside the top ten, and making headlines for his attitude rather than his play. Monaco hasn't exactly been lighting it up this season but for a player who's struggling with his confidence, there's nothing more dangerous than a player who has nothing to lose.

Juan Martin del Potro against Ivo Karlovic could be interesting, if for no other reason than to see how the big Argentine is feeling. Having to withstand the barrage of big serves from his even bigger opponent could be a good test, even though the advantage is firmly delPo's once the ball is in play.

With any one tournament, you don't want to overstate its implications in the world of tennis. But it cannot be denied that the tide has shifted away from Federer/Nadal and their terrific rivalry, and more toward Nadal/Djokovic and the latter's utter dominance this year. Not since Federer and Nadal completed their ascents to the top ranking has one event so strongly symbolized a coronation. Djokovic is the frontrunner to win this title, a previously unthinkable concept, and to become the number one player for the first time in his career. It would be his greatest triumph to date. A lot has to happen before we get to that point, but anyone who has watched his growth this year believes--rightly so--that he has a legitimate chance to do it.

Stay tuned!

Barcelona review

2011-04-25T12:13:00.002-05:00

With the second big clay court tournament of the season in the books, here are some thoughts on what went down in Barcelona.

For the second week running, Rafa Nadal has taken home the title. He has also figured out a way to possibly one up himself from his ridiculous clay court run last year. He'd planned to play in Barcelona last year but decided to skip it in order to protect his body. We see how that worked out. Now he has won his sixth title in Barcelona to go along with his seven consecutive titles in Monte Carlo. Jeez.

Also for the second week in a row, David Ferrer has played terrific tennis to advance to the finals, only to be thwarted by Nadal. Certainly it has to be a little disappointing to lose again, especially since he did not play his best match, but two finals in two weeks is nothing to sneeze at.

The success of the Spaniards was contagious, as Nicolas Almagro made it to the semifinals and former French Open champ Juan Carlos Ferrero made it to the quarterfinals. Almagro's run helped him break into the top ten for the first time in his career.

Two-time French Open finalist Robin Soderling didn't have a great outing, losing in his opening round match to Ivan Dodig. Probably not that big of a deal, but still notable since he was last year's finalist. Dodig took out Raonic in the next round and went on to make it to the semifinals.

Andy Murray had to pull out of Barcelona, citing the elbow injury he suffered before the Monte Carlo semifinals where he lost to Nadal in three sets. One hopes that an injury doesn't get in the way of what looked to be a timely emergence from his extended funk.

Coming up next week are three 250 tournaments in Belgrade, Munich and Estoril. Novak Djokovic will make his highly anticipated clay-court debut in his hometown and put his incredible win streak to the test. Again, we have to be on the injury watch to see if his knees give him any issues. Soderling, Tsonga, Verdasco, del Potro and Raonic will be in Estoril. Youzhny will head the field in Munich, where former World No. 2 Tommy Haas will make his comeback after more than a year away and two surgeries. Wawrinka and Cilic will also contend in Germany.

Stay tuned!

Odesnik on the comeback trail

2011-04-20T18:58:00.004-05:00

Interesting read from USA Today: an interview with recently-reinstated American tennis player Wayne Odesnik following a year-long ban for possessing a banned substance.

To be clear, Odesnik was not written up for the act of doping, and insists that he has never done so, but rather for bringing in vials of human growth hormone when he arrived in Australia for a tournament early last year.

His ban was to be two years but was curiously halved by the ITF because he is cooperating with authorities in their investigation. It isn't clear what his cooperation entails, however.

He is back playing low-tier tournaments for the time being. If he makes it back to tour-level events, but I'm not sure he will shed his persona-non-grata label anytime soon, at least not among the players. I don't see a lot of players rushing to his side to defend him, like Rafa Nadal did when Richard Gasquet tested positive for cocaine in 2009. I find Odesnik's logic for why he did what he did questionable and ignorant, at best. I also find it...odd...that he is now being coached by Guillermo Canas, who famously had to fight to get a two-year ban of his own for taking a banned diuretic.

Only time will tell.

Monte Carlo review

2011-04-16T14:20:00.008-05:00

With the first Masters 1000 clay court tournament of 2011 now finished, here are some impressions.

No matter how great Rafa Nadal is anywhere he plays, he reminds every year that clay is his bread and butter and he is pretty much invincible on the red dirt. So it surprises few that he won his seventh (!) consecutive title in Monte Carlo, defeating countryman David Ferrer, 6-4, 7-5. Still, what a phenomenal achievement. He's now won 19 Masters 1000 titles, breaking his own record set last year. Sheesh.

Ferrer is also someone happy to see clay again. Though his most notable results have been on hard courts and he's started his year well, he seems to kick it up another gear on the dirt. He had a great clay court season in 2010 up until his shock third-round loss in Paris to Melzer. (I had the Spaniard penciled in to the semifinals to face Nadal--whoops). Nevertheless, he stormed through his side of the draw in Monte Carlo, winning his 100th Masters 1000 match and reaching another final. He gave Nadal a good test, losing in two close sets, which is nothing to sneeze at. Look for him in the next few weeks.

Andy Murray had a terrific showing and it's hard to overstate how monumental that is. He slipped into a pretty bad funk after his devastating loss to Djokovic in the Australian Open finals in January and had not won a match until this week. But he turned in some very solid and impressive wins, even taking Nadal to three sets before falling in the semifinals. And he said after that an elbow injury he'd suffered was so painful that he might not have played against Nadal were it not for a cortisone injection. Still, what an encouraging result for him. Clay, though not a "weakness" (he has made the quarterfinals at Roland Garros) is definitely his weakest surface. It seemed most unlikely that Monte Carlo would be the place he would start to turn it around, but he did it. Here's hoping there's more where that came from.

Speaking of resurgences, Jurgen Melzer had a solid showing, as well. He hasn't been much of factor this year or even since his breakthrough at last year's French Open, but he notched a nice straight-sets victory over Federer in the quarterfinals before falling to Ferrer. It's anybody's guess where he goes from here, but good results are good results. He also had the best quote of the tournament after defeating Federer. In response to a question if the Swiss was losing his luster a bit, Melzer replied:

"He has played tennis on such a high level that for him being three in the world is a downgrade, which if you think about it, it's kind of stupid. For me, he's the greatest player that has ever played that game. For him to lose matches, it's every time a tragic. There is a lot of players out there that would love to be in his shirt going out of that locker room and being on the court."

Well said, Melzer, and very classy.

As for Federer, it's a little hard to gauge this loss. Disappointing, definitely, but not disastrous. He looked to be in very good form leading into the Melzer match and didn't play poorly. But that seems to be a pattern with Federer as of late--he blows through lesser-ranked opponents but something goes a little awry against tougher players. In Indian Wells and Miami, his ground strokes were off and he lacked rhythm. Here, he was unable to capitalize on break point opportunities. The scoreline easily could have gone the other way in Federer's favor, but that ability to deliver in the clutch isn't quite so automatic anymore. Quite simply, he has to work harder for big wins over big opponents.

Djokovic skipped this week to rest his knees. Not surprising. His knees certainly haven't gotten in the way of his success this year but he's admitted that they are problematic and painful. Smart move to take a break and refuel.

Someone who looks like he needs a reboot is Fernando Verdasco. He lost his opening round match, the fifth time he has crashed and burned early this year. For months he has managed to stay in the top ten despite long winless lulls, mainly because the guys behind him have also faltered or have been injured. By sheer luck, he moved to number eight because Roddick lost so many points from his early loss in Miami. But his good fortune is about to run out. He will lose close to 600 points because of this defeat (he was last year's finalist) and should land around number 13 at the week's end. He isn't playing Barcelona next week where he is the defending champion, so he will lose another 500 points because of that. He has more points to defend from being last year's semifinalist at Rome and finalist at Nice. If he doesn't pull it together quickly, a free fall is in his near future.

In the points race among the top three, anything goes. Every little bit counts. Rafa has a ridiculous amount of points to defend all year, particularly over the next three months. Last year, he swept all three Masters 1000 clay court tournaments before storming through the French Open for his fifth title without dropping a set. Anything less than a repeat--which is entirely possible--and he spots Djokovic and Federer points.
Federer is on the other end of the spectrum. Last year he skipped Monte Carlo, lost early in Rome and lost the Estoril semifinals. He made the finals of Madrid but then fell in the quarterfinals at Paris as the defending champion. Certainly, he was looking for more points in Monte Carlo this week, but a semifinal here and a final there will help him make up ground.
Djokovic is the wild card. Can he continue this amazing run? He suffers a bit from not playing Monte Carlo, where he made the semifinals last year. He only played one other 1000 event on clay last year, losing in quarterfinals at Rome and lost again in the quarterfinals at Roland Garros. He's in a quirky position where he can definitely make a run at Nadal if he plays more events and keeps winning, but he also doesn't have a load of points to defend to stay clear of Federer.

Next stop, Barcelona.

Uncertain legacy

2011-04-14T10:44:00.004-05:00

A fine piece via The New York Times on what will happen with Barry Bonds now that the dust of his federal trial is beginning to settle--for now.

I'm not sure the conviction--which Bonds' lawyers have asked to be thrown out--changes all that much about where Bonds stands in the court of public opinion. Obstructing justice, though significant, doesn't really get to the heart of what many have speculated about for years. Legally, it could not be established that he knowingly took steroids and lied about it. But I think a lot of people made up their minds about that long before anyone set foot in a courtroom. Kudos to the jurors for making their decision based upon the facts presented and not upon the cloud of suspicion that had hung over the beleaguered star for years. But you can't unring the bell here. Barry Bonds has become inextricably linked with juicing. I don't think a mistrial changes that and I don't think a mistrial is something to hang your hat on when you're trying to get into Cooperstown. OJ was acquitted, but that didn't exactly quell fears that he was indeed guilty. I think Barry Bonds was long ago doomed to live in disgraceful infamy and no federal trial could save him from that fate.

But we'll see.

Death of a legend

2011-03-23T13:11:00.003-05:00

Amidst all the rightful hoopla over the death of film icon Elizabeth Taylor, tucked at the bottom of the New York Times web page today was the news that one of gymnastics' patriarchs, Nikolai Andrianov, died on Monday. He was 58.

Andrianov was the men's version of fellow Soviet Larissa Latynina. He won more Olympic medals than any other male gymnast and is third all-time behind Latynina and Michael Phelps among all athletes. He emerged as a force even when the Soviet team as a whole played second-fiddle to Japan, whose gymnasts (such as Sawao Kato, Mitsuo Tsukahara, Akinori Nakayama and Shigeru Kasamatsu) dominated the sport through the '60's and much of the 70's. In the 1976 Montreal Olympics, after four consecutive team titles, it looked like the mighty Japanese might finally succumb to the Soviets. But in one of the sport's most legendary stories, Shun Fujimoto helped the Japanese secure their fifth team title by the slimmest of margins while competing on a broken leg.

Not to be denied, Andrianov went on to win six more medals in Montreal, four of them gold, including the prestigious all-around over two-time defending champion Sawao Kato. He added five more medals in Moscow in 1980. Andrianov was inducted into the International Gymnastics Hall of Fame in 2001 alongside his wife, Lyubov Burda, and his great rival, Kato.

Later, he became well known for joining forces with the Japanese to coach their Olympic team. He worked extensively with Naoya Tsukahara, son of Mitsuo, another one of his biggest rivals in the '70's.

Men's gymnastics has certainly had its share of great stars, but none nearly as prolific as the strong Soviet. He was and is the benchmark against which all male gymnasts have been measured for the past 30 years.

He will be missed.

Never, ever land

2011-03-20T18:33:00.004-05:00

Novak Djokovic can do no wrong in 2011 thus far, as he won his 20th straight match and claimed the Indian Wells Masters title over world number 1, Rafa Nadal, 4-6, 6-3, 6-2.

After defeating Roger Federer for the third straight time this year in the semifinals, Djokovic will supplant the Swiss at number two, a spot he thoroughly deserves. And much like the match against Federer, Djokovic and Nadal split relatively one-sided sets before Djokovic ran away with the third with his relentless power, accuracy and defense. You know you're doing something right when you can make Federer and Nadal look ordinary.

In the past couple of weeks, the 23-year-old Serbian continued to bust apart any "never, ever" statements surrounding him: no one had ever started an ATP season 18-0; despite seven previous wins against Nadal, he'd never beaten the Spaniard in a final; very few could ever claim to have beaten Federer three times in a row in the same season.

But the man has kept winning and kept defying the odds. In case you're not totally convinced that this is a different, more confident player who has forever turned the corner in his career, he wins again.

Well, I'm sold. Mind you, his game hasn't changed much. Certainly he has gotten his stinging serve back under control, but his superb movement, power and defense is all the same. What is noticeably different is his mental fortitude. Before this year, you could almost always count on Djokovic's confidence and focus to waver in the final stages of a match, especially against Federer and Nadal. But at no point this year has he looked like he was about to have a mental meltdown. And the more he continues playing and winning at this level, the less vulnerable he becomes. It's a vicious cycle.

As great as he is on hard courts, it's easy to forget he is excellent on clay, as well. He shows no signs of slowing down. Until someone finds a way to penetrate his armor, he is the man to beat. Though there is a big gap in points between number one and two, and Federer is still within striking distance at number three, the Serb clearly has his eyes on the top ranking.

For the first time in his career, it looks like nothing is standing in his way and he might just do it. Time will tell.

No joke

2011-03-15T15:51:00.009-05:00

Um, is Novak Djokovic ever going to lose a match?

Still batting 1.000 for the 2011 season after winning in Melbourne and Dubai, the Serbian extended his win streak to 17 matches on Wednesday after defeating fellow Serb Viktor Troicki, 6-0, 6-1 at the Indian Wells Masters.

That was a day after he beat Latvia's Ernests Gulbis by the same score: 6-0, 6-1.

Sheesh.

Admittedly, Gulbis was last year's up-and-coming player for a while but has slowly slid back down the rankings. And Troicki can be a bit of a mental case. But Gulbis is number 34 in the world and Troicki is number 18. We're not talking about scrubs here.

But to say that Djokovic has hit another gear in 2011 is a massive understatement. Much in the way that top players are expected to do, he has no interest in messing around with lower-ranked players in the earlier rounds. He is quickly taking care of business so he can play with guys at his level for major championships.

But that's no different from the way Djokovic has played since he reached the top three. What is new is his staggering level of consistency in obliterating his opponents. This is something we've gotten used to seeing from Rafa Nadal and Roger Federer. Djokovic is clearly brimming with confidence, rightfully so, and looks totally secure with himself and his game. In years past, Djokovic would usually put up a great battle but eventually fall against Nadal or Federer. Now he's forcing everyone to take him a lot more seriously.

Winning tends to have that effect.

One thing that hasn't changed is that the Serb is still one of the most likable and personable players on tour. These videos of him answering fan questions via Facebook prove that.

Earthquake aftermath

2011-03-14T09:20:00.005-05:00

In the wake of the devastating earthquake and tsunami that slammed northeastern Japan and has jeopardized the stability of nuclear power plants, the International Skating Federation has called off the World Figure Skating Championships which had been scheduled to begin next week in Tokyo.

Read the story here.

The last time the world championships were canceled was in 1961 after the tragic airplane crash that killed every member of the United States figure skating team. In perhaps the most devastating incident in the sport's history, the team had been on its way to the worlds in Prague when Sabena Flight 548 pulled up erratically and crashed into a field in Brussels. All 72 people on board were killed, as was one person on the ground. The U.S. virtually disappeared from the world scene for seven years until Peggy Fleming brought it back to the forefront, becoming Olympic champion in 1968.

Though certainly this news comes as a blow to all the skaters who'd planned to compete, no doubt the athletes' safety and the recovery of the people hit hardest by the disaster has to take precedence. The Yoyogi venue was undamaged by the earthquake, but virtually every federation has advised its citizens against traveling to Japan for the time being.

Sometimes, sport is just a sport.

Doubles time

2011-03-10T11:56:00.015-06:00

The first Masters 1000 tournament of 2011 at Indian Wells figures to have plenty of intrigue. Not only does the men's singles feature all the top players, but also several exciting up-and-comers such as Dolgopolov, Raonic and Golubev. The re-emergence of Juan Martin del Potro is also exciting as he continues his long but steady climb up the rankings.

But what really has me jazzed is the news that nine of the top ten singles players have also entered the doubles.

Hallelujah!

Doubles has been earning some much-deserved street cred as of late. The Bryans continue to lead the charge, and the Indo-Pak Express and the reunion of Leander Paes and Mahesh Bhupathi have also drawn a lot of positive attention to these terrific athletes. The Bryans can now be mentioned in the same breath as many legendary partnerships: the Woodies, Navratilova/Shriver, Zvereva/Fernandez and Ruano Pascual/Suarez, to name a few. This profile about the volatile but successful partnership between Zvereva and Fernandez is a great read and still makes me laugh.

It's easy to forget that it was once commonplace for top singles players to double up, so to speak. John McEnroe is still considered one of the best doubles players ever, as are Martina Navratilova and Margaret Court. Martina Hingis won more doubles titles than singles and the Williams sisters are fifth all-time with 12 a piece. (Let us not forget that Serena's first Grand Slam title was in mixed doubles with Max Mirnyi at Wimbledon).

Though no current top singles players come close to being equally successful in doubles, the more prominent guys have tried their hand at doubles with decent success. Roger Federer won the Olympic gold medal in Beijing partnering Stanislas Wawrinka, beating the Bryans en route. Last year, Andy Murray joined older brother Jamie (a solid doubles player in his own right) and the two won their first title in Valencia. Rafael Nadal partnered with fellow Spaniard Marc Lopez and the pair won the ATP Masters in Indian Wells, defeating Nestor and Zimonjic. Jurgen Melzer, coming off his surprising semifinal run at the French Open, won Wimbledon with Philipp Petzschner. And in one of the more star-studded pairings, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic teamed up at the Rogers Cup, though they lost in the first round.

Having such recognizable singles players in the doubles draw certainly runs the risk of overshadowing and undermining doubles specialists. But let's be honest, drawing more eyes to doubles is a good thing. More intrigue means more TV viewers and spectators, which means more sponsors, more prize money and perhaps more respect for the discipline. I mean, is it really fair that Rafa Nadal banked a base prize of $1.7 million for winning the US Open last year while the Bryans split less than 1/4 that amount ($420,000)? I say no.

I think that whatever the benefits and drawbacks, the more the merrier. Bring on the singles players. But in an ominous omen, the second-ranked doubles team of Mirnyi and Nestor fell to Federer and Wawrinka on Friday and only won three games in the process. No matter how you slice it, that is decidedly not a good thing and does make doubles specialists look bad.

Davis Cup, round one

2011-03-07T19:12:00.011-06:00

The first round of the Davis cup ties is in the books, with only a few surprising results emerging.

Are we really talking about this right now? I mean, didn't Serbia just win the Davis Cup a couple of months ago? It just seems strange that so soon after what is one of the biggest athletic triumphs in the country's history, the Serbs had to take to the court to defend their title. If they'd lost, they'd still technically be the Davis Cup champions but the luster of the achievement would certainly fade.

Not to worry. Serbia took out India 4-1 without world no. 3 Novak Djokovic. No shutouts in this round, but in other lopsided, somewhat pointless 4-1 contests, Spain defeated Belgium, United States took out Chile (sans the still injured Fernando Gonzalez) and Argentina beat Romania.

Sweden defeated Russia 3-2, proving that you (read: Russia) cannot pose a serious threat when your best player is ranked number 77 and your opponent's best player is ranked number four. France got a somewhat surprising win against Austria, even without Gael Monfils or Jo-Wilfried Tsonga to help. Germany went to the wire to beat Croatia, 3-2. All three opening matches went to five sets, swinging in favor of Germany. After Marin Cilic saved the Croats in reverse singles, Philipp Petzschner stepped up to win the decider against Ivo Karlovic.

In the biggest upset, Kazakhstan took out the Czech Republic 3-2, in large part due to the victory of Andrey Golubev over Tomas Berdych in the first reverse singles. That's a very disappointing result for Berdych but, to be fair, the Czech team ceases to exist without him. Case in point, the match against Golubev was Berydch's third match. Jan Hajek, the other singles player, is just barely ranked inside the top 100 and played two matches. Their next best guy is ranked 848. That's an unreasonable burden on Berdych. (By contrast, Spain fielded three guys in the top 10 against Belgium. They benched the injured sixth-ranked Ferrer and were able to replace him with the ninth-ranked Verdasco).

One thing I love about the Davis Cup is that even if a player is struggling in his season, they can often put that aside for pride of country.

Example: The Americans are typically awful on clay, which is why any hosting team automatically chooses it for the surface. But they prevailed in some very close matches over far inferior players to get the 4-1 victory. None of the Americans will probably make it past the third round of the French Open this year, but they came through for the team.

Example 2: Fernando Verdasco is having a disappointing start to his season, showing no signs that he will make his career about something more than the 2009 Australian Open semifinal--despite this Deuce magazine profile suggesting otherwise. He didn't win any fans by whining after a second straight loss to rising star Milos Raonic in Memphis, boasting that it was not "a real match in tennis" and wait-until-I-get-him-on-clay. (Beware a foot-in-mouth situation when the clay court season rolls around). Nevertheless, he notched a very solid win in the first singles rubber and teamed with Feliciano Lopez to give Spain the deciding point in doubles.

Quarterfinal matches in July: Serbia at Sweden, Kazakhstan at Argentina, Spain at USA, and France at Germany.

On that note: hysterical and very astute blog post highlighting the obvious deficiencies with Davis Cup scheduling.

The confusion continues

2011-03-02T11:22:00.004-06:00

When I first sat down to write this, it was with a sigh of relief. For once, we had a reprieve from the never-ending debate about who is the WTA number one player and who should be.

It was, alas, just a brief moment.

Two weeks ago, Kim Clijsters took over the number one ranking from Caroline Wozniacki, allowing the rankings to reflect what we all knew--that the Belgian was the best player in the game. Further, she did us all a favor. We can't wait forever for the charming Wozniacki to win her first major (she doesn't get another chance until May-June), so Clijsters took matters into her own hands.

In a very Carlos Moya/Patrick Rafter-type deal, the young Dane reclaimed the top spot the very next week thanks to title-winning performance in Dubai.

Oy.

This whole debate about how the rankings work has raged almost non-stop since Justine Henin retired (the first time) back in 2008. Things were so much simpler back then. She was the best player in the game + she won majors = she was the rightful world number one. Simple math. But the subsequent revolving door at the top has taken turns crowning proven champions such as Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova, and alternatively, the not-so-proven Jelena Jankovic, Dinara Safina and now Caroline Wozniacki.

It all boils down to which is more important: consistency or big titles? The rankings slightly favor the former while every other rubric prefers the latter. There is something to be said for year-long consistency and being able to play at high levels week in, week out. That said, it's safe to assume that Safina, Jankovic and Wozniacki would trade the ranking in a heartbeat for a major. Furthermore, if all three were to retire right now, not one would make it into the Hall of Fame.

On the other hand, I also don't think it's fair to do the Serena Williams method of win a couple of majors then automatically ascend to the top ranking. Is it a problem when you win two of the year's four Grand Slams and are still not number one in the world? Perhaps. But it is also a problem when you only play seven tournaments the entire year and expect to be number one because you won two majors? Definitely. It's a marathon, not a sprint.

The coincidence of it all is that Kim Clijsters started this whole nonsense. She was the first to defy logic and reach number one without ever having won a major, followed closely by longtime underachiever Amelie Mauresmo. Then the two traded the dubious distinction of having competed in the most majors without winning, among active players. But then Clijsters was the first to break both streaks, winning her first major at the 2005 U.S. Open. Mauresmo followed, winning both the Australian Open and Wimbledon in 2006. Case closed. Discussion over. (As if Clijsters needed to bolster her case, she's now won the U.S. Open two more times and the Australian Open in January since her comeback).

I'm still not convinced that there's a defect in the rankings system that needs to be fixed. Majors already weigh more heavily than any other tournament, so what else is there to do? Already the ranking is a mere suggestion of who the number one player is in the court of public opinion. Spectators and analysts will draw their own conclusions because or in spite of the number.

I think the bigger question for Wozniacki is what is it about her game that allows to become number one but not to win a major? More than once, I have read arguments that the Dane's game isn't offensive enough to win seven matches in a row at the big ones. But it is good enough to win her number one? Hmm... Something seems amiss there.

Serena lands in hospital

2011-03-02T10:11:00.004-06:00

People magazine is reporting this morning that tennis star Serena Williams had emergency surgery in L.A. for a pulmonary embolism, a.k.a. a blood clot in her lungs.

Williams has not played on the tour since last summer after capturing her fourth Wimbledon title. She cut her foot on a piece of glass at a restaurant and has been out of commission since, despite two surgeries.

Here's hoping she's okay.

Ronaldo retires

2011-02-14T15:38:00.002-06:00

Okay, I have to claim a bit of ignorance on this one.

When I'd heard that football star Ronaldo announced his retirement, I immediately jumped on Google to see what had been reported on it. When I didn't see anything, I let it go at that, perhaps assuming that the news just broke and ESPN was the first to jump on it.

Which, no disrespect to ESPN, is stupid because Ronaldo is one of the game's biggest legends. Numerous media outlets would have gotten the word out simultaneously.

It was then that I'd realized the error of my ways. I thought they were talking about Cristiano Ronaldo, the Portuguese forward who plays for Real Madrid, who is only 26 years old. Whoops.

In all fairness, Brazilian Ronaldo--who is 34--also played for Real Madrid in his pro career. When I typed "Ronaldo" into Google this time, both guys came up in an assortment of results. I realize that no real football fan ever would have confused the two. But give me a break. I only watch football during the World cup.

Anyway, for those in the know as well as those without a clue, the New York Times did a wonderful retrospective on Ronaldo's career. Kinda makes me wish I'd paid attention to football all these years.

A fall in progress

2011-02-07T13:39:00.005-06:00

The rise and fall of any star athlete is a well-trodden path for any sports writer. That doesn't make it any less compelling or heartbreaking. This story, about William "The Refrigerator" Perry, chronicles a precipitous fall that is evident to everyone except the person doing the falling. What is also evident, in my mind, is that this is a decline that has yet to reach its final low point. And that makes it especially tragic.

Deja vu

2011-01-26T17:28:00.008-06:00

Imagine my surprise when I walked past an NBC ticker and it said that Justine Henin was retiring--again.

Err...what?

Henin wrote an open letter on her website, explaining that the elbow injury she suffered at Wimbledon last year refuses to heal. Upon medical advice, she has decided that the best thing to do would be to retire.

ESPN did a very nice review of Henin's second career, highlighting how the stoic, guarded and totally focused athlete returned to the sport more mature, relaxed and with a glint of personality. And her success was immediate, making the Australian Open final in just her second tournament back. It was good to have her back, especially in light of the decline of the supposed-to-be new generation of stars--Ana Ivanovic and Dinara Safina--and the stagnation of Maria Sharapova and Jelena Jankovic.

But much as I love Justine, a woman who played with a new lease on life is not what I most remember from her comeback. What I do remember is that it was brief and unsatisfying. Her second retirement is just as unexpected as when she hung it up in 2008.

Three years ago, she was at the top of the sport. The female equivalent of Roger Federer, as many called her. She had suffered some bad losses but she was about to enter the French Open as the four-time and defending champion. No one looked to be in a position to unseat her.

But unknown to all of us, she felt unmotivated and in need of something different in her life. When she so abruptly said goodbye to the sport and asked that her WTA points be erased immediately, it was like someone breaking up you when you think everything is going great. Really? That's it? Can't we talk about this some more? In her absence, a stream of players have temporarily leased the top spot, sometimes controversially. We had four different Grand Slam champions in 2008, in contrast with 2007 when Justine won two and 2006 when she won one but made every Grand Slam final.

Many rejoiced her return last year, as she fought Serena to the end for the Australian Open title right out of the blocks. With Serena at the top of her game (again) and Kim Clijsters back and better than ever, I thought Justine's return would help rejuvenate the sport--a line of proven champions pulling it back into relevance.

But her year steadily declined after that early success. It was clear to me that she was not as sharp as she had once been. The famous backhand was still very much intact, but like many of the top women she was plagued by inconsistent serving. She was knocked out of the French Open by Sam Stosur, then bounced from Wimbledon by Clijsters following that elbow injury. Now this.

Perhaps what's most unsettling is that something else made the decision for her. Justine Henin, by her own admission, as always been something of a control freak. She nearly always did things her way and refused to apologize for it. Even in times of questionable judgment--"The Hand" incident against Serena Williams, retiring from a Grand Slam final with a stomachache--she has stood her ground. She kept a tight grip over her personal life, keeping a select group of people close to her and choosing when to reconcile with her long-estranged family. She skipped a major when she was going through her divorce. She decided what to reveal to the media and when, and couldn't have cared less what anyone thought about it. And of course, she made the highly unorthodox move of retiring as the undisputed number one player.

This choice, however, hardly seems to be within her control. But it is what it is. Whatever the reason and whatever the circumstances, Justine is a great champion and she will be missed.

Again.

Australian Open preview

2011-01-16T16:54:00.004-06:00

In about a half hour, the 2011 Australian Open will kick off. Year after year, Melbourne is often the scene for the most entertaining matches of the year and the draws present an exciting beginning.

Tricky first-round matches:

For the men, Lleyton Hewitt has to square off against David Nalbandian (27). That could be an extended battle but the winner is in the same part of the draw as David Ferrer. It will only get more difficult.

In the absence of defending champion Serena Williams, Kim Clijsters has to be the favorite. But her first match is against the chronic head case, Dinara Safina. The Russian practically disappeared from the tour after the Australian Open last year, suffering from a terrible back injury. It's anyone's guess what kind of form she is in, but she's also in the unique position of having no one expect anything from her. Perhaps, then, she will feel free from the pressure of being a top-ranked player and can play the game that got her to the top ranks in the first place. I still expect Clijsters to win, but it will be interesting.

Men's' draw:

On paper, it looks like Federer has the "easiest" section of the draw. Seeded players in his quarter include Roddick, Monfils, Fish, Querrey and Wawrinka, all of whom Federer has great records against and all of whom can shake things up if Federer is off his game. But based on how Federer has played in the last several weeks, he the outlook is very positive.

The other top guys have much bumpier roads out of their quarters. Nadal is with Ferrer, Youzhny, 2010 semifinalist Cilic, Isner, Nalbandian and Lopez. Djokovic is in a minefield with Berdych, Gasquet, Davydenko, Verdasco, Almagro, Ljubicic and Troicki. Soderling and Murray also have a bumpy road, alongside del Potro, Gulbis, Tsonga, Melzer and Baghdatis.

Women's' draw:

Clisters might be the favorite but it's no cakewalk to the semifinals. she's with Jankovic, Ivanovic, Radwanska and the woman who creamed her last year, Petrova.
World no. 1 Wozniacki could have pretty smooth sailing until the quarterfinals where she might meet 2004 champion Justine Henin. The Belgian also faded away after her highly successful comeback last year in which she made it to the finals and lost to Serena. Schiavone, Bartoli, Kuznetsova and Wickmayer are also there to trip someone up.
Venus is with Azarenka, Sharapova, Li Na, Rezai and Hantuchova. It doesn't look like much can get in the way of a Stosur/Zvonareva quarterfinal, as Pennetta, Peer and Kirilenko don't usually have the firepower for an upset.

Predictions:

The Aussie Open is often the site of surprise breakthroughs but I would be surprised if Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray (or Soderling) did not advance to the semifinals. There are a lot of guys who are capable of making a great run but the top five have showed really solid form in the past few weeks. Experience almost always wins out in the clutch. Curiously, Soderling has never made it past the second round in Melbourne, but I do not anticipate that will be an issue this year. He's a different player.

With Serena unable to defend her title, it really leaves the field wide open. While the men showed some incredible form at the end of last season, most of the women limped away from theirs, so it is difficult to know what form everyone is in. Clijsters has the most momentum from last year and will want to redeem herself from a third-round defeat last year. One question will be if Wozniacki can make a breakthrough and win her first slam. Past champions Sharapova and Henin are always dangerous, as are the talented Serbians. There are a slew of other players who could easily get hot and go deep, as Li Na did last year.

We shall see!

Down, boy

2010-12-29T17:09:00.009-06:00

When Michael Vick was released from prison and allowed to re-enter the NFL, my dad announced that once the disgraced quarterback started playing--and winning--everyone would forget about that dog fighting business.

Well, Vick is playing and winning plenty. The Eagles are 10-5 and leading the NFC East. But the dog fights are still fresh is some people's minds.

This is particularly so with conservative commentator and Fox analyst Tucker Carlson who thinks that Vick not only shouldn't have received a chance at redemption in the NFL, but should have been more severely punished for his crime:

"Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did (it) in a heartless and cruel way. I think personally he should have been executed for that."

Are you kidding me?!

To be clear, in no way do I advocate anything that Michael Vick did. It was unequivocally wrong and he should have been punished for it. Anytime I see those ASPCA commercials of sad dogs and cats who have been abused, I have to turn away because they make me cry.

But I'm sorry, I'm going to express a species bias here. I don't think that anyone who mistreats animals should receive a stricter punishment than someone who mistreats people. We live in a society where people who kill other people are not systematically executed. We live in a world of mass murder and genocide wherein the perpetrators live freely for decades or die before they are brought to justice. Atrocious crimes have been committed throughout world history, but Michael Vick's simply isn't one of them.

So until we create a world in which we make everyone accountable for the way we treat others, leave Michael Vick alone. He was convicted, he served his time and he is trying to make amends for what he did.

Execute a man for animal cruelty? Give me a freaking break. Let's get our priorities straight.

Separate and (un)equal?

2010-12-20T09:56:00.011-06:00

The dynastic University of Connecticut Lady Huskies basketball team tied the infamous UCLA Bruins record yesterday, winning their 88th straight game by defeating Ohio State 81-50 at Madison Square Garden. They can break the record this week against Florida State, a game they will probably win easily.

Yes, people are discussing it on sports radio this morning but I suspect it's more because they have to acknowledge this feat and less that they're giving a genuine shout out to a great team. The build up to this moment has been minimal and not many highlighted this game as a history making event. I never saw a commercial for "Watch Maya Moore and Tiffany Hayes lead the UConn Huskies against Ohio State at Madison Square Garden as they aim to tie the UCLA Bruins NCAA record." Maybe I just didn't see it. But heck, the New York Times pointed out that neither ESPN nor ESPN2 saw fit to broadcast it and banished the contest to ESPN U--which I'm not even sure I get in my cable package.

Nevertheless, not acknowledging that win and discussing the legacy of the Huskies would be an enormous slight on a major athletic accomplishment. In all likelihood, these ladies will probably go on to have another wonderful season and will be on everyone's shortlist for team of the year. But I doubt that they'll win many of those awards, even if they do win their third straight national championship. That honor will go to some professional team with more star power.

Many argue that the reason the Huskies haven't gotten their due is because of good old-fashioned sexism. Geno Auriemma expressed as much during his post-game news conference.

"All the women are happy as hell and they can't wait to come in here and ask questions. All the guys that loved women's basketball are all excited, and all the miserable bastards that follow men's basketball and don't want us to break the record are all here because they're pissed. That's just the way it is."

It wouldn't surprise me if Auriemma is right. Goodness forbid we should ever acknowledge that a woman is better at sports than a man. But I'm not in a position to objectively compare one streak to the other. I wasn't around when UCLA made their run and I've seen no more than five games of the Huskies winning streak.

But that has nothing to do with a battle of the sexes. I don't care about college basketball at all unless it's March Madness, so I'm equal-opportunity apathetic. The reason I haven't followed this storyline is because...it's boring. UConn winning another basketball game hardly registers in my head anymore because they do it all the damn time. It's too predictable for them and everyone who watches them. I simply lost track.

It doesn't help that the vast majority of their wins are double-digit blowouts. Fine, so they win most of their games easily because they are that much better than everyone else. But can we get some buzzer beaters here and there? One team that might actually give them some trouble? Even Roger Federer loses on occasion and Rafa Nadal is around to make sure of it. (Yeah, yeah, I had to make a tennis comparison).

It doesn't help that the women's game has gotten boring. Think about it. Last season's only other big story was the emergence of Baylor center Brittney Griner and then her punching some girl in the face. This year's national championship game was possibly the dullest game I've ever seen, hardly a testament to anyone's athleticism. We are far from the days of the fierce battles between UConn and Tennessee, two great teams led by the sport's two best coaches. Now that was exciting basketball. Now it's UConn and everyone else in their wake. After a while, it just gets old.

None of this diminishes their worth as athletes. On the contrary. That kind of dominance with a constant rotation of players only cements Geno Auriemma's legacy and his program's reputation of being the best no matter who dons the uniform. Comparing one streak to another seems pointless. Boil it down to the basics: it's almost impossible to win 88 games in a row in any sport. The Huskies didn't make it obvious, but many of the teams they beat boasted some great players. UCLA had to be unfailingly great to accomplish the feat in the first place, and the fact that it took almost 40 years for any team to match it speaks for itself.

But it still doesn't make for great entertainment. UConn shouldn't make any apologies, but I'm not going to be rushing to my living room to see them go for number 89. I just don't care enough. Which, I fully admit, is sad and totally unfair. But I also don't think it's fair to tune in just because I feel guilty. Those women deserve better than that.

Tennis year in review, part 1

2010-12-12T11:08:00.020-06:00

This post is definitely overdue but two horrendously busy weeks at work left no time to blog. Anyway, I will round up the good, bad and ugly of the 2010 season in the same manner I did with the figure skating season. I will start with the men and follow up with the women (which are sure to have much more disappointments than anything else).

Best stories of the year:

Rafael Nadal

There's not much more I can say about the 24-year-old. He began the year by retiring from his Australian Open quarterfinal match against Murray to protect his knees and extending his title drought to 11 months. Meanwhile, Federer stormed through Melbourne playing some of his best tennis to win his 16th Grand Slam. Then Rafa swept the Masters 1000 clay court series, won his fifth French Open, second Wimbledon and first US Open to complete the career Grand Slam. He stormed to the top of the tennis world this year and left everyone in his wake.

Indo-Pak Express

There were several stories of tennis being used to affect social change, but this one leads the charge. Forgoing the long-standing enmity between their countries, India's Rohan Bopanna and Pakistan's Aisam-ul-Haq Qureshi became one of the most popular doubles teams this year with their "Stop War, Start Tennis" campaign. They weren't just doing it to make a point. They also played some outstanding tennis, appearing their first Grand Slam final at the US Open and qualifying for the ATP World Tour Finals. Qureshi was named a UN Goodwill Ambassador and the team won the Arthur Ashe Humanitarian of the Year Award.

Bryan Bros breaking the doubles title record

Also shining the spotlight on doubles this year were the Bryan twins who won their 62nd title in Los Angeles, breaking the all-time title record held by the legendary Woodies. Mark Woodforde paid tribute to the 32-year-old twins after the match. We get so consumed in the GOAT discussion for the singles players but the Bryans are making their case for best-ever mens' doubles team. They've eclipsed the Woodies in overall titles and are only two behind in the Grand Slam count.

On that note, I stumbled upon this excellent New York Times profile of the team, done in summer of 2009.

Serbia wins the Davis Cup

Andy Murray said it best in a tweet. "Amazing effort from serbia in davis cup, no funding, poor facilities but people with big hearts, work ethic and desire [great] job."

On paper, Serbia's pieces don't seem to add up to a team title. You have Djokovic and Nenad Zimonjic, both at the top of their respective disciplines. But then you have Tipsarevic who freely cops to his inconsistency and Viktor Troicki who is promising but not quite there yet. Lo and behold, things didn't look good after Tipsy lost his singles match and Troicki/Zimonjic blew a two-set lead in the doubles to lose that contest. But Djokovic steadied the ship to force a deciding fifth match and Troicki came through in the clutch to seal the win. A phenomenal achievement for such a small country.

And to think that just a few years ago, there was noise that the whole Djokovic family was looking to jump ship to Great Britain.

Jurgen Melzer

At the beginning of the year, most of us couldn't pick the Austrian out of a crowd. And there'd be no reason to--he'd never advanced past the third round of any major. At the French Open, he scored an unbelievable upset over David Ferrer in the third round and came back from a two-set deficit to beat Djokovic in the quarterfinals. Only the Nadal train stopped the 29-year-old in the semifinals. He then teamed with German Philipp Petzschner to win the doubles title at Wimbledon and qualified for the tour finals. He came darn close to being the first guy in a while to qualify in both singles and doubles, finishing the year at number 11. What an outstanding breakthrough.

Hit for Haiti

The devastating earthquake struck tiny Haiti right before the start of the Australian Open. About 24 hours later, Roger Federer had rallied together some of the game's biggest stars, male and female, for a charity match at Rod Laver Arena to raise funds for the recovery effort. The fact that all of these players chose to participate when they probably should have been resting up for competition is a testament to their selflessness and generosity. In addition, TV stations worldwide quickly got into place and rushed to broadcast the event. That was truly a great day for tennis.

Longest match ever

Every Grand Slam tournament is bound to have some pleasantly surprising contests, but some random first-round match on Court 18 at Wimbledon stole the show. If you didn't see it happen, it's inconceivable. John Isner and Nicholas Mahut took three days and more than 11 hours just to decide who got to move on to the second round. Isner prevailed 70-68 in the final set, which alone took longer than the previous record for longest match ever. These two men gave a freakish display of really good tennis that dwarfed anything we'd seen in the sport and will ever see again. Who knew that by the time they were 30-all that they were less than halfway through the last set?

Matches of the year (in no particular order):

Isner d. Mahut, Wimbledon, 1st round

Nadal d. Murray, ATP World Tour Finals, semifinals

Djokovic d. Federer, US Open, semifinals

Tsonga d. Djokovic, Australian Open, quarterfinals

Verdasco d. Ferrer, US Open, 4th round

Cilic d. del Potro, Australian Open, 4th round:

Letdowns of the year:

Juan Martin del Potro

Being on this list isn't the 22-year-old Argentine's fault. After upsetting Roger Federer to win the 2009 US Open, being the runner up at the World Tour Finals and climbing to number four in the world, we were all sure the Tandil Tower was going to be the sport's next big star. But after struggling through his opening matches of the Australian Open and finally going down to Cilic in the fourth round, he essentially missed the rest of the season with a bum wrist and couldn't defend his US Open title. He tried to start his comeback in the fall, but clearly wasn't ready and wisely skipped the rest of the season to prepare for 2011. Now he is ranked 257 in the world.

Nikolay Davydenko

What happened to Mr. Consistent? It also went downhill for the Russian after the Australian Open. He played so well through the first week and set up a quarterfinal match up with Federer. He dismantled Federer in the first set, being unusually aggressive instead of counter punching until a shot opened up. He had chances for a commanding lead in the second set before Federer stopped the bleeding. I remember saying to myself that that was Davydenko's chance to get Federer on the mat, and he blew it. Lo and behold, the Federer steamroll was in effect and Davydenko went down in four sets. He, too, struggled with a wrist injury, missed the French Open and lost in the second rounds at Wimbledon and the US Open. As a result, he fell out of the top 20 for the first time in more than five years.

Marin Cilic

The year began so promisingly for the young Croat after his terrific run to the Australian Open semifinals which propelled him into the top ten. Then he disappeared, barely breaking .500 after March, and losing in the fourth round of the French Open, first round at Wimbledon and second round at the US Open. He's still within the top 20, but it's a letdown.

Not sure where to categorize:

Andy Murray

I feel like the Scot is facing a do-or-die situation in 2011, even though he's only 23 years old. He is too good and consistent a player to not win a Grand Slam, but some key losses this year suggest he still has work to do to break up the Nadal/Federer stranglehold. He lost to Federer in the Australian Open finals, to Nadal in a tough Wimbledon semifinal, and to Nadal again in an even closer World Tour Final semifinal. Of course he can and has beaten both players several times. However, his best won't usually beat Nadal or Federer at their best. Sooner rather than later, he needs to force his way to the very top to have the success his talents merit.

Tomas Berdych

The Czech big man finally looked like he was going to emerge from his legacy as a career underachiever and achieve something. He followed up a stellar run to the French Open semifinals (narrowly losing to Soderling) with his first Grand Slam final at Wimbledon. En route, he upset Federer in the quarterfinals and beat Djokovic in the semifinals. Then what happened? He lost in the first round of the US Open and stumbled his way into the World Tour Finals, where he predictably didn't get out of the round robin stage.

Fernando Verdasco

The Spaniard didn't exactly have a bad year, but I expected 2010 to be a bigger breakthrough for him. He didn't make it past the quarterfinals of any major, including an embarrassing first-round loss at Wimbledon. He played great to make it to his first ATP Masters 1000 final in Monte Carlo but then got creamed by Nadal. After again losing to Nadal at the US Open quarterfinals, he didn't win another match for two months and barely missed out on the Tour Finals. As competitive as the top ten is now, 2011 is a moment of truth for the 27-year-old. He's expected to compete for titles in every tournament he plays, so he has to perform as though he is worthy of those expectations. He has to bring his best tennis when it counts most and maintain a consistent level from one week to the next. Otherwise, there are too many guys in line who will happily pass him up.

Miscellaneous thoughts

There weren't as many true grudge matches this year compared to 2009. Last year was overflowing with great, five-set contests in unexpected places that we'll not soon forget.

The ATP reported that someone broke into Pete Sampras' storage locker in California and stole much of his tennis memorabilia and trophies, including one of his Australian Open titles. Tennis Australia has already offered to replace it, rightfully so, but most of the stuff is likely gone forever. What a shame.

Match point of the year: Verdasco over Ferrer in the US Open. Isner over Mahut at Wimbledon is a close second because it would have stunk to have that match end on an error or a double-fault.

Upset of the year: Yen-Hsun Lu over Andy Roddick at Wimbledon--because absolutely no one could see that coming. I could also go with Berdych over Federer, ending the Swiss' seven-year streak in the Wimbledon finals.

Major Retirements: Carlos Moya burst onto the scene, advancing to the 1997 Australian Open finals, winning his lone Grand Slam at the 1998 French Open, and reaching the semifinals of the 1998 US Open. He reached the number one ranking in 1999, becoming the first Spaniard to do so. He received a warm tribute at the ATP World Tour Finals with fellow Mallorcan Rafa Nadal giving a very nice speech about what he meant to him and to Spanish tennis.
Taylor Dent, one of the last true serve and volley players, also retired following years of debilitating back injuries. After surgeries and several months in a full body cast, he made a memorable appearance at the 2009 US Open in front of a raucous crowd. After triumphing in his second-round match, he took the umpire's microphone and thanked the supportive crowd.

Awkward moment of the year: Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi going at it on-court during a charity event.

Be on the look out in 2011:

Juan Martin del Potro: If there is an upside to the Argentine's dismal 2010, it's that it can't get much worse. He's already ranked outside of the top 200 and has virtually no points to defend the entire season. If he can show any indication of his past form, he will shoot back up the standings.

Robin Soderling: The big hitting Swede proved that his stellar performances in 2009 were no fluke. He followed his upset of Rafa Nadal in the 2009 French Open with another upset over Roger Federer in this year's edition. He had some spotty performances here and there but he's a tough cookie who is always hard to beat. He didn't play as well as he could in the ATP World Tour Finals but he did win his first Masters 1000 title in Paris. He shows no sign of slowing down.

Roger Federer: We're all a little too eager to knock Federer down from the top of the mountain and he reminded us why by beating Nadal to win the World Tour Finals. Not only did he win, but he probably played his best tennis of the season. Gone were the curious losses after having match points. He's still got it and is far from being washed up. Plus, the uncharacteristic losses mean he has comparably fewer points to defend as the year goes on.

Rafa Nadal: The last time he had such a lights-out year was 2008, which he followed with a very difficult year in 2009. He seemed to figure out that the key to playing better and staying healthy is not to play as often. He doesn't need to play every tournament, but play really well at the ones he does enter. I think he can handle that.

Until 2011!

He who laughs last...

2010-11-30T10:18:00.007-06:00

So Roger v. Rafa, part 22 wasn't quite the grudge match I was expecting, but it was still an appropriate way to end the 2010 season. In three somewhat lopsided sets, Roger Federer won the season finale and his fifth year-end title with a 6-3, 3-6, 6-1 victory over Rafa Nadal.

What surprised me about the way Federer won was his steady backhand. His comparatively weaker wing is usually more vulnerable against Nadal's wicked spin and high bounce, but more than once Federer took those high balls and whacked winners at will. Despite the second set, every other part of his game was solid: movement, volleying, serve and forehand all in order.

I don't want to overstate the importance of this win for Federer, but this was a biggie. He may be past his prime, but let's remember that Federer at his peak was way better than everyone else. Being a little past his peak hasn't changed much. He stormed through this tournament, only dropping one set and making fools out of most of his opponents. He proved that though he may not be unbeatable, he's pretty darn close to it. Rafa said it best:
“I feel I lost the match because I played against a very good Roger Federer on one of his favorite surfaces. When he's playing like this, [it] is very difficult to stop him.”

Every win over Nadal is significant but this one was crucial. Beating an in-form, healthy Rafa after a phenomenal season means that all the naysayers have to shut up for a little while. Rafa is still king of the hill but Federer is conceding nothing. Tom Brady once said that the most important victory is the most recent one. In that case, Federer just got the last word.

To be continued in 2011.

Grand finale

2010-11-28T11:07:00.004-06:00

It went down a little differently than I imagined, but tennis fans worldwide got their wish: ATP World Tour final between Roger and Rafa. No matter who you typically root for, this is the best possible way to end the season: number one versus number two in a grudge match.

And I imagine it will be just that. They are the only two players in the tournament not to have lost a match. It's only appropriate that whoever loses will do so to his biggest rival on the big stage.

I correctly predicted the three-set fight to death between Rafa and Andy Murray and they did not disappoint, providing perhaps the best match of the year. Murray played an absolutely brilliant match, but the number one came up with a little bit more to scrape by with a 7-6(5), 3-6, 7-6(6) victory.

Murray was very gracious after the match, recognizing his opponent's prowess as well as his own success. He maintained a great attitude through his disappointment, saying that he could hardly have played a better match and he just has to go home and work harder. Right on all counts, Andy. He will regain his number four ranking from Soderling after this tournament, as well he should. This is a very encouraging result for the Scot and only points to greater success in 2011.

I expected Roger and Novak to revive their US Open epic from this year, but the Swiss was having none of it, cruising to a 6-1, 6-4 victory. Fed maintained the exact same form he's showed all week and made no concessions to the Serbian.

Now comes the main event. This should be an unbelievable match between two of the best rivals in sport.

Not that any of their matches are easy to predict, but this one is particularly tough. If we're judging form, Federer has the edge. He hasn't dropped so much as one set throughout the tournament and hasn't looked even a little bit vulnerable. He looks like the Federer we've all come to know, tossing aside any disappointing results and shaky form he had earlier this year. He's been flawless.

But if we're talking about momentum, score one for Nadal. He has had to fight through a couple of difficult matches, and blew a couple of opportunities to close out matches more quickly. But he won and that's really all that matters. His form has been excellent, especially on a surface he's says is difficult for him. Plus, he's healthy, which is not something he could boast in years past.

Furthermore, this season has been all about Rafa and it just seems written in the stars that he would win this one. Everything has been going Rafa's way this season so it's hard to imagine that the buck would stop here. But if anyone can get in his way, it's an in-form Federer. You can never count out the Fed. If he plays as he's been the entire week, even Rafa will have a very difficult time stopping him.

This will be fun. This is what tennis is all about, right here.

Behind the scenes w/ the Bryan brothers

2010-11-27T01:38:00.002-06:00

Parts five and six of the Bryan brothers video blogs. These keep getting funnier and funnier.

ATP Finals, Part 5

2010-11-26T22:49:00.006-06:00

Ack, yet another anti-climactic match to conclude the round robin stage. Novak Djokovic set up a semifinal clash with Roger Federer after creaming Andy Roddick, 6-2, 6-3. As though the lopsided match weren't disappointing enough, it was over halfway before the umpire said game-set-match. Roddick had to win in straight sets in order to qualify. Once that first set was over, it felt kind of pointless.

By my count, out of 12 matches this past week only one went to three sets. That kind of stinks. There were a couple of tiebreaks here and there but the majority were decisive wins. In the end, the four best men are left standing. Never mind the fact that Murray was ranked fifth coming into this. He clearly reminded everyone that four men still rule the roost: Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray.

So, let's do some predictions.

Nadal v. Murray:
Rafa, always far too modest, started this tournament conceding that this is a tough surface for him and that he had a disastrous showing at the O2 last year. That was then. This year, he won all three matches and lost only one set. I mean, either he's underestimating himself or we are. He could have lost--anyone can lose anytime--but who were we kidding? He's had an unbelievable season has proved he can play anywhere, anytime on any sur-frace.
Murray isn't playing poorly by any means, but I think he's up against a different animal here. I expect Rafa to bring it just as he has all season and Murray must take it another level if he expects to beat the Mallorcan. Not to say he can't. Like Rafa said, anything can happen.

Federer v. Djokovic:
The only person who has shown better form than Rafa this week is Roger. He has been nothing short of ruthless, not dropping a single set. Very quietly and very Fed-like, he's cruising. If he continues his form, it's hard to imagine him losing. No disrespect to Djokovic. I'm not holding that contact lens thing against him. His form has been solid, as usual. But he also needs something a bit more spectacular to throw Federer off his game.

Bottom line: Djokovic and Murray are best equipped to stymie a Federer-Nadal final, but I suspect both will fall just a little short. Federer in three, Nadal in three.

Meanwhile, this is a disappointing way to end the season for the odd men out, to varying degrees. Not because they lost matches, but because of the form they showed.

Major disappointment: David Ferrer
The Spaniard played some clutch tennis to qualify for the finals but only scraped together 14 games over three matches this week. He never hit his stride and didn't do anything fitting of his reputation, which is a shame.

Partial letdown: Andy Roddick

He started off so well, just barely losing his first match to Nadal. After losing the second match to Berdych he looked like he'd had enough, putting up almost no resistance against Djokovic. He also stepped it up when he had to to qualify. After a lackluster second half of the season, he should probably be pretty satisfied he stayed the course and made it to London.

True to form: Tomas Berdych

Clearly, the Czech has work to do if he really wants to be considered a top player. A couple of impressive Grand Slams and a single-digit number next to your name isn't important if you can't be consistent. He's got the skill and can be dangerous when he's the underdog. But once people expect him to win, he loses more often than he wins. Bad formula.

Eh, so so: Robin Soderling

Considering how well he played to win his first Masters 1000 tournament in Paris and moved up to number four right before London, he was one of the guys to really watch out for. He's cleared the hurdle of beating lower-ranked guys and being consistent. Now he needs to beat the top guys more regularly. Yes, he beat Nadal and Fed en route to two successive French Open finals. No small feat. But at the end of the day, he's still 1-15 against the Fed, 2-5 against Nadal and 1-5 against Djokovic.

All right, enough for now. Stay tuned!

ATP finals, Part 4

2010-11-26T13:15:00.008-06:00

We're almost done here, with one match to go to determine the final four in the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals. Roger Federer, Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal have already qualified in impressive fashion, so Andy Roddick and Novak Djokovic will fight it out tonight for the last spot--and the privilege of facing Federer in the semifinals.

In the driver seat is the Serbian who's in as long as he wins one set tonight. Roddick needed Nadal to beat Berdych in straight sets, which he did, so now he must beat Djokovic in straight sets to qualify.

This is a tough call. The Serbian will certainly want to redeem himself after starting so well against Nadal then (not) seeing it all fall apart once he had problems with his contact lens. (As someone who's worn contacts for 18 years, I totally sympathize. Darn things can be massively inconvenient). Aside from that fluke-y situation, his form has looked good.
Lest we forget, Roddick is 5-2 against Djokovic and has beaten him in straights several times before. I get the sense that Djokovic will raise his game tonight, but if Roddick plays as well as he did against Nadal, he could be very tough. Still, there's a difference between beating someone in straight sets and having no choice but to beat them in straight sets. Roddick must get off to a good start and maintain his concentration throughout.

Either way, the two top dogs did their job and assured that they cannot possibly meet until the finals. Certainly, it is not a given that either (or both) will win their semifinal matches. Nevertheless, since we endured this entire season without a Federer-Nadal Grand Slam final, this would be a most welcome finish to the season. Especially if they both play as well as they have all week.

Stay tuned!

Double vision

2010-11-24T13:03:00.004-06:00

This is just fun stuff. Doubles phenoms Bob and Mike Bryan took a hand held camcorder with them throughout their London trip, giving some funny and goofy moments of everything behind the scenes. Some guys play along more than others, but still this is entertaining to watch.

ATP finals, Part 3

2010-11-24T09:54:00.006-06:00

Enough matches have been played and enough games won and lost to start talking about the semifinals. Of course, no one has definitively qualified yet, but the ATP has the rundown on several possibilities. For now, let's focus on Group B.

Here's my summary.

Sitting pretty: Roger Federer

Like I said, the man came to play and he has been ruthlessly efficient, only dropping 11 games over his two matches. Win or lose, there's not a whole lot he can do to really jeopardize his chances.

Easiest path: Maintain his form. Short of defaulting against Soderling, he's in.

Making it complicated: Robin Soderling and Andy Murray

The abilities of world numbers four and five are undeniable, but two different versions have shown up in their first two matches. In one, the brilliant, aggressive shot maker. In the other, the mentally mushy, self-saboteur.

By virtue of losing his first match to Murray, Soderling has still lost more games than he's won. But he rebounded nicely against Ferrer and could still conceivably win the group outright. That's the thing about this guy: he sometimes falters but he just doesn't go away. You can never write him off. Murray looked great in his first match and then promptly laid an egg against Federer. With some screwy math, both could still oust Federer from the mix, but they are most likely fighting for the other spot in Group B.

Easiest path: Each man needs to win their match convincingly and hopes the other loses convincingly.

Outside looking in: David Ferrer

Win no match wins or set wins, the Spaniard has one foot on the court and the other on a plane. The only scenario where he is a factor is if Federer beats Soderling in straights (possible) and if he beats Murray in straights (eh, unlikely). In that case, Federer is in, and Ferrer, Soderling and Murray all tie in match and set records. A percentage of games won will break the tie.

But for Ferrer to sneak in, he needs lopsided wins for himself and Federer. Right now, Murray has won 50% of his games and Soderling 47.6%, while Ferrer only 36.6%. In order to improve that number, he needs Murray and Soderling to play awful. I mean, like, win six games or fewer awful. Yeah.

Easiest path: Hope springs eternal.

I'll save my analysis for Group A after Nadal v. Djokovic this evening. Djokovic is in if he wins. The best thing these guys can do to keep their noses in front is to have a knockdown, fight to death with three sets and three tiebreaks. (Incidentally, it would also be more entertaining to the sold out crowd). Beware the guy who loses in straights, because Berdych has won close to 50% of his games and that percentage will break any ties.

Easiest path: Win one set.

Stay tuned.

Barclays ATP World Tour Finals--Home

ATP finals, Part 2

2010-11-23T13:25:00.004-06:00

Go figure!
Rafa Nadal and Andy Roddick actually produced a match worth watching at the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals yesterday, with the number one coming back from a set down to beat the American, 3-6, 7-6(5), 6-4. Both players looked really good, but predictably, the more clutch player escaped with the win last night.

Down, but not out
In a situation where every game counts, Andy is still in a very good position. He lost, but won a set and 16 games in said loss. Berdych, the other losing party in group A, whimpered away with a measly six games in his loss to Djokovic. In Group B, Ferrer won five games and Soderling only six.

What's going on?
The quality of matches in the big finale is severely lacking this year. Through five matches, only one has gone three sets. None of the others have even threatened to go three sets. These are the top eight players in the world but only Rafa and Andy have brought their games at the same time in the same match. Oy.

He's back...
Say what you will about Federer this year: losing in the quarters at Roland Garros and Wimbledon, blowing several matches where he had match points. But the man has come to play this week. He's a big reason why the competition doesn't seem all that...competitive. He took out Ferrer on Sunday, 6-1, 6-4, and just defeated the home favorite Murray, 6-4, 6-2. One easily forgets that Murray is one of few with a winning record against the Fed. Hardly seems to matter. Fed only lost eight points on his serve today. Enough said.

Stay awake, folks!
Now Federer will wait for the results of Soderling v. Ferrer to see if he qualifies for the semis or has more work to do. If the Spaniard wins, so does Fed. Normally, you couldn't pay me to watch a Soderling-Ferrer match, if for no other reason than their dismal opening matches on Sunday. The match itself may or may not be that exciting but the result can certainly be pivotal. If Murray had managed to take one set from Fed today, he would have made life very difficult for these other two guys. Instead, at the end of the day, Murray may find someone breathing down his neck for the semifinal berth he came so close to grabbing last year.

Stay tuned!

ATP finals, Part 1

2010-11-22T11:25:00.008-06:00

Yes, I realize that I had a leisurely weekend that included one day of doing absolutely nothing useful, and yet I still didn't write. Oh, well.

Sadly, since basic cable doesn't think it useful to broadcast the ATP World Tour Finals until we arrive at the knockout stage, I am relegated to following the action on the website. It hardly matters, however, because the matches are only being broadcast when I'm a) asleep or b) at work. :(

The tournament has gotten off to a somewhat predictable start. Federer took out David Ferrer, 6-1, 6-4, continuing the Swiss' undefeated streak against the scrappy Spaniard; Djokovic took out Berdych, 6-3, 6-3, avenging the Serb's defeat to the Czech in the Wimbledon semifinals; and Andy Murray beat Robin Soderling 6-2, 6-4.

Can we get a three set match, Rafa and Andy?

Only the last of those is somewhat surprising. Surely, Murray had the home crowd support but Soderling has really come into his own recently, winning the most recent Masters 1000 tournament in Paris and supplanting Murray as the number four ranked player. I expected that to be a much more competitive match.

Like I said, Federer had never lost to Ferrer in their 10 previous matches going back to 2003. Considering Ferrer's record against much of the top guys, it's hardly a shock that he lost to an in-form Fed.

Berdych and Djokovic probably should have been closer but one word comes to mind: consistency. The Serb has it, the Czech does not. Djokovic has been a mainstay in the top three for so long because he usually only loses to the big boys. Yes, he does have some curious losses (e.g. blowing a two set lead to Melzer in the French Open quarterfinals, 2nd round loss to Rochus in Miami) but these are the exceptions rather than the rule. We've seen just how good Berdych really is, but now that he's expected to win, he isn't. He's only won eight matches since July. It's kind of a tough ask to step it up on the big stage, even though that's exactly what he did at Wimbledon and the French Open. Ah, well.

I hope tonight's match will be better. Rafa has maintained that this is a difficult surface for him to play, but I suspect last year's dismal performance was merely a fluke. Roddick played some clutch tennis to secure his spot in the final and could pull off a victory, especially if Rafa does have trouble adjusting to the surface. They've only played twice in the past two years, with Roddick winning their most recent encounter in Miami this year, but Rafa is riding an incredible wave and I expect him to get the W in this match.

Stay tuned!

Rafa for SI SoY

2010-11-18T16:04:00.004-06:00

I'm on a Jon Wertheim kick these days at the moment--yes, I know, get in line--so I was thrilled to read this lovely piece he wrote nominating Rafa Nadal for Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year award, to be named on November 30. Because Wertheim is such a brilliant writer/reporter and Nadal such a fabulous athlete/individual, they make one hell of a case.

Read it here.

Musings of a tiger

2010-11-18T07:50:00.004-06:00

Okay, I've decided how I feel about this. The word of the day is ambivalent, which is pretty much how I've felt about Tiger Woods since this time last year. The big question is why did he write this? As a sort of rehabilitation and catharsis, or another approach to repairing his public image?

Eh, the latter. I don't believe he wrote this for his own benefit. While seeming to be introspective and thoughtful, a closer look shows that it stops well short of being an unadulterated view into who was once the most popular and admired athlete in the world. There are so many vague references to his "mistakes" that it's clear he has no intention of pouring his heart out in any public forum. He said that he hurt the people he loved the most but I still don't see him copping to any specific wrongdoing. He talks about opportunists who are trying to cash in on the sensationalism but he does not clarify to whom or what he is referring. He said that his life was out of balance and his priorities were out of order. Duh. But he doesn't explicitly lay out in what way or how it got to that point.

But really, what else could we have expected from him?

So, yeah. Ambivalent. I'm disappointed to find out that after all of this he doesn't appear to have changed, despite his declarations of being a new man. He continues to be guarded and evasive. He will now talk a lot without saying anything substantive (sometimes through tweets) and give us something else to discuss when he wins his next major.

Which isn't a bad idea. It seems to be working for Michael Vick.

Reflections from a tiger

2010-11-17T16:33:00.003-06:00

Well, this is interesting.

Tiger Woods wrote a first-person essay about the topsy-turvy mania of the past year for Newsweek. The title is kind of cheesy, but it's an otherwise intriguing read.

I'll be back later when I've decided how I feel about it.

Just for a laugh

2010-11-12T10:14:00.004-06:00

I don't know why I find this so funny, but I do. It's interesting to see another side of these ridiculously-focused athletes not being so serious and laughing hysterically for no good reason.

The showdown is set

2010-11-11T09:59:00.008-06:00

Tomas Berdych and David Ferrer owe Gael Monfils one heck of a Christmas present. Andy Roddick might want to chip in a bit, too.

After a very dramatic match, the Frenchman scraped by to defeat Fernando Verdasco, 6-7(4), 7-6(2), 7-5, ending the Spaniard's chances to qualify for the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals and automatically qualifying Berdych, Ferrer and Roddick. Jurgen Melzer beat Ferrer in three sets, but it's a moot point because Roddick made it to the quarterfinals and finishes the tournament with 3,665 points. Melzer, even with a win in Paris, could only hope to score 3,605 points.

So London's line up looks like this:

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Roger Federer
3. Novak Djokovic
4. Andy Murray
5. Robin Soderling
6. Tomas Berdych
7. David Ferrer
8. Andy Roddick

While this is a disappointing result for Verdasco, it certainly isn't unexpected: too much pressure, too much at stake, too tough an opponent and perhaps not enough confidence going in. Anyone who makes the quarterfinals at the US Open then doesn't win another match for two months has to doubt themselves just a little, right?

Verdasco's season has sputtered and died in a most inelegant way and he's got to be kicking himself right now. Not only did he blow two match points in the third set against Monfils, but he even got some help: Ferrer and Berdych both lost in the second round. Roddick only just lost in the quarterfinals, but Verdasco still had a chance to pass him and his compatriot if he'd made it to the finals. Admittedly it was an outside chance but a chance nonetheless. In the end, he simply left himself too much ground to make up. It's like not studying for the entire semester and then expecting to ace the final exam.

If he can take something positive from this, it's that he lost to a formidable opponent in a very close match. In his other losses, Verdasco inexplicably put up little resistance to players ranked well outside the top 20. Not that these players aren't any good and can't ever compete against the best (remember Roger Federer's scare at Wimbledon against Alejandro Falla?) But Monfils is a cut above and not someone you want to play, well, ever. Still, you have to wonder why the Madrileno isn't putting together more successful performances in the clutch like top ten players are supposed to. I remember discussing earlier in the year that he was probably playing too many tournaments. Perhaps it really caught up with him in the latter half of the season.

On the flip side, this is really terrific for Roddick. He has had a pretty difficult year since winning the Miami Masters in May, so it's good to see him rebound and get himself in that top echelon of players. Roddick has had his share of naysayers throughout his career and who knows how he'll do in London. But you know what? You have to be there to give yourself a chance and that's exactly what he's done. I hope he stays healthy and can play at his best in one week's time.

This tense battle has totally distracted from what else is going on in the tournament. Federer, Murray and Soderling are moseying along mostly unbothered, while Djokovic crashed out in straights to Llodra. I have to admit, I'm finding it tough to care about what happens until the finals.

Who will win the last Masters 1000 tournament before the big showdown in London? Stay tuned!

Win or go home

2010-11-10T21:26:00.003-06:00

All five of the guys competing for the final three spots at the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals are in action in Paris tomorrow, and every result counts.

Here's the deal: If Verdasco and Melzer both lose, they're out and Roddick, Ferrer and Berdych can finalize their travel plans to London. Both have very tough matches; Verdasco squares off against Gael Monfils in front of the latter's home crowd, while Melzer is up against Ferrer.

Even if Melzer can pull off an upset, it may not matter because if Roddick wins tomorrow, Melzer's out. Roddick won't be completely out of the woods until Verdasco loses. But since he won his opening round match, Verdasco has to go one better and at least make the finals to have any chance.

Catch any of that?

I stand by my prediction that Verdasco is destined for an alternate slot. This is an awful lot of pressure and Monfils is no walkover. The road only gets tougher even if he gets past the Frenchman. But you never know...

Until later!

ATP World Tour homepage

Down to the wire

2010-11-09T13:43:00.005-06:00

The battle to secure the final three spots in the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals in London starting November 21 could be quick and painful or long and agonizing.

Everything will be settled this week at the BNP Paribas Masters in Paris, and already the picture is becoming clear. The ATP, in one of the many ways that it's so much cooler than the WTA, put together a handy little chart on its website today to illustrate what the possible scenarios are.

Translation: as the ATP wrote, it's going to be really tough to oust Berdych, Ferrer or Roddick. They are achingly close to confirming their plane reservations.

Forget about Youzhny: he had to retire from his opening round match today because of the same back injury that forced him out of Valencia. No matter. It was extremely unlikely that would have reached the finals here in this field anyway, and just as unlikely that he would have made waves in London. Still, this was a very good season for the guy who used to be best known for smashing his racket against his head so hard that he drew blood.

Melzer--meep. He has to win outright and have Roddick lose before the quarterfinals. He cannot mathematically pass Ferrer or Berdych even if they both lose in the first round. I think that is simply too big of a bite for the Austrian, but he also gets credit for a breakout season.

So let's focus on the guy with the best, albeit slim, chance to shake it up: Verdasco. Unfortunately, his success depends on all the guys in front of him losing early. As the chart shows, there are ways he could leapfrog from nine all the way up to six--but let's not go there. The most obvious way he could slip into the mix is if he gets to the semis and Roddick loses in the opening round. He'd just pass Roddick by 15 points.

But Verdasco's ranking belies his recent on-court performances. He has only won two matches since reaching the quarterfinals of the US Open. He tried to lose his opening round match today, falling a set and a break behind...Clement...before reeling off 10 straight games to win 3-6, 6-3, 6-0. The fact that he won is great, but he should not be toying with disaster like that so early in a tournament. That is why he is the most vulnerable of the top ten players right now: he doesn't win enough matches over lower-ranked players easily enough. With all respect, Clement really shouldn't be bothering any of the world's top 10 or 20 anymore. Making the semis should be a lot more attainable for Verdasco, but his wavering focus and abysmal level of play make that a really difficult result for him. He's not one to just snap out of a funk and find his game at the right time. Further, he has a very difficult third round match against Monfils, who will be playing in front of a home crowd.

My prediction: Verdasco will go to London--but only as an alternate. Even if he does really well in Paris, I don't think enough people in front of him will lose early enough to open the door.

But that's why they play the game and nothing is decided until the very end. Stay tuned!

Shots in the foot

2010-11-03T18:16:00.005-05:00

Geez, some versions of the world's best players showed up for their early round matches today but their games did not. Andy Murray lost in three sets to Juan Monaco in Valencia, where he was the defending champion; Tomas Berdych lost 6-4, 6-1 to some kid I have never heard of in Basel; and Fernando Verdasco lost 6-1, 6-3 to Gilles Simon in Valencia, who has done next to nothing all year.

????

Oh, and then the ATP reported that Tsonga is out for the rest of the year with that knee injury and Youzhny was forced to skip Valencia with a back injury.

So, yeah. It seems like the guys who desperately need to make a push are doing everything within their power to not qualify. Murray's already in so he can afford to just write this off as a fluke. And you can't help it if you're injured. So what's the excuse for Berdych and Verdasco? Berdych seems like he woke up and decided he didn't really belong in the top 10, so now he's under .500 since Wimbledon. Verdasco seems to be in a perennial state of self-sabotage, getting "back on track" for one match before imploding in the next to a player he should never lose to.

It just makes me wonder. I mean, clearly both are very talented and we have seen how good they can be. They both talk about their ambitions to be better but something is obviously missing. Soderling is similarly talented, but he has broken through to have some big wins against top players, he is a staple in the top five and he rarely loses to guys ranked outside the top ten or 15.

So why can't Berdych and Verdasco maintain that same consistency? I feel like if it's not a physical issue, it must be a lack of discipline or mental fortitude. Either way, if they don't turn things around, there seems to be quite a few people gunning to take their spots.

All of this creates enormous opportunity for Ferrer and Roddick who both won their opening round matches. The guy ahead of them and all the guys behind them in the chase have lost, are injured or not playing this week. They're almost even in the points race and only 300 points behind Berdych, so they can put some distance between themselves and the streakier players.

No such nonsense with Federer. He won. That is all.

Until later!

Tennis grab bag

2010-11-02T23:48:00.010-05:00

Oy, me and this sad, sad blog. Despite all the interesting happenings in the wide world of sports, I have simply been too busy and not motivated enough to write anything.

But that couldn't have lasted too long. I have been bursting with ideas to talk about all day, some of them woefully outdated, that I don't even know where to begin. Although it did take me a bit too long to figure out that the words I needed to title this post were "grab bag."

Anyway, let us start with Rafael Nadal.

Looking back at my previous posts about what he needed to accomplish to become the best ever, he took a few of the most important things off the list: he won the Grand Slam and the Golden Slam, only the second man after Agassi to do the latter. He even won three consecutive majors in a year, something even Federer hasn't done.

Rafa Nadal is extraordinary and he is by far the best in the game today. If he quit tomorrow, he'd be remembered as one of the best things ever to happen to tennis. He is a gentleman, humble, polite, respectful, fiercely competitive, passionate, engaging, generous and a role model. In my opinion, all those qualities are evident in this ATP World Tour Uncovered profile about his 2010 season.

I argue that anyone who is not a fan of this man is withholding their admiration purely out of loyalty to one of his rivals. Because to be a fan of Rafa Nadal is to be a fan of tennis, which is exactly the way it should be for the very best players in the sport's history. The only accolade he hasn't quite merited yet is of the best ever, simply because his major wins have yet to eclipse Borg, Laver, Emerson, Sampras, and of course, Federer. It cannot be overstated what Rafael Nadal means to the game of tennis, but let us not jump the gun and prematurely make him king. If things keep going the way they've been going, we probably won't have to wait too long.

The race for the year-end championships is going down to the wire. Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray and Soderling have already qualified. No surprises there. But seven guys are trying to squeeze into the last three spots: Tomas Berdych, David Ferrer, Andy Roddick, Fernando Verdasco, Mikhail Youzhny, Jurgen Melzer, and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. And each of these guys has, let's say, issues.

*Berdych has proven that you don't just shake off a career of being a head case just because you've finally had some notable Grand Slam results. He has been irrelevant since making the semifinals at Roland Garros and the finals at Wimbledon, going a measly 7 and 10.

*We always think of Ferrer as the dangerous player no one wants to see in their draw--unless it's Rafa (11-3), Roger (10-0), or Soderling (8-3). He has better luck against Djokovic (4-5) and Murray (3-1), but only of those wins against the top five came at a Grand Slam (over Nadal at the 2007 US Open). He too often loses matches he should win. He blew a two-set lead and a 4-1 lead in the final set tiebreak to lose in the fourth round of the U.S. Open against Verdasco. He's played well all year, but went down flaming to Jurgen Melzer in the third round at Roland Garros and the second round at the Australian Open to the streaky Baghdatis. He could make life tricky for the top guys in London, but he's not going to win the whole shebang.

*You just get the sense that Roddick is running out of time. Since winning Miami in March, he has struggled with injuries, illness and ill-timed poor performances. After losing in the third round of Roland Garros to Teymuraz Gabashvili, he lost to Yen-Hsun Lu (who?) in the fourth round of Wimbledon, and the second round of the U.S. Open to Tipsarevic. Oy.

*Verdasco is a perennial facepalm. He's almost as difficult to figure out as Ferrer. He gained so much attention and praise for that epic 2009 Australian Open semifinal match against Nadal, and a lot of people felt it was a sign of better things to come. *Wrong* He hasn't come close to a major result like that since then, instead becoming a volatile and unpredictable player. At times, he looks passionate and intent, and at others bored and unfocused. He had a great clay court season only to lose a lopsided fourth round match to Almagro at Roland Garros. Then he lost in the first round of Wimbledon to Fognini. He tried to lose to Fognini again the first round of the U.S. Open, squeaked past there, had that great comeback against Ferrer only to lay an egg at Arthur Ashe against Nadal. Then he went on a particularly abysmal stretch, not winning a single match in Bangkok, Beijing or Shanghai.

*Youzhny's results seems to tell the tale of two different players: a string of first and second round losses, but, oh, there's a quarterfinal here, a semifinal there, a title there. He made it all the way to the semis of the U.S. Open then won in Kuala Lumpur. But, like Verdasco, he squandered valuable opportunities to pick up points in this year-end push, falling in the first rounds of Beijing and Shanghai. He played well in St. Petersburg, but still couldn't manage to win that title, either.

*Melzer has had a breakthrough year, making it to the semis of Roland Garros and fourth rounds of Wimbledon and U.S. Open. But still, there are signs of the guy who'd never made it past the third round of any major until this year. Too many curious first and second round losses in Masters tournaments against guys he should probably beat by now.

*I can't believe Tsonga is still in the race, because other than a great run at the Australian Open, he hasn't been making too many waves. He did make the fourth round at Wimbledon, his best ever result, but then had to sit out for four months with yet another injury. He played well in Montpellier, though, losing a tough semifinal to Monfils.

Anyway, this week it's Federer, Djokovic, Berdych and Roddick in Basel ; and Murray, Soderling, Verdasco, Ferrer and Youzhny in Valencia. Rafa's off until Paris Masters next week--'cause he's got it like that.

The race is on!

A star rises, then falls, and tries to rise again

2010-09-16T20:40:00.004-05:00

Hey, all!

Sorry for my delayed and unexplained absence, but now I'm back with a vengeance with two posts.

Well, sort of. One of the posts will more or less reiterate what I've already written on an already-too-written-about issue and another is to point you in the direction of some phenomenal reporting and writing.

I encourage all figure skating fans to check out this terrific article written by Philip Hersh of the Chicago Tribune about how former U.S. National champion and World bronze medalist Nicole Bobek is picking up the pieces of her life following her highly publicized arrest for her role in a crystal meth drug ring last year.

Like many, I hadn't thought about Nicole Bobek for the better part of 10 years since her extremely sad 1998 Olympic debacle where she finished 17th, totally obliterating pre-event hopes for an American sweep. Then the mug shot seen round the world made headlines: an older, scarier downgrade of the extremely attractive, radiant and perky blonde we'd all come to know.

Still then, I hadn't paid much attention to what was going on with Nicole Bobek. I'd simply written her off as yet another sad case of an athlete who had everything going for her and managed to throw it all away, not totally unlike a similarly charismatic figure skater, Christopher Bowman.

But Phil Hersh, who has quite literally covered every step of Bobek's career, sought her out and she agreed to an extensive interview. Much to my surprise, she is back home in the Chicago area, about a year removed from being sentenced to five years probation for the drug charges.

Hersh tells her spectacular story here.

Rushing to conclusions

2010-07-06T13:08:00.003-05:00

It was a bit anti-climactic but Rafael Nadal won his second Wimbledon title on Sunday over the first-time Grand Slam finalist Tomas Berdych. His first week at the tournament was less than auspicious, twice having to go five sets to prevail over opponents who are merely supposed to be target practice, getting treatment on his knees, and arguing with chair umpires about alleged coaching coming from his Uncle Toni. But, as champions often do, he found a way to win when he wasn't playing his best and came up with his best performances when he really needed to, easily dispatching Robin Soderling, Andy Murray and Tomas Berdych to win the title. He is nothing less than extraordinary and there is scarcely any praise that is too good for the 24-year-old superstar.

Except this. Check out this excerpt from the ATP World Tour website about the post-Wimbledon wrap-up:

Simon Barnes, The Times’ chief sports writer, considers the same debate. “He modestly assumed his rightful place as the line, the undisputed, the unquestioned master of his sport. Forget Roger Federer - no, not possible – set Federer aside, then, at least for now, because Nadal is not just champion of Wimbledon, he is not just the official world-ranked No. 1, he is not the supreme champion of his sport and the man all others – yes, Rodge included – must look up to. It’s Nadal’s game right now. Nadal’s game, Nadal’s world.”

Whoa. Slow down, back up, timeout. So, Rafa goes on an unbelievable tear for a few months, Roger loses in the quarterfinals of a couple of majors and we're ready to sweep Roger aside as a has-been and crown Rafa as the new king of the world?

What's happened over the past few months may--may--indicate a changing of the guard. As I've conceded before, Roger Federer's indomitable reign over tennis has long since been over. He may very well get back to number one in the world again. He could definitely still win another few majors. But that air of invincibility and the fear he instilled in his opponents is gone. He will no longer play 90 some-odd matches in a year and only lose five of them. He will no longer step onto the court and have his opponents beat before the first ball is struck. We will no longer see him go toe-to-toe in baseline rallies with big hitters and always expect the other guy to break first. This is all a very long way of saying that Roger Federer simply isn't as good as he used to be, but that's inevitable. (And it's relative--he may not have won a title in six months but the last title he won was the Australian Open, in case we all forgot).

That being said, let's not go be so quick to toss Roger overboard.

Oh, yeah. Just in case we are all suffering from some short-term memory loss: At last count, Rafa has won eight majors. Roger has twice that many.

The fact that we’re even talking about Rafa assuming the role as the best ever to play tennis is exciting, fun, and an interesting change from talking about Federer. The idea that we will transition from one greatest-ever champion to another is the best possible thing to happen to tennis.

But it’s also totally premature. When Rafa has won more majors than anyone in the history of the sport, then maybe we can have this conversation again. When he’s won all four Grand Slams, then we can start this debate again. When he’s made 23 Grand Slam semifinals in a row—no, forget that—when he’s reached 10 in a row like Lendl did, then let’s talk. When he wins five titles in a row at one major and does the exact same thing at another major, then…well, you get my point.

And when, by the way, did this win give us the right to throw Sampras, Emerson, Laver, Borg and Agassi (yeah, remember them?) out of the way to make room for Rafa? Agassi, at least, is the only man to win the Career Golden Slam. Rafa hasn't done that yet, either.

I'm not trying to diminish Rafa's accomplishments in order to keep Roger on his pedestal. I may be a die-hard Fed fan, but I adore Rafa, too. He is exciting, extraordinary, classy, athletic, and one of the best possible ambassadors we could hope for in tennis. But he’s got a lot of milestones to surpass before we can legitimately adorn him as the unequivocal best. If we can’t even agree on Roger being the best, in what universe can we call Rafa number one when he literally hasn’t accomplished half of what Roger has?

And, by the way, if you asked Rafa about it, I’m 99 percent sure that he’d scoff and dismiss all this talk as complete nonsense. Because that’s the kind of champion he is: humble and never giving himself more credit than he deserves.

Until later!

The king's reign is over

2010-06-30T22:13:00.007-05:00

And it starts again.

Roger Federer fell to Tomas Berdych today in the Wimbledon quarterfinals in four sets, including a 6-1 demolishing, marking the first time in eight years he's failed to reach the finals.

Right after it was over, my dad called and said: "Say it ain't so!"

Then I asked my friend the unavoidable question: Is the Federer era now officially over? To which he replied: Yes.

Not only does this mark the second consecutive Grand Slam where Federer hasn't reached the semis (gasp!), this loss will drop him to number three in the ATP rankings--the first time in since November 2003 he's been ranked that "low." Double gasp.

Like I said after the French Open, we are all scrambling to figure out whether or not this is just a fluke or a sign of things to come. He said after the match that he was struggling with a bad back and a leg problem (more on that later) and that with some rest, he feels confident he can reassert himself.

Part of me believes him. If he'd lost in the first round, which he came achingly close to doing, I'd be much more doubtful about his chances to get back to the top. But he didn't lose that match, or his second round five-setter, so let's keep this in perspective. He lost in the quarterfinals, which is a totally respectable result. He's not playing poorly, although certainly not as good as in 2004-2006, but it was still enough to win him another Australian Open title at the beginning of the year. He lost to Berdych, who, with all due respect, is not Alejandro Falla. Berdych is a terrific player who beat Fed the last time they played.

To review: He had some uncharacteristic scary moments and at no point during this tournament was he playing at his highest level, but still managed to get to the quarterfinals and lose to the younger, very talented, 13th-ranked Berdych in four sets who simply outplayed and outhit the Swiss Maestro.

Yeah, it's disappointing, but we're still not at apocalyptic levels just yet. The only other guy on tour who would be disappointed with those results is Rafa.

All that being said, I hope for his sake he really is struggling with some injuries and that's why we didn't see the best of Fed part 2,000 over the past ten days. Because if this is the level of play Federer is now capable of when he's healthy, then his period of dominance is definitely over. Federer at his peak would never come within a handful of points of losing a first round match at any tournament, no matter who the player was, even if he was playing awful tennis. Federer at his peak would never get hit off the court by anyone ranked outside the top 10 or 15. What saved Federer from those early scares was experience and mental toughness. It's comparatively easy to win when you're always playing your best. But athletes are human and can't always be at their best every time. What separates Federer and Nadal from everyone else is their ability to win even when they're not playing well. Sheer mind over body and willfulness helps them win those difficult matches on those bad days. To a point, Federer will always have that edge over just about everyone he plays. But at some point, he will lose the shot-making ability that has made him so great for so many years. Physically, there will come a time when he can still think his way out of a match but won't be able to execute his game plan. And that's the problem I saw with Federer in every match--he rarely made bad decisions but he consistently missed shots he'd ordinarily make. No matter how annoyed he may get at the question, we do have to ask ourselves why.

The man is going to be 29 next month. Though Andre Agassi had a renaissance at age 29 and played his best tennis after he turned 30, he also threw away most of his 20's by underachieving and not playing as much. Federer, on the other hand, took full advantage of his peak physical years, playing--and winning--upwards of 80 matches per year and at least two Grand Slams. Federer's body has a lot more miles on it at this stage in his career than Agassi's. Wouldn't it stand to reason that Federer would have a harder time playing the best tennis of his career after his 29th birthday than Agassi did?

Now I'm not saying Federer cannot still win majors. Of course he can. He can still get back to number one. But I do believe that he will no longer reign over tennis as he is so used to doing. The aura of invincibility is long gone as is his ability to instill fear in his opponents. No matter where he falls in the rankings, the days are over when men's tennis was about Federer and everyone else who chases him. Now, everyone will be chasing the records he has set. (Good luck to them). But now, just about everyone sees a way to beat the mighty Federer and more guys have found a way to do it on the big stages.

I also think that the way Federer plays the game won't win him as many matches as it used to. Most of the guys he struggles with are big guys who hit the ball really, really hard, such as Soderling and Berdych. Federer can hit the ball hard, but is more strategic about when to do so. He chooses to slice and hit a variety of shots, and wait for the correct opening to fire a forehand or a sneaky drop shot. The problem is, a lot of these guys are hitting the ball so hard, fast and deep that Federer doesn't have time to wait around for the perfect shot. Federer's slices don't bother his opponents so much anymore. Rather, they look at the slice as a ball to attack and they do so effectively. So, if Federer is being forced into a game where he has to take full cuts at the ball on every shot, increasingly, he is the one who makes the first mistake and that never used to happen. Furthermore, these guys are very smart and consistently pick on Federer's backhand, which will break down sooner than the forehand. I don't know if Federer can really adopt an all-out style of play at this point in his career. But everyone knows how Federer plays and they're exploiting his minimal weaknesses. He needs to change something, I think.

By the way, I'm really irritated with the way Fed handled this loss, blaming it on his injuries (which we heard nothing about previously) and not even having the maturity to congratulate his opponent. I'm not saying that he's making up these injuries but at some point, he wasn't totally honest about his own fitness. He said that he's been struggling with these same aches and pains since Halle where he lost to Lleyton Hewitt. So two weeks go by, he hasn't looked right all throughout the tournament and he decides to play the injury card now? I just find that timing curious and ungracious. If he didn't choose to make those injuries an issue after the loss to Hewitt and the near misses in the early rounds at Wimbledon, then he should have kept his mouth shut and admitted that Berdych just outplayed him today.

Anyway, now that Federer has fallen, I think that Novak Djokovic has to be the happiest camper on the ground of Wimbledon this morning. For all his excellence as a player, that man caught two big breaks in this tournament. First, he avoids playing Andy Roddick in the quarterfinals, and instead plays Yen-hsun Lu (who?). Lu, from Taiwan, played so well to oust Roddick then promptly decided to lay an egg on Court 1, showing absolutely none of the reckless abandon that was so effective against Roddick. Djokovic swept him aside like an annoying fly in straight sets, having never faced a break point in the match. Now, instead of facing Federer he gets to play Tomas Berdych for a chance at his first Wimbledon final? That lucky son of a gun.

I am not saying that Djokovic is going to win that match or that Berdych will be an easy target. Quite the opposite. This is a match between two very similar players: both big guys, big servers, great speed and power off the ground, and solid net players. But it's a much more winnable contest than if he'd played Federer, in my opinion. I give Djokovic the edge because he's a better mover and the more experienced player. Furthermore, Berdych does not have the advantage of being the player with nothing to lose. This is a super opportunity for Djokovic, but I did not pick him as a favorite to win the whole thing. It's still not an easy road because he'd have to play either Nadal or Murray in the finals, and it's the Brit who's playing the best tennis of the four semifinalists. But Djokovic only made the Wimbledon semis once before, in 2007, and he didn't even finish that match. In my mind, anything he does now is gravy. There is no pressure on him so he can go for broke.

Stay tuned...

Iron man marathon

2010-06-24T22:38:00.005-05:00

It's finally over. The longest match in tennis history finally has a winner. John Isner of the USA defeated Nicolas Mahut of France in a three-day, 11 hour and 5 minute match: 6-4, 3-6, 6-7 (9), 7-6 (3), 70-68.

(Let's be honest. Calling it a marathon match would be an understatement. At least the Iron Man Triathlon can take, like, 17 hours to complete).

In case you've been living on Mars, I put the score of that final set in boldface for you. That is no typo. 70 games to 68. The fifth set alone took more than eight hours to complete. The previous record for the longest match in history didn't even take as long as the fifth set (Fabrice Santoro defeated Arnaud Clement in the first round 2004 French Open in 6 hours and 33 minutes).

My favorite words to describe this are stupefying, ridiculousness, absurd, excessive and inconceivable. I mean, this thing surpassed every level of believability when they were at 30 games a piece. Who would have predicted that the fifth set was only halfway over on day two when they reached 35 games a piece? Ugh.

The numbers these two athletes put up are insane: 980 total points, 183 games, 490 combined winners, 215 aces (both players shattered the previous record for most aces in a single match), only three service breaks, among many other things.

Oh, yeah. Did I mention the match took 11 hours and five minutes?

My boys on Pardon the Interruption said yesterday and today that it wasn't that good of a match. Wilbon even suggested that parts of the fifth set were boring and irrelevant.

I love you, Wilbon. I idolize you. You spoke at my graduation ceremony last week. But I respectfully and vehemently disagree.

The fifth set was agonizingly long, emotionally draining, excessive, unbelievable and tortuous, but boring it was not. I admit that after spending all of yesterday doing nothing but watching this match, I was screaming at my computer today and pleading for someone--anyone--to break serve and end this thing. I do have a life and stuff to do. I absolutely couldn't bear to wait any longer. So yes, I was fatigued and anxious for a conclusion, but not bored.

Perhaps what the PTI guys believe is that it wasn't a great match because it didn't involve two great players, playing out their great rivalry for some great reward. Fair enough. If there is one thing this match lacked is a suitable prize for the victor and the vanquished. Instead, John Isner gets to play in the second round at Wimbledon and the bragging rights of having won the longest match in tennis history. And poor Nicolas Mahut gets the dubious distinction of having lost that historic match and the lovely parting gift of some champagne flutes from the All-England Club. (They gave some to Isner, too). Whoopee doo.

But still, the quality of the match was so inconceivably high right until the end. The most basic rule of tennis is to protect your serve, and these two gentlemen put on a clinic to illustrate that. They went somewhere around 160+ games without a single service break. There were only 15 opportunities to break in the entire match, 12 for Isner and three for Mahut. I said earlier that they combined for 490 winners. That's superb, but even more so when you see that they only had 91 unforced errors between them. That's a positive differential of--wait for it--399. Furthermore, as the columnists said on Around the Horn today, the match didn't end because of a wild mishit, an injury, a retirement, or a double-fault (which would have been tantamount to blasphemy). It ended because Isner hit two screaming passing shot winners in a row to capitalize on his fifth match point.

Read all that again, then tell me that it wasn't a high-quality, incredibly well-played match that doesn't deserve to be mentioned among the greatest contests of all time in any sport.

I'm a tennis junkie and appreciate great tennis from wherever it comes and from whichever players happen to produce it. The fact that this was "just" a first-round match on some random outer court at Wimbledon is disappointing because the stakes weren't that high and there cannot be a big enough reward for these two players. But it doesn't diminish the quality of the match in my mind or make it less significant in the history of tennis. What Mahut said after the match was absolutely true: they played the greatest match in history at the greatest place to play tennis. I believe Wilbon, Kornheiser and others are overlooking the actual tennis while too closely examining the marquis of the individual players and the occasion (or lack thereof).

So let me propose a theory: if this match had taken place at a Grand Slam final, I'm quite certain that everyone--Wilbon and Kornheiser included--would be falling all over themselves to declare it the best match ever played. Why? Because a Grand Slam championship is at stake.

Here's another scenario: let's imagine that it was Federer and Nadal playing this match. Assume, perhaps, that both players are at the end of their careers and are on the fringes of the sport, which is the only scenario that would allow them to play in the first round of anything. Again, I believe that people would eager to declare this the greatest match ever played. Why? Because theirs is one of the most storied rivalries of all time in men's tennis.

You see? If you substitute a few factors, all of the sudden that match seems much more important. The tennis in and of itself hasn't changed; just the people, the stakes and the occasion. I'm not naive. I'm not going to say those factors don't matter at all. But we've seen numerous matches that had the big-name players and the occasion and still didn't live up to the hype. In the end, the quality of play and standard of excellence matter the most. These two battled for three interminable days, hitting one clutch shot after another, fighting off exhaustion and refusing to wilt. Only a minute margin made the difference.

Isn't that enough to earn our props? Give up the respect, everyone. This was not only a insanely long match, but a great one. That is all.

Meanwhile, there were other great five-set matches happening all over the grounds in the past few days. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Tsonga, Davydenko and several others escaped difficult five-set tussels in the first couple of rounds. Federer, as good as he is, admitted that he was lucky not to get bounced in straight sets in the first round by Alejandro Falla of Colombia. Davydenko, like Federer, had to climb out of a two-sets-to-love hole to win his first round match, only to lose in the second round. Nadal looked frustrated, going down two sets to one before cruising through the last two sets, 6-0, 6-3. Djokovic took every available minute close his first-round match under the lights at Centre Court right before the 11pm curfew. I didn't see Tsonga's match, but the scoreline screams of high tension: 6-4, 6-4, 6-7 (5), 5-7, 10-8. There were a few other extended fifth sets: 8-6, 9-7, 10-8, 16-14, but all of those just looked dwarfed by, ya know, 70-68.

Oh, yeah. And Queen Elizabeth II showed up to Wimbledon for the first time in 33 years. Also one for the history books.

It is highly improbable that we will see anything close to 70-68 again and Court 18 will forever live in infamy. That match aside, the 2010 Wimbledon has gotten off to a highly dramatic start.

And we haven't even gotten to the high-stakes contests yet. What more is in store for us? Stay tuned.

Until later!

A huge responsibility

2010-06-03T16:39:00.004-05:00

Well, who had this penciled into their draw? Sam Stosur versus Francesca Schiavone for the 2010 French Open championship? Suffice it to say, my draw has long since been blown to smithereens.

Not to say that these two players don't deserve it. You don't make it to a Grand Slam final out of dumb luck, and both players have been excellent since the first ball. Stosur, 26, continues to shock everyone with her successful transition from doubles specialist to singles extraordinaire, taking out Justine Henin and Serena Williams in three sets along the way. Schiavone, 29 (and about to be 30 in June), has ridden her consistently top-20-caliber tennis to a major final and a top ten ranking, beating Caroline Wozniacki and Elena Dementieva (who retired after losing the first set). Both have worked extremely hard for a long time and have finally emerged from the shadows to get their chance at glory on the big stage. Besides, in this era of the Williams sisters, the Belgians and the Russians, how often is it that we get a championship match where both contestants are playing in their first major final? This could be pretty good stuff.

The problem is that these two must shoulder the task of proving that women's tennis is not boring or anticlimactic without the aforementioned Williamses and company. I have been chatting with other tennis fans on Facebook all week, and more than once I have read comments about how women's tennis just isn't that exciting anymore. That there aren't any great rivalries like on the men's side and very few competitive matches.

To be fair, all of those claims are completely accurate. I, too, have failed to pay much attention to women's tennis in between the Grand Slams, to the point that I didn't even know that at one point Caroline Wozniacki had reached number two in the world and that Venus Williams eventually replaced her at that spot. ???? I probably could have told you who was in the top ten, but not in order. And there aren't any sexy story lines going on.

Having both of the Belgians back hasn't exactly added as much intrigue as we all might have hoped. Clijsters is injured and Henin is not back to her top form yet, as her performance in Paris indicates. The Williamses are the top two players in the world. Well, that's not exactly news. So we spend the better part of two weeks talking about Venus' dress and "the illusion of bareness." Caroline Wozniacki? Eh, she's a sweet girl and a good kid, but she's not forcing anyone to pay attention to her just yet. Jankovic continues to be a big tease. She seemed to be hitting her stride in Paris, so much so that Matt Cronin picked her to win the entire tournament (which I thought was crazy). But Stosur picked her apart in the semifinals Thursday, only surrendering a measly three games to the Serbian. Once again, she starts playing well, she leads us on, we get our hopes up, and then she does this. The freefall of Ana Ivanovic and Dinara Safina has been well chronicled, and there are only so many ways to describe train wrecks.

Compare that to the men. The top ten in the world is as competitive as it's been for many years. 2009 featured so many incredible matches involving so many players, how could you not get hyped by it all? Nadal-Verdasco at the Australian Open semis, Federer-Nadal at the Australian Open finals, Nadal-Djokovic at the Madrid semis, Federer-Haas at the French Open fourth round, Federer-Del Potro at the French Open semis, Federer-Roddick at the Wimbledon finals, and Federer-Del Potro at the US Open finals.

Anyone see the common denominators here? Federer and Nadal. In years past, the matches they played against other guys were often formalities we had to sit through until they could play each other. This is still the match up we want to see in every final if we can get it. But now we are witnessing that other players can put up great fights against these two and make it just as entertaining. (Okay, this clay court season hasn't been the greatest example of that since Nadal is steamrolling everyone, but the point remains). The highlights from the Nadal-Verdasco match have close to 500,000 views on YouTube. Another note: for three years, us fans have been treated to three, terrific, five-set finals at Wimbledon. We thought the 2008 final couldn't be topped, but Federer and Roddick managed to take it up a notch.

None of that exists in women's tennis anymore. We have to think back to the days when Jennifer Capriati, Lindsay Davenport, Martina Hingis, the Belgians and the Williams sisters were all at their peak to find a similarly competitive women's major final. The most recent one that comes to mind was Venus v. Lindsay Davenport at 2005 Wimbledon--one of the best matches of all time. Serena v. Dementieva at the 2009 Wimbledon semis was probably the match of the year even though it wasn't a final. Think also of Capriati v. Hingis at the 2002 Australian Open, or Capriati v. Clijsters at the 2001 French Open. A lot of matches were like that back in the day, but we just don't get that anymore. Most of the major finals in the past several years have been straight set routs, and that's only fun for a little while. We don't want to see the nuclear meltdown going on inside Dinara Safina's head anymore. We want to see a match.

In the previous examples, it seems like either Federer or Nadal needs to be in the equation somewhere to guarantee a good show in the later rounds. Perhaps the opposite is true with the women. Perhaps the ingredients for an all-out slugfest is the absence of a marquis player who is the overwhelming favorite. Maybe the combination of two players with the opportunity of a lifetime, with nothing to lose and nothing to prove, neither being a clear favorite, neither battling mental demons and both without the weight of expectations from worldwide tennis fans is exactly what will make this an explosive contest.

Man, I hope so. Ladies, come out and play. Your sport needs this.

The Giant Slayer

2010-06-01T12:44:00.004-05:00

Um...wow. That is all.

When Robin Soderling beat Rafael Nadal in the fourth round at Roland Garros last year, becoming the only man to date to ever beat the four-time champion at this event, it was considered to be the biggest upset in recent tennis history.

Somehow, this Swede just one upped himself.

Today, Soderling used his enormous pace to hit the defending champion Roger Federer off the court in four sets to advance to another French Open semifinal where he will play Tomas Berdych of the Czech Republic.

One can argue that since Federer is much more vulnerable on clay than on any other surface, Soderling's win over Nadal was the bigger upset. It's not. Forget the fact that Federer hadn't lost a set through four matches. Forget that this is the first time in 13 tries that Soderling has beaten Federer. It has been six--yes, six--years since Roger Federer lost in a Grand Slam before the semifinals. 23 straight semifinal appearances or better for the world number one. Ivan Lendl and Rod Laver are tied for the second longest streak, with 10. Incidentally, the last time Federer lost before a semifinal was the 2004 French Open, and you can't exactly give him a hard time about that one. He may have been number one at the time, but he lost to three-time champion Gustavo Kuerten.

In those 23 Grand Slams, there were only three times that he didn't make the final. And each time, he lost to the guy who eventually won the championship. This means that if anyone other than Federer won a Grand Slam in the past six years, they had to beat Roger. The road to a major title went through Federer. That is further evidence to show how dominant a figure he's been in men's tennis.

This may still the case, by the way. Soderling can definitely beat Berdych in the semifinals, a match up of career underachievers, of sorts. Both players hit big off the ground and can make it difficult to hit winners, but how can anyone argue against the Swede now? And if, for example, Soderling were to make the finals again and square off against Nadal...well, who knows? He beat Nadal here before. The road to this championship may still have gone through Federer. We'll find out in a few days.

This is huge because it demonstrates how Roger Federer is slowly but surely losing his stranglehold at the top of men's tennis. Forget the ranking. He could still be the number one player in a few days if for some ridiculous reason Nadal were unable to win the title. This isn't about the ranking. It's about how Federer loses more and more matches with every passing year. In all fairness, men's tennis has gotten better every year. The top ten is as deep and as competitive as it's been in a long time, such that it's becoming more difficult for anyone to separate themselves from the pack. But separating himself from the pack is exactly what Roger Federer has been about for such a long time. The idea that someone not named Nadal--or even Djokovic or Murray--could catch up to him represents a shift in the way we must evaluate this sport.

Oy, cue the discussion about whether Roger Federer is on his way down. In the same way that his 2008 season hung over his head until he won the US Open, this loss will hang over his head until he wins something else and restores order. In terms of what happened on the court, this result is not about Federer losing and all about Soderling winning. He is the 7th-ranked player in the world and he played an unbelievable match. But because it's Federer on the losing end, we can't just brush this aside, even if he simply got outplayed. Pay attention to the columns and articles that come out about this match. People will start speaking as though Robin Soderling just brought about the apocalypse in men's tennis. The unfortunate thing is that it's impossible not to think that way. I'm conflicted. It's hard not to make a mountain out of a molehill. Unless, of course, it is really a mountain to begin with.

Many consider Federer to be the greatest of all time, so what he does comes under much tougher scrutiny than anyone else. Federer's wins matter more than everyone else's and his losses shake the tennis world to its core. Call it the occupational hazard of dominating for such a long time. You can make the argument that this is the most significant loss of his career. So, whether we want to or not, we have to wonder why it happened now. Was it just one of those days, and every great streak must end at some point? Or is it foreshadowing something much bigger and much more significant?

After all, every great champion will see their time pass at some point. There will come a time when Federer simply cannot silence the critics by winning a major. It is inevitable. And no matter how much we may be overreacting to this loss, we'd be fools to not ask ourselves:

Is that time now?

*Plays ominous music*

Champion conquered

2010-05-31T12:05:00.008-05:00

John McEnroe suggested that four-time French Open champion Justine Henin is at or nearly at the same form as she was in 2007 when she was the world number one. I said then that he was out of his mind and today proves my point.

Henin lost in the fourth round of her favorite major today to Australian Sam Stosur. To be fair, Stosur is not the type of player you want to meet just to get to a quarterfinal. Known more for her doubles prowess until last year, she is also one of the best servers on tour next to the Williams sisters. And, as great of a champion as Henin is, she's been away from the game for years and hasn't played in Paris since 2007. Henin has nothing to be ashamed of losing to Stosur.

However, I believe that the Henin of 2007 would have won that match, or at least made it a much closer affair. After taking the first set 6-2, she managed to win only five games in the final two sets: 6-1, 6-4 to Stosur. The Justine of old rarely would have followed such a solid first set with such a lackluster one, handing the momentum to her opponent.

But the biggest reason why Justine Henin has not returned to her previous form is her serve. Henin's serve has never been a weapon. It has never been a tool she could use to get some cheap points or bail her out of trouble, like the Williams sisters or even Stosur can. Henin's serve had always been about consistency and a way to get her into the points safely where she can control her opponents with her power and variety.

But since Justine has been back, her serve has become the glaring weakness of her game. She is constantly falling behind on her service games, and is hitting too many double-faults and too few effective first serves. Her serve may never have been a strength, but it was never a weakness. Much like Sharapova, she is constantly tweaking the motion to find a rhythm, but it is eluding her.

It has been said by many that Justine is really eying Wimbledon as her ultimate motivation for her comeback. I gotta say, though, if she does not find a way to repair her serving problems between now and then there is no way she's winning that tournament. If there is one surface where an effective serve is essential, it's grass. Think about it: who has been the dominant player at Wimbledon for the past decade with five titles in eight finals? Venus Williams--the embodiment of big serving. And who did Venus lose to in those other three finals? Serena Williams. Case closed.

In other news, some of these Spanish guys have really messed up my draw. My semifinal pick David Ferrer crashed out in straight sets to Austria's Jurgen Melzer; Juan Carlos Ferrero lost a strange five-set match to USA's Robby Ginepri, and Fernando Verdasco lost today to countryman Nicolas Almagro in four sets.

Okay, that last one isn't terribly surprising. In the best of circumstances, that's a close match, as Almagro is one of only two guys to take a set off of Nadal this clay court season. Incidentally, Almagro plays Nadal in the quarterfinals. But what confuses me about Verdasco is that he has played so much tennis this season. As one of my Facebook pals points out, while Nadal's mantra is about saving his body and not playing so much, Verdasco's goal seems to be to play every single tournament he can possibly manage. This guy has played 11 tournaments leading into the French Open and a pre-Australian Open exhibition tournament, whereas Nadal and Federer have played only played seven. Even after a lot of successful results (win in Barcelona, finals in Monte Carlo, semifinals in Rome), he inexplicably went to Nice the week before Roland Garros and lost a difficult three-hour final to Richard Gasquet.

I don't see the logic of that move. I think Verdasco needed that week to rest and to store up energy to make a push in Paris, especially since he was in Nadal's quarter of the draw. I asked tennis writer Matt Cronin about this and he said he believes Verdasco has played too much all year, not simply during the clay court season. With the people Verdasco has around him--he counts Andre Agassi as a good friend and works with Agassi's former fitness trainer--why didn't anyone step in and stop him from overplaying? What made his coach think this was a good idea? Very curious.

Anyway, my draw is totally shot. Thanks a lot, Spanish Armada.

Until later!

Falling star

2010-05-25T10:39:00.004-05:00

Remember two years ago, when Dinara Safina defeated Justine Henin in her last tournament before her retirement, then went to the French Open and upset Maria Sharapova after being down match points, en route to the finals?

What has happened to that girl?

That girl seemed to have so much potential and promise. We saw signs of mental weakness in critical stages of matches, but we all wrote it off as the growing pains of a young athlete who just needed to learn to win and to trust her ability.

But the faster they rise, the harder they fall. It didn't take long for things to start falling apart. She made the finals of the Olympics, and served around 17 double faults to lose to Elena Dementieva. She made the finals of the 2009 Australian Open, only to be annihilated by Serena Williams. She made the finals for the second consecutive year at the French Open, only to self-destruct and lose to Sveta Kuznetsova--on a double-fault, no less. Then she suffered a miserable loss in the third round of the US Open. It wasn't why or how she lost that was important, but where. Even as the number one player in the world, her match was relegated to a smaller show court, an eerie prediction that she'd suffer another meltdown and as few people as possible should be allowed to see it. Then she had to quit during the WTA Championships with a bad back, which would also cause her to retire from her fourth-round match at the 2010 Australian Open and withdraw from Dubai, Indian Wells and Miami.

I can't believe the girl has managed to stay in the top ten this long.

But today marks a new low in her downward spiral. She crashed out of the first round of the French Open to the elder stateswoman Kimiko Date Krumm, even though Krumm was visibly hurt and limping through the final few games. Oh, Krumm also had not won a Grand Slam match in 14 years and is nearly 40 years old. As terrific of an accomplishment as that is for Krumm, with all due respect, she did not win that match. Dina lost it. After winning the first set convincingly, she was up a break in the second but couldn't close, and up 4-1 in the third before Krumm pulled even. In the final game, Dina hit a series of awful, wild shots to hand Krumm the match.

So much for the top ten.

Clearly, Dina has struggled with injuries, but what's ailing this poor kid is all between the ears. We have seen this before with promising players--the recently retired Nicole Vaidisova comes to mind, as does Ana Ivanovic. That critical lack of belief and confidence that prevents promise from materializing into major success. That mental toughness is what distinguishes the runners-up from the champions, people such as Venus and Serena Williams and Justine Henin, for example. These are players who find ways to win even when they are not playing their best. Serena's semifinal triumph over Vika Azarenka and Justine's second-round win over Elena Dementieva at the Australian Open this year are proof positive of that. Speaking of champions versus contenders, Azarenka had her own dismal showing on Sunday, losing miserably to Argentina's Gisela Dulko and incurring a fine for not showing up to the mandatory press conference.

On the Roland Garros Facebook fan page, someone suggested that Dina needs a break from tennis. I would argue that she needs a break and needs to visit a sports psychologist. Perhaps mental stability is something that you either have or you don't, but it couldn't hurt. This kid is too good and too young to just bomb out like this. She is too good to go the route of so many other players who could play at the upper echelons but will forever be remembered as an underachiever.

All along, I just assumed that Dina would eventually find a way to stop her downfall and start climbing back up the rankings. But now I'm not so sure. It cannot be denied that this girl is at a crossroads in her career. She has to find a way to fix this and do it soon. If she doesn't, we can't continue to call this a slump or a downfall--it will simply be the enduring memory of her career.

And that would be terribly sad.

French Open Men's Preview

2010-05-21T23:55:00.011-05:00

After several hours of analyzing, I've come up with a few conclusions about this year's draw at the French Open.

The Favorite: Rafael Nadal

If you've read any of my posts the past few weeks, I don't need to explain this one. With the way Rafael Nadal has been playing, you could throw the kitchen sink at him and it still wouldn't matter--he's probably going to win. But he is cruising Candy Cane Lane for the first week. He doesn't play anyone notable until the fourth round, where he could meet Ivan Ljubicic of Croatia. But I don't think he's in danger of losing a set until the quarterfinals, where he could face Fernando Verdasco. One hopes it would be a better match than the shellacking Nadal put on his friend in the Monte Carlo finals this year: 6-0, 6-1. So not only is Nadal dominating the clay this season, he's healthy, he has a sweetheart draw and he will be well rested when he arrives in the later rounds with the tougher opponents. Talk about stacking the deck.

The Underdog: Roger Federer

It is ridiculous to say that Federer is the underdog for anything, especially when he's the defending champion and he's not injured. But even Federer is realistic and recognizes Nadal's supremacy this season. While Nadal might as well have a bye into the quarterfinals, the Fed Express is going to have to be on top of his game from the get go. He will likely play some combination of the following players: Janko Tipsarevic of Serbia, Feliciano Lopez of Spain, Stanislas Wawrinka of Switzerland, Gael Monfils of France, Ernests Gulbis of Latvia, Marin Cilic of Croatia and Robin Soderling of Sweden--and that's just to reach the semifinals. Ugh. The good news is that Federer has a 33-2 combined record against all these players and not one has ever beaten him in a Grand Slam. I say, forget the fact that Federer hasn't played so well recently. He kicks it into another gear when the big trophies are at stake. Never count him out.

Early Upset Alert: Andy Murray

Murray is a player who needs the momentum of solid match play behind him, and it's clearly lacking this year on his weakest surface. He is certainly good enough to stay in the game for a while (he made the quarterfinals in 2009), but too many of the top players perform better on clay and can trip him up. It definitely doesn't help that he drew Frenchman Richard Gasquet in the first round. I expect him to get past Gasquet, but still Tomas Berdych, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Mikhail Youzhny and Tommy Robredo are all waiting for him. Even a second round match again Juan Ignacio Chela could also be tricky, even though Murray beat him last week in Madrid, 6-3, 6-3.

Dark horse: David Ferrer

The only player with better results than Ferrer on clay this season is Rafa Nadal. There are some good players in that section, including Juan Carlos Ferrero and Juan Monaco, but I predict a fierce quarterfinal match between Ferrer and Novak Djokovic. The Serb's fitness might be in question because he had to withdraw from Belgrade with an illness and skipped the Madrid Masters to recuperate. They have a 4-4 head-to-head record and I think it's a great opportunity for Ferrer to reach the semifinals (where he'd probably lose to Nadal, but whatever).

On a sidenote, I've read a couple of articles that suggest that the potential quarterfinal match in that section pits Djokovic against Roddick. I think they must be looking at just the numbers next to the names and are conveniently ignoring a few things: Roddick has never advanced past the fourth round at Roland Garros, clay is his weakest surface, he hasn't played a clay court tournament all year and he'd probably have to beat Ferrer in the fourth round to get to the quarters. Verdict: So not going to happen.

Under the Radar: anyone else in Murray's section

I'm sticking with my theory that Murray is going to fall early. That opens the door for a lot of people: Tsonga, Berdych, Youzhny and Robredo, among others. Even John Isner has a shot to play a few rounds and make sure the American men don't all bomb out in the first round. That section is wide open and can be a great opportunity for someone to quietly sneak into the semifinals.

Injury alert:

Lots of high-profile players have already withdrawn from this year's tournament, including Iron Man Nikolay Davydenko, Juan Martin del Potro, Tommy Haas, Carlos Moya and David Nalbandian.

So to review, I have Nadal versus Ferrer in one semifinal and Federer versus, eh, I'll say...Tsonga in the other. But I'm willing to be flexible on the last one. It hardly matters, though. Fed would still be the favorite in that match, so I'm going for a Nadal-Federer final.

What I would love is if the two rivals could have a knock-down, drag-out fight to the distance, similar to their 2006 final in Rome. Their previous French Open matches have been anti-climactic, to say the least. I still pick Nadal to win, but it'd be nice if Federer could make sure it's not a foregone conclusion for the entire fortnight.

Back to discuss to women later on.

Pathetic confession

2010-05-20T12:24:00.008-05:00

Floyd Landis is a moron.

Let's just establish that right now.

He's a moron, a fool and an idiot with absolutely no sense of shame, no morality and not a speck of honesty in his body.

In case you haven't heard, Landis told ESPN on Wednesday that he did use performance-enhancing drugs for most of his career, including the ill-fated 2006 Tour de France.

DUH! I'm about as shocked by this as I was when Ricky Martin publicly came out of the closet.

But that isn't all. In what [appears to me] to be a blatant and shameless attempt to drag everyone under the bus with him, he accused several other cyclists, including Lance Armstrong, of committing the same infractions--admitting that he doesn't have a shred of proof to back this up.

Let's get something clear here: Lance Armstrong is one of the most frequently tested and scrutinized athletes in recent history, but not one credible source can prove that he has ever failed a single drug test. You can believe that it's because he's found an ingenious way to outsmart the technologies--and it would have to be brilliant to get away with it for so many years. But until someone shoves some infallible documentation in my face to show that he wasn't clean, he has done nothing wrong.

But let's assume for the sake of conversation that Lance Armstrong has cheated. Who in their right mind would take Floyd Landis' word for it?

Very few of us had any idea who Landis was before the 2006 Tour de France, but he's been lying ever since he entered the public eye. He lied and cheated to win that title, he lied to every media outlet that interviewed him, he lied to every official and he lied to every public forum and court that would hear his case. All along he knew that he'd cheated but still poured years of his life and a lot of money into keeping up the charade. He's a fraud. Only now, almost four years later, when no one cares about him does he decide to come clean because he wants to clear his conscience.

Now that's incredible: the man can't be entirely honest even when he's telling the truth.

I think that this is a man who is as incapable of being truthful with others as he is unable to be honest with himself. For example:

"I take responsibility for all the stuff I did," Landis said in the interview. "No one gave me something and said, 'Don't ask what this is, just take it.' I would never have done that. The things I took, I knew what they were, and I spent the time researching what the risks were, and the decisions I made were mine. The whole entire process of doping in the entire sport and the evolution of it all wasn't my fault, but when it came down to it, me being there, I made the decision to do it. It wasn't anyone else telling me to do it. I'm not blaming anyone for that. It was my decision. Every time."

He starts and ends that statement by being accountable for his actions but still he tries to mitigate his own blame and detract attention from himself. He's basically saying that if doping didn't exist in cycling, he never would have cheated. Well, of course, not! You can't do something if you don't have the option to do it. That doesn't win you extra points in the good citizen contest. The fact that doping exists in cycling isn't the issue. What is relevant is that he cheated anyway, completely of his own volition. Cheating is nearly always an option in nearly every professional sport, but not every professional athlete cheats.

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether Landis was following the status quo in cycling and doing what everyone else does. It doesn't matter because this isn't about corruption in the sport as a whole. This is about him. He got caught and he lied about what he did for four years. As far as I'm concerned, he is not an ambassador for the sport of cycling. He hasn't been a part of the sport for years and may never race again. It is no longer up to him to act on behalf of the integrity of the sport. Let the sports media debate whether or not Landis is the problem or just the tip of the iceberg. Let the World Anti-Doping Agency and international cycling federations worry about that. That's their job.

His job now is to do some serious introspection. He needs to ask himself why he cheated, why he ruined his life, why his marriage fell apart and why he spent millions of dollars and several years vehemently denying the truth. Lance Armstrong and the sport of cycling should be the least of his worries. If he were serious about coming to terms with his mistakes, he simply should have said that he cheated, it was wrong, it was his choice, he lied and it's all his fault. Pure and simple. He did say quite a bit of that, but added that he doesn't regret his choices, that there's a bigger problem that has nothing to do with him and he's not as bad a guy as we've made him out to be.

*FAIL*

Go away, Landis. Stop making a mockery of yourself, stop trying to save yourself, don't even try to appear contrite and leave us alone. You're an embarrassment.

Favorite performance

2010-05-06T23:49:00.004-05:00

I'm in the process of making a list of music I think should be banned from figure skating forever. (I'll post it when I feel I've exhausted all my ideas). Many of the pieces make the list simply from ridiculous amounts of overuse. Readers, I give you one chance to guess which piece topped the list. But some are there, not because too many people have skated to it, but rather because they are the signature pieces of great skaters in legendary performances. Those pieces of music should be retired like numbers in baseball or football because it would be blasphemous for anyone to skate to that music again.

This is an example of the latter: Natalia Mishkutenkok and Artur Dmitriev skating to Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No. 2.

It will never be done better than that, thank you very much.

And might I add that this performance came years after another masterpiece: Liebestraum No. 3 by Franz Liszt. One of the legendary performances of all time.

Bad decisions

2010-05-06T21:16:00.006-05:00

Some people, I guess, just never learn.

Lawrence Taylor's history of unwise decisions hit an all-time low today, as he was arrested and formally indicted in New York on a charge of third-degree rape. The allegations are that Taylor was at a hotel room when a pimp brought a 16-year-old prostitute (who happened to be a runaway) to Taylor and ordered her to have sex with him. She did and Taylor paid her $300 for it. The pimp is facing charges of unlawful imprisonment, assault and endangering the welfare of a child. No allegations I've seen have claimed that Taylor knew this girl was underage, but neither knowledge nor ignorance makes a difference because the girl is too young to legally consent to sex. Taylor's lawyer emphatically denied that he had sex with anyone that night.

To echo Tony Kornheiser, I sincerely hope that these allegations turn out to be false. It doesn't look good because while we have spent weeks talking about Ben Roethlisberger's rape allegations, he has not come close to being formally charged with anything. Meanwhile, the first "discussion" we had about Taylor was after they'd slapped him in handcuffs. Taylor's reputation has taken an irrevocable hit regardless of the outcome of this case. Still, it is best for him and especially for the victim if none of it is true.

But if it is, what in the world was he thinking? How could he allow himself to be put in that position?

To me, it's one thing if it's a younger star athlete. These are grown men and I don't excuse them for immoral behavior, but they can at least claim to suffer from the young-and-stupid syndrome. We've seen it before. But what is Taylor's excuse? He has been messing up in the most spectacular ways for years and he still doesn't seem to get it. You would think that a 51-year-old man who has had so many legal issues would realize that he should go out of his way to stay away from trouble. Take OJ, for example. It doesn't matter whether he was truly guilty or not of double homicide, but the point is that the man dodged a serious bullet. He should have thanked his lucky stars, taken the hint and spent the rest of his life living very quietly, totally under the radar, not even daring to go over the speed limit. But no--he had to mess up again and go to prison for armed robbery. It remains to be seen if these charges will hold up. It's a long way from now to an actual trial, but what a mess he's gotten himself into.

Speaking of messes, the Oakland Raiders took a big step to clean up theirs by finally releasing quarterback JaMarcus Russell. Perhaps the biggest draft bust of all-time (he can fight it out with Ryan Leaf for that distinction), this guy is a thief and a fraud. He just stole $40 million from the Raiders so he could exhibit all the reasons why he shouldn't play pro football anywhere: his passer rating, TD/INT ratio and completion percentage all got worse each year; he was forever out of shape; and he never did anything to show that he was serious about righting the ship. This guy takes carelessness to a new level. If $40 million, being a franchise player and the prospect of being the hero who carries a fledgling franchise up to glory can't motivate you to at least try, nothing will. This guy irritates me so much that I'm happy that the Raiders got rid of him--and I'm from Denver. I hate the Raiders.

Now the question remains, which team will be the next to take a chance on this kid? Lest we forget, he is still only 24. Everyone was so sure about his professional success when he came out of LSU and we see how marvelously that blew up for the Raiders. Now that we know that he's a joke, I can't imagine what logic any GM or coach could possibly use to justify giving him any money to play football for them. Or rather, to just say he's playing football when he's really sitting on the bench, getting fat and sucking up capital.

In both cases, only time will tell.

Master of clay

2010-05-05T15:01:00.006-05:00

I said it once before and I will say it again: Rafael Nadal is on a mission to get his French Open title back. He's too classy, modest and gracious to think that far ahead, but the way he's been winning, all signs are pointing to a fifth Roland Garros title.

He won his 17th overall ATP Masters Series title on Sunday with his fifth title in Rome. Two weeks ago, he won his sixth consecutive title in Monte Carlo. He is a month shy of his 24th birthday and he's already tied Andre Agassi for most all-time ATP Masters titles. Agassi was 34 when he won his last title in Cincinnati. Nadal has played ten clay court matches in those two title runs and has only lost one set. He's defeated two Spanish teammates who are quite accomplished on clay to win those titles. The only guy to really give him any trouble was Ernests Gulbis in the Rome semifinals, but it's mostly a formality to make Rafa actually play these matches. Just give him the trophy and be done with it.

He's shown a lot of maturity and growth this year, as well. He could have played in Barcelona, but withdrew to protect his body. (I maintain that he wants to protect his body for the French Open, but that's just me). It's likely he would have won that title, too, but he's accepting that he simply cannot play as often as he'd like to and stay healthy. He must picks his spots wisely. Hey, not everyone can be Iron Man Davydenko.

We're still a couple of weeks away and it's not like me to make predictions this soon, but I'm picking Rafa to win the 2010 French Open. I know--way to go out on a limb. It is not everyday that I would bet against Roger Federer. That's not to say I don't expect Federer to do well. As long as they're not on the same side of the draw (I have to imagine the officials will avoid that at all costs), Federer should still make it to the finals. I know he's been underwhelming this season on clay, but lest we forget--he is the greatest ever. And he is the defending champion. And he won't have the now-or-never pressure from years past. And he still wants to win every time he steps onto the court. He will fare just fine, I imagine. But the only person to really have Federer's number on that court is Nadal. The only person who could out duel Federer is Nadal. The only guy who could possibly want this title more than Federer is Nadal.

And the Spaniard has the Coupe des Mousquetaires in his sights. Get out of the way, everyone. Rafa's coming...

Favorite performance

2010-04-30T00:57:00.004-05:00

One of my favorite YouTube personas posted this video a while ago as one of her favorites. Bestemianova and Bukin are one of my least favorite ice dancing teams. I have enormous respect for their skating, so classically Soviet: lots of speed, difficulty, expression and precision. But their expression and style got more unorthodox as their career went on and sometimes they were just scary to watch.

However, I cannot help but give them serious props to this performance to Carmen. Undoubtedly the most overused music in the history of figure skating (I really think it should be banned), I believe that B & B got it right and did it the best. This performance at the 1985 World Championships finally won them their first gold, leaving the shadows of Torvill and Dean. This was B & B at their best. It's simply masterful.

Justice is served...sort of

2010-04-28T14:55:00.011-05:00

Well, it was 10 years late, but the International Olympic Committee handed down the biggest punishment ever for age falsification in gymnastics, the Associated Press reports.

In an ironic twist, the uproar over the ages of the Chinese gymnasts in Beijing revealed inconsistent evidence on the ages of its Olympians eight years earlier. While the IOC was investigating the gymnasts of 2008, they discovered that both Yang Yun and Dong Fangxiao were two years too young to compete at the 2000 Olympics. Both gymnasts were 14 when the rules mandate that you have to turn 16 in the Olympic year. I remember evidence surfacing that Yang Yun had come clean about her age in public. Curiously, the Federation Internationale de Gymnastique did nothing about it, instead simply giving her a warning because they lacked evidence to prove that she was really underage. Yang Yun has kept her individual medal.

The alarm bells sounded with Dong Fangxiao when she showed up at the 2008 Olympics as a national technical official with papers listing her birth year as 1986--which would have made her no more than 14 in Sydney. Her blog also lists her as being born in the year of the ox: from February 20, 1985 to February 6, 1986. The papers certifying her to compete in Sydney have her listed as being born in 1983--or being 17 in Sydney.

Whoops. See that's the thing about lying. When you do it once, you have to keep it up.

Dong's individual results from the Olympics and the 1999 World Championships were cleared from the record. Today, the IOC announced that without her scores, the Chinese team would not have won its team bronze medal in Sydney. That medal has also officially been stripped and will be given to the 4th-place United States team.

As an American, I cannot hide my bias. I'm glad that this is the result. The Americans had a disastrous Olympics in Sydney and all the girls really got dealt a bad hand. There was so much tension and controversy leading up to the Games because of the selection procedures, then one of their best athletes, Morgan White, went down with a broken foot. They entered the competition unprepared, suffering one miss after another from their top stars, but scraped into the team finals anyway. They were outclassed every step of the way and were a disappointing follow up to 1996's Magnificent Seven.

But at least they didn't cheat. It's good to see that there exists no statute of limitations for disobeying the rules.

On the other hand, I find it curious that Dong Fangxiao is being singled out to take the fall for this. She's not exactly Marion Jones, a "mature" adult who willingly cheated in order to get an advantage. I don't see Dong Fangxiao as this evil brat who conspired with her coaches to trick everyone. She was just a kid and was doing what her coaches and officials told her to do. In a system like that in a communist country, she doesn't exactly have the wherewithal to stand up and say no. She was merely a pawn in the grand scheme of things. I'm not saying that taking away her medals wasn't an appropriate remedy, but where are the sanctions for the people who put her in that position to begin with? What's the IOC doing to punish the coaches and officials for allowing all this to take place and why are those people conveniently hiding from the storm while they let a 24-year-old shoulder the blame?

I also find it strange that with gymnastics' long history of age falsification, this is the first time the IOC has ever thought it proper to strip someone of their results and medals. Come on, we all remember Kim Gwang Suk. Up until now, she was the most famous case of age-fudging in gymnastics. We are 99 percent certain that in all the time we watched her compete, she was at least four years younger than North Korean officials claimed she was. The FIG finally cracked down and banned North Korea from the 1993 World Championships. They must have done that based on some evidence that officials had lied about her age, right? So why didn't they think to strip her of her results from the 1989 and 1991 Worlds, and the 1992 Olympics based on that same evidence?

We also all know that Romanian gymnasts such as Daniela Silivas, Gina Gogean, Lavinia Agache and Alexandra Marinescu all had their ages altered to make them old enough to compete. Many of these women have since openly admitted to this. Now why hasn't the IOC or the FIG done anything about that? Vacating the results of some of these athletes would involve some major reorganizing, but if the IOC is so hot and bothered about breaking the rules ten years after the fact, why not go back 20 years? Or 30?

There is something else going on here. Unless someone gives me a better answer, I can't help but believe that the heated suspicions about the girls in Beijing fueled this fire. Neither the FIG nor the IOC has made a habit of punishing age falsification in gymnastics, but suddenly both were determined to catch the Chinese red-handed. They couldn't drop it once the investigation about the Beijing team was closed, so they adapted the mission to ensure this infraction didn't go overlooked.

Why? I'm not sure. But all that stuff about creating a field of fair play is just a front. There is definitely some politicking going on here. For some reason, the IOC and FIG wanted China's head on the chopping block and they got it. Well, they got Dong Fangxiao's head. For all intents and purposes, she never competed and her career never existed. Now the poor girl is being left to weather the storm all by herself.

I hope this isn't the last we hear about this. I hope the FIG and IOC have more punishments coming down the pike for those who really deserve it: the adults who manipulated a child, reaped the benefits then ducked for cover when the stuff hit the fan.

Rest in peace

2010-04-23T17:47:00.004-05:00

I just read the sad news the two-time Olympic champion rhythmic gymnast Natalia Lavrova was killed in a car crash today. She was riding in a car with her sister when it collided with another vehicle in Penza, southeast of Moscow. Lavrova and her sister were killed instantly.

Lavrova was only 25 years old and she was part of the gold medal-winning Russian teams in group rhythmic gymnastics in both Sydney and Athens. Sadly, I do not know which one she is in the photo or in the clips, but in her honor, I'm posting the videos of these Olympic champion performances here.

Lavrova's untimely death follows that of another star Russian gymnast, Yuri Ryazanov, about six months ago in October 2009. Ryazanov was only 22 and also died in a car accident.

Rest in peace, Natalia!

He's back...

2010-04-19T22:09:00.006-05:00

Lest we forget just how good Rafael Nadal is on clay, the Monte Carlo Masters became a rather emphatic reminder to us fans, and a painful one to his opponents. He did nothing short of dismantle the field last week, never coming close to losing a set and posting far too many bagel sets than should be permitted in a professional tournament. He looked fantastic all week and saved his best performance for the finals, where he took apart his good friend Fernando Verdasco, 6-0, 6-1. Ouch. Don't let the screen shot fool you.

Let us remember that Verdasco is a really good player. Putting aside the fact that he's never beaten Rafa and this was his first Masters final, you'd think he'd put up a stiffer contest than that. He beat Djokovic to get to the final. But when Rafa hits shots like this, as my dad would say, that's just a beating you've gotta take.

I find it amusing that all week Rafa kept saying that the matches were not as easy as the scores indicated, but I find that difficult to believe. I think that Rafa hit his stride on his favorite "sur-frace," played unbelievable tennis and is just too classy and modest to say that any of that. One interviewer asked him if he's thinking ahead to the French Open, something he always denies. I also find that inconceivable. I believe that Roland Garros has been in the back of his mind ever since his shocking loss to Soderling last year. Certainly he isn't getting ahead of himself, but his performance in Monte Carlo tells me that he's a man on a mission. He is probably brimming with confidence after this, and rightfully so.

To digress somewhat, I commend Verdasco for some terrific tennis and for great interviews. I had no idea that he spoke English so well and he provided some very insightful analysis of his matches. It's always nice to see the players who don't talk like robots and who don't say as little as possible in order to answer the question.

On the basis of Monte Carlo, Andy Murray has fallen in the rankings to number 5 in the world. Federer is a comfortable 3,300 points clear of number two Djokovic, who lost ground because he failed to repeat his finals appearance in Monte Carlo. About 400 points behind is Nadal, who didn't gain much ground because he's won Monte Carlo six consecutive years. Repeat: six consecutive years. He's more dominant there than in Paris. Scary. Rafa is about 1,200 points ahead of delPo, and delPo, Murray and Davydenko are all crammed together within 400 points. Verdasco moved up three spots to number nine.

Next up: Rome.

Be back soon

2010-04-15T01:35:00.003-05:00

Hey, all!

Sorry for my absence. My search for a full-time paying job continues and is my main priority nowadays. Oddly, I haven't felt too inspired to write anything lately despite all the strange/weird/interesting things going on in sports: NCAA Championships (men: one of the greatest games ever, women: what the hell was that?); Tiger Woods back at the Masters and good ol' Lefty (mercifully) stealing the show; dumbass Big Ben and the fallout of no charges being filed (again) in the assault allegations. The list goes on.

Anyway, I just want to let you know that I am working on a typically long post about the figure skating year in review: best story lines, best performances and biggest disappointments. The clay court season has officially begun in Monte Carlo, so I will be keeping tabs on that. Andy Murray has already been sent home after getting destroyed in his first match. Ouch.

Until later!

Figure skating season in review

2010-04-15T01:23:00.015-05:00

What an incredible year this has been in the world of figure skating. So many stories and amazing accomplishments. Here is my perspective.

Storylines of the year:

Yu-na Kim

I can't remember when there was a bigger favorite for the Olympic title, and one whose every move was scrutinized by fans and analysts all over the world. Even though NBC touted the ladies competition as a duel between Yu-na and Mao, it was mainly to create intrigue because no one with half a brain really thought Mao posed much of a challenge. Yu-na pretty much won every competition she was in and seemingly kept resetting her own world records every time she skated. USA Today did an entire column about her when she had a less-than-perfect competition and we had hard evidence that she was, indeed, flawed. But like the champion she is, she went into the Olympics, skated the two best performances of her career, shattered every record to oblivion and blew away the competition by almost 20 points. Her point total at the Olympics was so good that she would have placed ninth in the men's competition. Sure, she ended the year less than spectacularly by placing second at World's to Mao and clearly showing the effects of an Olympics hangover. But honestly, can you blame the kid? She has had a meteoric rise in the sport and has accomplished everything possible--and she's only 19. The last time we saw someone do that was Tara Lipinski and she retired immediately after. It will be interesting how some well-deserved time off and a re-evaluation of her goals will affect her competitiveness. Will she quit while she's ahead or channel her inner Roger Federer--driven purely by the love of the sport and desire to succeed?

Mao Asada

This kid is tenacious. She's had little to feel good about ever since she started working with Tatiana Tarasova and it seemed like the Olympic season would not be much different. She had a pretty miserable Grand Prix season while Queen Yu-na seemed to be winning everything in sight. Then, out of nowhere, she pulls out a fabulous short program at the Olympics bested only by Yu-na. She then became the first woman to land three triple axels (not one downgrade) in the same competition and overcame a couple of mistakes to win silver. Taking advantage of Yu-na's Olympic hangover, she won her second World title with the best performance of her career. As delicate and unassuming as she is, she is fiercely competitive and does not give up. Whatever her problems in the past, she skated her best when it counted and she was well-rewarded. And to top it all off, she has mercifully ended her relationship with Tarasova. Yes! I suspect we'll see Mao get back to her old self next season.

Shen & Zhao

No disrespect to Savchenko & Szolkowy, but this comeback was sorely needed in the world of pairs figure skating. As good as S & S are, they didn't really have the personality or showmanship that gets people out of their seats and cheering raucously. They're not special enough to be the face of pairs skating. So when Shen & Zhao came back skating better than ever, fans everywhere breathed a sigh of relief. They were the perfect blend between the points-gathering of the current scoring system and the performance quality of the old. They are old school skaters but there was nothing rusty or archaic about them. It was oh-so-appropriate that they finished such an incredible season with an Olympic gold medal, even if their crowning moment wasn't as flawless as they hoped it would be. Now nothing can prevent them from bring named in the same breath as all the legendary pairs. Their story is truly incredible.

Pang & Tong

I am a renewed and unabashed fan of this pair, and it's so good to see them get their due. I've been so irritated that they were passed up by Zhang & Zhang, an equally athletic but far less artistic team. I never really understood why Z & Z were constantly in the running for world medals while Pang & Tong were on the outside looking in. Finally, at a point when it seemed most unlikely, they had their best ever season ending 2009 with a silver medal at the Grand Prix Final. Still, people were not taking them seriously as medal contenders in Vancouver. But they came up with the only clean long program in Vancouver, set a world record, jumped over the teams ahead of them who'd made mistakes, and won an impressive silver. Had it not been for Shen & Zhao's world record short program, Pang & Tong would have been China's first Olympic figure skating champions. And that would have been the biggest upset ever. Now that Shen & Zhao have retired for good, I would love see these two hang around a bit longer as China's number one pair. But they have nothing to be ashamed of if they decide to retire.

Evan Lysacek

If for no other reason, Lysacek is a great story because not since Scott Hamilton has a reigning world champion gone on to win the Olympics, and he was one of the least favored champs to do it. After seeing Plushi come back as though he'd never missed a day of practice, the consensus was that Lysacek was skating for silver. So much so that when he barely edged Plushi for gold, it had to go down as the shock of the competition. Kudos to Lysacek for refusing to concede anything--that is why the athletes compete, folks.

Daisuke Takahashi

This kid had a really bumpy road to the Olympics. After a disappointing fourth at the 2008 Worlds, he missed the entire 2008-2009 season with a knee injury and split with coach Nikolay Morozov. He rebounded to qualify for the Grand Prix Final and won the short program, only to fall to fifth after the long, showing that he still hadn't regained his fitness and stamina. But he showed up at the Olympics in better shape than ever and skated to an impressive third after the short program. He made a crucial miscalculation by going for the quad in the long program and badly botching it, but still managed to stay in third and win the first Olympic medal for Japanese men in figure skating. Then, with Lysacek and Plushi out of the way, he skated to an impressive win at the Worlds last month. Many people said that he was the only champion to have truly won his competition. After decades of terrific ladies singles skaters from Japan, Takahashi gets to be the trailblazer for the men. What a terrific comeback.

Evgeni Plushenko

Say what you will about Plushi, but he's one of the best of all-time. Aside from Shen & Zhao, this was the most-likely-to-succeed comeback. He won everything and blew everyone away, Yu-na style. So it seemed a foregone conclusion that he'd win the Olympics, too. But Lysacek and Takahashi made it clear that this wasn't going to be a repeat of Torino. Still, he seemed totally sure that another gold medal was imminent up until the PA announcer said he'd finished second. Then the whining started, and he turned into the poster boy for bad sportsmanship. He complained at the press conference that men's skating has no value without the quad, refused to accept defeat or admit that he hadn't skated his best or congratulate the winner, got his hysterical wife and prime minister to go to bat for him, and announced that he'd won a platinum medal on his website. Within a couple of weeks, he managed to torpedo every modicum of respect he'd earned over the past 13 years of his career. His die-hard fans will argue until they're blue in the face that he should have won, which is fine. But great champions are gracious when they win and graceful when they lose. Plushi only has half of that equation and he should know better. What an jerk.

Joannie Rochette

I admit, I was not thinking about Rochette as a serious medal contender for the Olympics even though she was second at 2009 Worlds. Then a couple of days before the competition started, her beloved mom died unexpectedly of a massive heart attack. Then I really wrote her off as a contender, because how could anyone recover from such a devastating loss to focus on something as comparatively trivial as the Olympics? But this kid has resilience and she skated beautifully with the support of her fellow Canadians and the whole world behind her. It would have been totally understandable if she'd withdrawn or folded under the strain. But she somehow came to terms with her grief and skated better than I've ever seen her. And that makes her extraordinary.

No golds for the Russians

It's one thing that you have to go back to 1960 to find the last time the Soviets/Russians didn't win or share the pairs gold medal. It's something else for their pairs to get shut out. European champions Kavaguti & Smirnov were the shining hope to continue the tradition. Not one media outlet I saw picked them to actually win, but they threw themselves into contention after a terrific short program in Vancouver. But I correctly predicted that experience was going to play a factor. This was their first Olympics + they've been skating together for less than four years + they were the lone hope for Russia = too much pressure. Everything went wrong from the get go and they fell from third to fourth. The three pairs on the podium were skating in their fourth (S & Z), third (P & T), and second Olympics (S & S). The rookies were the odd men out.

Meanwhile, Plushi's sure thing gold medal got thwarted, Domnina & Shabalin looked ordinary and were gifted a bronze in ice dancing, and, well...name one highly ranked ladies singles skater from Russia. Yeah, I thought so.

Virtue and Moir/Davis and White

The new generation has arrived. We knew to expect great things from them after the Canadians were second at 2008 Worlds and the Americans were sixth. And they showed more promise at the 2009 Worlds when they finished an achingly close third and fourth. It seemed like the changing of the guard was complete after the Americans finally went toe-to-toe with Belbin & Agosto at Nationals and won. Once the Olympics started they showed that there were new rulers in town and they left Domnina & Shabalin and Belbin & Agosto in their dust. Then at Worlds, they showed how close this rivalry will be in the next few years and how much they've separated themselves from the pack. They were within a couple of points of each through each phase of the competition but the Olympic champion Canadians squeaked out a victory by a measly point. The bronze medalists lagged behind by 10 points. Belbin & Agosto have done so much for North American ice dancing and there couldn't be two better pairs to take the reins. So far, advantage: Canadians. But I imagine this competition has only begun to heat up between these close friends. Finally, some genuine intrigue in ice dancing.

Best performances of the year:

Yu-na Kim--2010 Olympic short and long program

Pang and Tong--2010 Olympic long program

Pang and Tong--2010 Worlds short program

Shen and Zhao--2010 Olympic short program

Mirai Nagasu--2010 Olympic long program

Joannie Rochette--2010 Olympic short & long program

Mao Asada--2010 Olympic short program

Mao Asada--2010 Worlds long program

Jeremy Abbott--2010 US Nationals long program

Virtue and Moir--2010 Olympics original dance and free dance

Davis and White--2010 Worlds original dance

Johnny Weir--2010 Olympics short program

Letdowns of the year:

Sasha Cohen

We all should have known better. She announces a comeback after three years away, misses the entire Grand Prix season and yet we still want her to bust it out at Nationals and save the U.S. Olympic team? Her short program at Nationals was just fine, not great, but her long program was typically Sasha--leaving a lot to be desired. Even if she had made the team, do any of us seriously believe that she would have done well in Vancouver? Haven't we learned anything from watching years of her blowing opportunities to be Olympic, World and National champion? Why do we keep getting our hopes up for this girl?

Stephane Lambiel

I was so happy when I found out that Stephane was making a comeback, because I was devastated when he retired in 2008. But he clearly had spent far too much time away from competition and he just wasn't the same. His results weren't bad, but the world was aching for a stunning, flawless performance that would bring them to their feet and it never came. The judges were on his side, too, constantly giving him components scores that obliterated the top guys. If he'd just gotten those jumps back under control...

Jeremy Abbott

He is quickly developing a reputation for being a choker. Last year, everyone was buzzing about him going into Worlds (I'd never seen him skate at that point) then he messed up and finished 11th. He did the same thing this year with a phenomenal performance at Nationals but bombed at the Olympics to finish ninth. Oy.

Brian Joubert

A bad performance at the Olympics has a curious way of undermining all other success, and Joubert has had plenty of it: 2007 World champion; 2004, 2006 and 2008 World silver medalist; 2009 and 2010 World bronze medalist; 2004, 2007 and 2009 European champion. But he was awful at the Olympics and he finished in 16th. He was sixth in Torino. Ouch. He didn't win any points with me by joining team Plushi and becoming the world's other quad ambassador. Look where it got him. Always a crowd favorite, he redeemed himself significantly by winning bronze at Worlds. Still, it's an underachievement for him.

Kavaguti & Smirnov

See above.

Mukhortova & Trankov

I have long criticized this pair for having zero chemistry on the ice--they still don't--but they put together two really nice programs this season with great music and costumes. Sure, both programs could have used more expression, but they were far better than anything they did in past seasons. They skated great all year and I really thought they were hitting their stride. But they finished a disappointing seventh at the Olympics and fourth at Worlds.

I am now reading on Required Elements that they have officially split up and are looking for new partners. Trankov is reportedly training with Tatiana Volosozhar in Moscow (Stanislav Morozov retired last month), preparing for a skate in front of their federation in May. They are being coached by Nina Mozer, while Mukhortova is staying with Oleg Vasiliev as he looks for a new partner for her. This is like a break-up: the guy finds a new partner right away while the girl stays single for a long time, perennially on the rebound.

Savchenko & Szolkowy

I feel bad for this pair. They were in the driver's seat to win the Olympics until Shen & Zhao showed up again. They were the two-time and defending world champions and no one was really challenging them. Vancouver was supposed to be their big coronation. Then, as if realizing that they were overmatched, they lost all their confidence. They were blindsided again when Pang & Tong suddenly reemerged as contenders and Kavaguti & Smirnov started hitting their peak. They couldn't recover from sub-par performances and practices, and finished third at GPF, second at Europeans, third at the Olympics and second at Worlds. It's a shame because they looked to be in great shape and had two great programs for the Olympic season.

Belbin & Agosto

Quite simply, their time has come and gone. They brought North American ice dancing to the forefront and are true trailblazers. But after all the fighting they had to do just to compete at the 2006 Olympics, it seems like that was the pinnacle of their career. Twice they were third at Worlds and second last year, but they never got over the hump to win a major title. Eventually, they got passed up by Davis & White and Virtue & Moir. They would have won more titles if they hadn't been so weak with their compulsory dances. They should have won bronze in Vancouver over Domnina & Shabalin, but that is an apt summary of their career--always coming up a little short.

Johnny Weir

His season is a letdown because of the judges. Admittedly, Johnny's skating just isn't as competitive anymore, but I don't understand why his program components scores are so much lower than the top skaters. He performed so well at the Olympics with his typical flair but still only finished sixth. I really think that Johnny's personality got too big for figure skating and it distracted the judges from his wonderful skating. I still love him and it disappoints me that this is how his career might end.

There will be plenty more drama next year, I'm sure. Who's skating with whom, who's coaching whom where, who's rivaling whom and which skaters will foolishly decide to skate to Carmen. Until next year, folks!

Up and down

2010-03-27T11:43:00.008-05:00

Well, the ladies free skate was filled with some surprises. But what isn't terribly surprising is that Mao Asada used her experience and steadiness to win her second World title. Yu-na Kim rocketed past her competitors to win the free skate and finish second overall, seven points behind Asada. She may have had an uncharacteristically bad short program but she wasn't about to go out like that. She still looked exhausted from the rigors of the season, falling on her triple salchow and popping her double axel at the end of the program, but not a bad way to go out. Laura Lepisto of Finland overcame a lackluster free skate to hold on for the bronze. In fact, third through seventh was an achingly close battle with Lepisto, Miki Ando, Cynthia Phaneuf and Carolina Kostner all within 1.31 of each other and Mirai Nagasu only three points out of bronze.

Rachael Flatt and Nagasu killed the dream of returning Americans to the forefront of the skating world, as Flatt dropped form sixth to ninth and Mirai dropped from first to seventh. Clearly, Mirai could not handle the occasion, lacking the same confidence and spark we saw in Vancouver that won her fourth place. She was a dismal 11th in the free skate and was clearly dejected after seeing her marks.

She wasn't the only one to have such scattered results. Yu-na was seventh in the short and first in the long; Miki was 11th in the short and third in the long, barely losing the bronze by less than a point; Lepisto was third in the short and sixth in the long; Phaneuf was eighth in the short and fourth in the long to finish fifth; and Akiko Suzuki was 20th in the short program and seventh in the long to finish 11th. Mao was second in both phases in the competition and that consistency proved crucial to win the competition.

Though Mirai was obviously disappointed with her effort, she should take comfort in the fact that she was still within a stone's throw of a bronze with perhaps her worst free skate of the season. Even if she had skated as well as she did at the Olympics she still would have dropped to second behind Asada. And keep in mind that this is her first season at senior Worlds. The Olympics were different because it was all about Yu-na and Mao, so Mirai could safely skate under the radar free of expectations. But Mirai's skating isn't at the level of Mao's nor Yu-na's. Winning the short program in her first Worlds and knowing she could beat those two is a lot to ask for such an inexperienced competitor. She'll be okay.

What an accomplishment for the Japanese team in Torino. Somewhere in Japan, people are going nuts to welcome home their newly minted world champions. While Mao is only the fifth Japanese woman to win the title--whereas Takahashi is the first Japanese man to win--she is the first Japanese woman to win the title twice. Not even her idol Midori Ito did that. Considering how poorly she skated throughout the entire Grand Prix season, she really turned it on right when she had to: silver at the Olympics and gold at the Worlds. It may have been the Queen Yu-na show this entire year, but Mao showed what a strong competitor she is and how she refuses to give up. At the end of the day, Yu-na may still be the world's best figure skater. But Mao got the last laugh. She is the world champion. This should give her every confidence as all the skaters take a break and rev up again for next season. Now, we just might see a more equitable rivalry between these two brilliant athletes. Bravo, Mao!

Until next year!

D'oh!

2010-03-26T12:33:00.008-05:00

Somewhere in my haze of this week, I completely forgot about the World Figure Skating Championships this week. Like, no idea whatsoever that they were on and I'm now in time to see the last part of the competition. Oy.

Anyway, a quick recap. Pang and Tong won their second World Championship, defeating 2-time defending champions Savchenko and Szolkowy into second and reigning European champions Kavaguti and Smirnov into third. Their performance was reminiscent of Shen and Zhao at the Olympics--a personal best in the short, just a so-so long. Certainly, their performance to "The Impossible Dream" which was the standout performance of the Olympics didn't have the same magic in Torino, but was still only five points off their own world record.

But what a redeeming season for these two. For so long, they have played second fiddle to Shen and Zhao or Zhang and Zhang. People really started to write them off in 2008 and 2009, believing that they simply didn't have the fireworks to compete for medals anymore. Then this year, they win their two Grand Prix events, place second in the Grand Prix Finals, a close second at the Olympics and cap it off with a second World title. Not bad for a pair of 30-year-olds who continue to pad the impressive resume of their iconic coach, Yao Bin. I don't know how long these two plan to continue competing, but this is the best skating of their career and it looks like they could compete another season if they want to. But whatever they decide to do, they have ensured that people will no longer remember them as underachievers and they will no longer be the forgotten Chinese pair. They will never rise to the level of Shen and Zhao, but this entire season was a well-deserved reward for a pair that refused to give up.

It also speaks volumes for Yao Bin, that he could coach three world-class teams who have the same trademarks--big throws, difficult lifts and jumps, weaker spins--but who all have their own distinctive style. Certainly, Shen and Zhao set the bar but Pang and Tong have such a lyrical, expressive and romantic quality to their skating that makes them wonderful in their own right. Their short program to The Pearl Fishers by Bizet epitomizes everything that is great about their skating and how they really know how to put together a complete package. The Impossible Dream shows off how well they work with music and arrange their programs to synchronize the musical crescendos with their biggest tricks. In short, everything has its place and everything makes sense when you watch them.

Meanwhile, Daisuke Takahashi became the first Japanese man in history to win the World Championships. After taking silver in 2007, he dropped to fourth in 2008 then missed the entire 2009 season because of a knee injury. He even had a bit of a difficult time going into the Olympics, as it was clear that he hadn't shaken off all the rust from his layoff. He had a terrific short program at the GPF only to fall to fifth after a terrible long program. But he redeemed himself to win bronze at the Olympics, also a first for a Japanese man, and now he is World Champion. Joining him on the podium were last year's silver and bronze medalists, Patrick Chan of Canada and Brian Joubert of France. Both had to recover from sub-par performances at the Olympics, especially Joubert who embarrassed himself with a 16th place finish. But neither was that close to Takahashi, who cleared the field by 10 full points.

Now comes the free dance and the ladies free skate. Olympic champions Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir seem to show no signs of slowing down as they have won both phases of the competition to this point. Meryl Davis and Charlie White (I sense a long, dramatic rivalry between these two teams) are lurking less than two points behind in second. These two teams are the obvious class of the field, just as they were in Vancouver. However, neither Domnina & Shabalin nor Belbin & Agosto are competing in Torino, which widens the gap between the top two and everyone else. Case in point: Faiella and Scali are sitting in third, 12 points behind the Americans. Best free dance to the finish.

And for the ladies, someone who is showing signs of Olympic hangover is Queen Yu-na Kim. She is sitting in seventh(!) after the ladies' short program, 18 points behind her own personal best/world record. She looked, gasp!, ordinary after a shaky landing on her triple flip, missing her set up into her layback spin and losing her edge on her spiral sequence.

Honestly, though, how could she not be feeling a letdown? We saw the stress drain out of her when she finished her beautiful long program in Vancouver, bursting into tears of joy and relief. We could feel how much pressure she was under from her countrymen who revere her. And she won the world championships last year. How do you get focused again when you've just achieved all your dreams at age 19?

That said, let us not write her off just yet. She may be in seventh, but 10 points behind Mirai Nagasu, who is leading the competition in her first Worlds. She looked terrific, finally doing a triple lutz-triple toe combination. Linked with her trademark speed and flexibility, she put together an even better performance than in Vancouver.

But we all remember that Yu-na blew away the competition in the Olympic free skate with more than 150 points in that segment. The only person who could theoretically challenge that score with a flawless program is Mao Asada, and I don't think even she could max out in the high 140's or low 150's. The point is, Yu-na can pass four of the six ladies ahead of her with a solid free skate. If she were somehow able to replicate her performance from Vancouver, she could shoot to the top with little resistance from her rivals. It's a tough ask, but she's the Olympic champion. Anything is possible.

Meanwhile, what a happy turn of events for the American ladies, sitting in first and sixth after the short. If both can maintain their positions in the top six, the U.S. can finally get over this lull on the World stage and send three competitors to the Worlds next year. And the two bringing us back to the top levels are 16 and 17 years old who both have a lot of skating in front of them. Good deal.

And let's not forget about Mao Asada, sitting in second place. She's a little off the pace of her short program score in Vancouver, but in excellent position to win a second World title. She's a far more seasoned competitor than Nagasu and wants some redemption from a disappointing silver in Vancouver. (I say that because she seemed disappointed, though I feel she should be proud of her performances). Plus, her main rival is eight points behind her. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Japanese sweep the single events in Torino. How nuts would they go in Japan if that happened?

Until later, all!

Up to here

2010-03-18T15:27:00.002-05:00

Man, I am so sick of hearing about Tiger Woods. I am so relieved that he's finally coming back to golf because I'd really like a change of pace. Every day it's the same old tired stuff: he's coming back at the Master's, he's still trying to control and manipulate the media, worldwide sports writers are taking shots at him (so what else is new?), Elin and Tiger are reconciling (maybe, who knows?), he's going to win the Master's outright (or no he's not), he's still in treatment for sex addiction.

*TILT!!!*

The Master's will surely draw its highest-ever ratings and it could possibly be the highest-rated sporting event ever. If Tiger could somehow manage to win, it would be lauded as the biggest sporting comeback ever. But his career in the public eye will always hearken back to what's happened over the past few months. I know that in some ways this story will never die. But for once I'm glad there is a new chapter to read.

Speaking of stories I'm sick of, I actually got to see the entire broadcast of the fateful Sampras-Agassi-Federer-Nadal exhibition match with the tense exchange between the old rivals. There were a couple of things I didn't learn from the articles I read.

First, Agassi was running his mouth from the very first ball, goading everyone on the court. It was mostly good-natured ribbing, but still, he was starting to remind me of Chris Tucker: he's always got some smart-ass remark which is funny at first, but starts to wear on you after a while. I was getting annoyed and he wasn't even talking to me.

So it makes Agassi look even worse that as soon as Sampras started throwing it back to his side, he got offended. He can dish it out but he can't take it. I still don't see why Agassi got so sore that Pete imitated his walk. Like he isn't pigeon-toed? Like it's a raw subject for him? Please. Again, based on the stuff in his autobiography, there were many other things Pete could have picked on him about.

Then Andre had the nerve to blame Pete for not letting them get past the whole incident in what I assume was supposed to be an apology. From what I saw, even that isn't accurate. When Justin Gimelstob came on court to talk to them, Andre let everyone know that he didn't like when Pete tried to take his head off with the serve. And when Pete hit an errant ball that almost hit the ball girl, Andre told her not to feel bad because he did the same thing to him. After the match, Pete gave Andre a sincere hug and told him in the on-court interview that he has no ill-will towards him. It sounded like Andre was the one who wouldn't let it go, not Pete.

Seriously, Andre, grow up.

Tracy Austin made a very astute remark about how that night highlighted how special the Federer-Nadal rivalry is. Both guys are mature and genuinely respectful of each other's games, they both recognize how much they mean to the sport, they both accept their responsibilities as ambassadors to the sport and both families seem to respect one another. I doubt that Borg's parents ever showed up to one of McEnroe's matches to support him. It is rare to see such fierce rivals that do not antagonize one another. I hope for their sake that this is the way they will always be.

Good rivalry turned bad

2010-03-14T18:49:00.005-05:00

Andre Agassi's book that tells all about more than just himself continues to raise hell in the tennis world. After some notable jarring through the media, Pete Sampras and Agassi are still taking issue with each other and it's obvious some of the stuff Agassi wrote in "Open" has left an open wound on Pete.

At Indian Wells, Pete and Andre paired up with their modern-day equivalents, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal respectively, for what I assume was supposed to be an innocent, fun charity match with all four players on mics.

Then Andre started prodding at Pete, telling his old rival that he was being too serious and not having any fun.

So...Pete decided to not be so serious. And all hell broke loose.

Whew! Awkward...

I know that emotions get the best of you at bad times on occasion, but seriously, this was so lame and immature. Both of them were out of line, in my view. Andre took the joke way too seriously and got too personal with his retort and Pete reacted badly with that serve. It looked like they were all out to dinner and Roger and Rafa were the couple awkwardly watching the other couple fight at the table with no way to escape. This match was not about them. It was supposed to be a fun match for charity and not a rather public forum to air old grievances. If these two have problems with each other (well, not "if") they should take it up with each other like grown men and in private. I hope both their wives give them hell for it, and a little lesson about there being a time and a place for everything. It's pretty ridiculous that two guys who are more than 10 years younger had to show them how to act like adults on a tennis court.

You have got to be kidding me

2010-03-11T15:29:00.008-06:00

This is a rather shameless attempt at self-promotion and a thinly veiled ego boost, but I'm going to do it anyway. I ask anyone who's reading this to indulge me.

Peter Bodo of Tennis.com wrote a contentious post on his blog in February.

ESPN followed up the firestorm with a rebuttal of its own, posted about a month ago.

And I noticed it looked remarkably similar to a post I did immediately after Federer won the 2009 French Open arguing the merits of his win.

Disclaimer: I am not in any way implying that ESPN lifted my work. On the contrary, I am dumbfounded that I might have the same opinion and viewpoint on an issue as anyone at Tennis.com or ESPN. I am thrilled. My instincts are right on and I definitely know what I'm talking about on these subjects. I'll be successful in this business someday and won't just be writing this blog to amuse myself. It's a little frustrating that the post I wrote wallows in blogosphere obscurity while ESPN's post has more than 500 comments to its name nine months later. But still, small victories.

Allow me to repeat my original contention. It is not Roger Federer's fault that the 2009 French Open was not another chapter in the Federer-Nadal rivalry. Roger did his job, Rafa did not. That's why Grand Slams don't give the defending champion an automatic bye into the finals anymore. This is just proof that the men's game is getting a lot tougher and any titles on your resume must be won. Federer dodged a bullet, certainly, but it's not as though Rafa's loss gave him a cakewalk to the finals. He had to come back from two sets to love down against Tommy Haas in the fourth round and two sets to one down against del Potro in the semis to even make it to the finals. Yeah, okay, Soderling didn't put up much of a fight in his first major final, but he is not the only one.

Federer won the French Open. It does not matter that he didn't have to go through Nadal to get it. He dealt with the enormous pressure, he came back when it seemed he was down and out, and he won. Why is that debatable?

Guess what, it isn't. Case closed.

Back to the grind.

An attempt at redemption

2010-03-11T03:22:00.002-06:00

Sorry for the break between posts. I've been working on other projects and I was a bit worn down after the grueling schedule of posts from the Olympics.

The news broke today that disgraced sprinter Marion Jones has signed to play with the Tulsa Shock of the WNBA.

Oy. The train wreck continues.

On one hand, it's not the most ridiculous idea ever. Prior to her famed steroid use, Jones was quite the athlete as a young woman, excelling in both track and in basketball. She played on North Carolina's championship basketball team way back when, so it's not like the woman's never been on a court.

But she hasn't played basketball with any seriousness since at least 1997. She hasn't even been in professional athletics for several years, too busy with her family and--oh, yeah--going to prison. She's 34 years old. She just had her third child. It's more than just a notion that she could have a career in the WNBA, which contains some of the best female athletes in the world [who no one watches].

Then again, what else is the woman going to do? She can't exactly set foot on a track again in life. All the money she made (and lost) was because of track and field and she had to sell her mother's house for her legal fees before she went away to prison. She will never endorse anything for the rest of life. She will never commentate. I'm not aware of any other marketable skills. I mean, what place is there in the job world for an ex-track star who had all her Olympic medals revoked, admitted to taking steroids, and spent time in prison? If she can make a reasonable living by playing her other sport, why not? It's actually pretty creative.

But obviously, the real issue is how much a mockery she will make of herself by doing this. Unless she is really good--which is unlikely--she will just add to the body of evidence that has made this woman one of the most embarrassing figures in sport. It also cannot be particularly good for the WNBA. Sadly, the potential of a great spectacle brings curious viewers to the sport for all the wrong reasons. I count myself in the category. I want to see her play, to humiliate herself if for no other reason.

I just don't know. For her sake, I hope she's learned something from all this. I really hope that she doesn't have an ulterior motive for doing this, though my faith remains low. It's one thing to think that she's going to become some great professional basketball player, but I really hope she doesn't think she will repair her sullied reputation by what she's doing here. I sense that more people want to see this play out because they're curious, not because they're ready to forgive her or revere her for her athletic skills.

I mean, could we really forget how much of a fraud she was/is? Have we forgotten Ben Johnson or Rosie Ruiz yet?

What's going on?

2010-02-27T01:13:00.008-06:00

So...uh, yeah, I'm away from my computer for a few hours to go to a party and all hell breaks loose?

Apolo Ohno lost a silver medal in the 500 meter finals because he apparently caused a crash in the final turn that took out two guys in front of him and spun the gold medalist out of control across the finish line.

Gatorade joined the growing list of sponsors to give Tiger the ol' heave ho. They wished him all the best--just as long as he doesn't drink Gatorade in his future endeavors, doesn't stand next to a bottle of Gatorade, doesn't associate with anyone still on the Gatorade roster.

Barry Bonds' second wife filed for divorce. What took her so long?

And Alvin Robertson, formerly of the San Antonio Spurs, is being accused of sex trafficking, after he (and six others) allegedly kidnapped a 14-year-old girl, forced her to sleep with several men then to work at a strip club.

And this was after Tony Kornheiser got suspended from Pardon the Interruption for two weeks after making inappropriate comments about Hannah Storm and her attire, Mark McGwire's estranged brother threw him under the bus and alleged that Mark is lying about his steroid use (mainly to promote his new book which several publishers have passed on), and former Nets star Jayson Williams finally got sentenced to five years in prison for the shooting of a limo driver back in 2002.

Ugh! Good grief.

Long live the queen

2010-02-25T23:21:00.005-06:00

I predicted that by the time Joannie Rochette finished skating, we should know the deal. That was about two skaters too late. The competition began and ended with Yu-na Kim. Thanks for playing, folks!

Someone should get Yu-na a tiara because she is the queen and blew everyone out of the water. Though she could have slid by her competition without a perfect performance, she left no room for improvement this evening and garnered huge execution points for all her technical elements. After she was done, we finally saw some evidence of the pressure she felt, bursting into tears of relief. She is human, but ultra-competitive and tough. She reset her own personal best in the short program by two points and annihilated her free skate personal best this evening by...wait for it...17 points! 78.50 in the short + 150.06 in the long = 228.56.

Allow me to put that score in perspective. That would have put her ninth in the men's competition, a whole ten points ahead of Jeremy Abbott. Good grief. But don't tell Plushenko that. That would just give merit to his argument that men's skating is getting too easy.

Some 23 points behind was Mao Asada, who made some history of her own by becoming the first lady to land three triple axels in one competition. And all three were sensational--not one downgrade. Getting a taste of her own medicine, Mao was standing on the ice when Yu-na's unbelievable scores were announced. Unless she has uncanny concentration, she had to know that she needed around 155 points to beat her rival and that there was no way she'd get it. She was looking pretty good after those opening triple axels, but she had a shaky landing on her second triple flip, which was downgraded, then caught and edge and tripped going into her triple toe loop. She could only do a single. She still scored 131.72, just shy of her personal best for the long program, but was visibly disappointed at her effort. I wish she wouldn't be. This is the best she's skated in two years and what a time to shake off all the negative performances from this past season. It was good to see the old Mao again, and she should be very proud with her silver.

Then came Braveheart: Joannie Rochette. It's impossible to overstate how courageous this kid is. She skated a terrific program with only a minor error on her triple flip. She lost some execution points on a couple of her jumps, and without those, could have passed Mao for second. She was third in the long and won bronze overall. What a tenacious kid and a well-deserved reward.

Perhaps the most pleasant surprise was rookie Mirai Nagasu, who kept her composure and skated her best free skate ever to move up to fourth. She was still a full 12 points out of the medals, but she had no downgrades on her jumps and sold her interpretation to "Carmen" for all it was worth. She overcame a very sub-par career post-national championship in 2008 and gave the United States something to look forward to.

While Rachael Flatt skated a great performance, she fell from fifth to seventh overall because both her triple flips were downgraded. Nevertheless, she was solid as a rock, as always, and certainly has nothing to be ashamed of. She fell behind Laura Lepisto who had a great long program that moved her up from tenth to sixth. Miki Ando finished fifth with a solid, if unspectacular, performance. But fifth is extremely respectable and a complete redemption from Torino where she was 15th.

While this competition provided some wonderful storylines, this was the very best contest among the final six skaters I have ever witnessed. Each lady skated really well and many scored personal bests. We saw what these young women were made of, as athletes, people and competitors. There were a couple of hiccups, but no falls in the final group. The first Olympic competition I saw was in 1992 where even gold medalist Kristi Yamaguchi did not skate her best. From 1994 through 2006, the final group was highlighted by one or two great performances while the remaining medalists stumbled their way to the podium. There was no such nonsense tonight. Everyone earned their spot and everyone had reason to be proud. This is what you expect to see from the top six and they all delivered.

What an excellent competition and a fitting coronation for the lady who's been dominating the sport for the past year or so. Congratulations, Yu-na!

That should be one amazing victory parade through the streets of Korea.

p.s. Did anyone else notice that the PA announcers weren't pronouncing her name correctly throughout the entire competition? That it sounded like they were saying Yeow-na Kim? Maybe it was just the TV, but you'd think you'd get the name of the World and Olympic champion correct. Jeez.

Ladies' SP review

2010-02-23T23:04:00.002-06:00

Big surprise. Yu-na Kim reset her own world record in the short program and flew into the lead after the short program with a score of 78.50 points. Huge. But that was after Mao Asada lit up the crowd with her best performance in months, nailing her triple axel combination (no downgrades, thank you very much) and skating with the freedom, happiness and ease we've come to love her for. She scored a personal best of 73.78 points. Way to prove me wrong, Mao. For the first time in a long time, we saw how much this extraordinary girl loves to skate and she loved every moment of it. Thank goodness. I've missed her.

Though I was really looking at Ando to be the bigger challenger, there's no question Mao is the better skater. No one would dispute that, and tonight Mao showed us why. How great it is for the competition for the two best skaters to skate back-to-back, skate their best, and set up a great duel in the long program. Good for them both.

Also, both Americans made it into the final group of skaters! That's a great accomplishment, as no one was picking them to be in the mix. Rachael is fifth after a little tightness with her jumps, while Mirai is close behind in sixth, making her score hold up from early in the competition. If they can skate solidly, perhaps the two teenagers can send a message to the rest of the world that the American ladies are on the rise again. Remember, they're only 16 and 17.

Ando went after her jumps as always, but had her triple lutz-triple loop combination downgraded. She also overcame some really awful-looking spins to sneak into fourth place. Miki, Rachael and Mirai are within one point of each other, so there could be a lot of shuffling in the long. But all three are about eight points out of the medals, so it's unlikely any of them will get to the podium without some help.

Certainly the emotional high/low of the evening was the brave performance of Joannie Rochette. Mere days after her mother died unexpectedly from a heart attack, this girl went out there and skated her best short program--ever: 71.36 points, just 2.5 points behind Asada. Tears started to fill her eyes right before she skated to the center and she burst into tears moments after finishing. I don't know how she kept it together through three minutes, but she did. That is one strong and brave young lady. While very little good can come from her mother's death, she has been doubly successful so far: she skated--period--to honor her mother and she is right in the hunt for a medal.

It is tempting to focus on Yu-na versus Mao, but Yu-na has a solid lead going into the long and Mao must look over her shoulder to Joannie. Yu-na is in a position that if she hits, she will win. Technically, she leads the charge in terms of the execution of her jumps and spins, but where she sets herself apart is her performance quality. As terrific as Mao is, she is held back by my much-hated Tarasova choreography because it doesn't let Mao's personality shine through. Mao also has two minefields to clear in the form of two triple axels. She must land both as beautifully as she did tonight in order to give herself a shot. Joannie--what can you say? She just proved how tough she is and she is in stirking distance. If Mao slips up at all, look out.

I think Rachael can pass Ando for fourth pretty easily. Miki's jumps weren't great tonight and she's pretty much a one-trick pony. Rachael is so consistent and has better spins, footwork and expression. If she can get a mistake from Mao or Joannie, she could be sneaky. I think Mirai may struggle with her execution scores just as she has all season. The long program has been her undoing in this department, most notably at the U.S. Nationals. She needs to focus on skating cleanly, just like she did tonight. Staying in the top six would be a great result for her.

The draw for the final group is interesting.

1. Rachael
2. Miki
3. Yu-na
4. Mao
5. Joannie
6. Mirai

I think Rachael benefits from going first after the warm-up and getting in front of the unavoidable hoopla surrounding the Yu-na/Mao/Joannie showdown. Yu-na proved what a great competitor she is by hearing Mao's scores, going toe-to-toe and beating her rival. Here, she gets to set the bar and apply the pressure to Mao. Very advantageous. And Joannie follows them both. If we see three great performances, the crowd will be on fire. By the time they're done, we should know what's up. I think Mirai might struggle by skating last. She, more than anyone, needs to be able to focus on her skating and that could be really hard going after the top three ladies in succession.

Should be a great show and one hell of a way to end the figure skating competition. Until Thursday night!

Official website of the Vancouver Olympics with live scores on the ladies' free skate.

Ladies' preview

2010-02-23T16:37:00.003-06:00

The ladies' short program this evening will have plenty of intrigue, both for the right and wrong reasons.

The headliner is still Queen Yu-na, as she is affectionately known, and whether this beloved skating star can deliver gold in her first Olympics. It is hers to win or lose, and she knows it. She's proved that if she hits, she wins--by a lot. She's proved that even if she makes mistakes, she wins, as evidenced by the Grand Prix Finals. But she will be dealing with enormous pressure, not only from her adoring fans in South Korea but also from those in Canada where she trains with the iconic Brian Orser. Whereas all the other disciplines thus far have had two to three legitimate contenders for gold, Yu-na is the overwhelming favorite. She just needs to skate as well as she has been. And do so in the Olympics. Yeah. Significantly bigger deal than doing it at the World Championships.

Not to say that she has no competition at all. Miki Ando is still her biggest threat and one of the only top skaters with prior Olympic experience. She's also the only one to recently challenge Yu-na in any way in the past few months. She tends to alternate good seasons with bad, and she's having a really good year. She also gets to skate last in the competition, so she'll know exactly what to do and no marks will be held back for future skaters.

Like I've said before, you cannot count out Mao Asada. For all her faults and difficulties she is still an extraordinary skater and a world champion. But I've not been impressed with her skating at all in the past few months. She had a difficult Grand Prix season and didn't even qualify for the finals. Even though she won the Japanese nationals and the Four Continents, she had problems with underrotating her famous triple axel and with skating two clean programs. She may not be at the top of her game and this is her first Olympics, as well. It's unusual for someone to miraculously turn around their entire season at the Olympics. It's more common for someone to continue the path they're already treading or to slide further down the mountain. I fear she will fall short of her expectations and potential, but she's here and she's healthy as far as I know. Anything can happen.

Speaking of underrotation problems, Mirai Nagasu will be the first of the notables to skate this evening. She seems to be doing pretty well with the short program but has lost it all season with the long because the judges consistently downgrade her jumps. But she did skate with confidence and verve at Nationals and has absolutely nothing to lose here.

Rachael Flatt is the best hope for a medal and her consistency alone gives her an outside shot. In all the time I've watched her skate, I've never seen her miss. It's really uncanny. She, too, has very little to lose as no one expects much from the U.S. team. She also skates in the final group tonight, so she's in a good position from the get go. She won Nationals and should be filled with confidence from that win. She can definitely be dangerous.

The person we'll pay attention to for the wrong reason altogether is Joannie Rochette. Just a couple of days ago, her mother died unexpectedly from a massive heart attack. We (read: I) so easily forget that she was the World silver medalist in 2009 and had a great chance at the medals in front of her home crowd. But how do you continue to skate after such an awful tragedy? Even with the increased support from Canadians who know how much it takes for her to even skate this evening, how can this poor kid focus on something that must seem so trivial? She's said that this has been her dream and her mom would want her to continue. Brave girl. Everyone will be pulling for her, but it's anybody's guess how well she'll actually do. Who cares? She's a fighter.

We'll also be paying attention to Georgian Elene Gedevanishvili who, alongside the rest of the Georgian team, must still be mourning the tragic death of teammate Nodar Kumaritashvili right before the opening ceremony. She hasn't been much of a threat on the figure skating scene for years, but certainly, her skates here must take on increased significance for her.

Some others to watch are Akiko Suzuki, Alena Leonova and Carolina Kostner. All three ladies have great potential, but won't threaten without some mistakes from the top ladies. Suzuki has had a terrific season after struggling with anorexia for so many years. Leonova made everyone take note with some terrific performances this year, but she is a young competitor and is just barely up from the juniors. Kostner has a lot of redeeming to do. She was awful at the Olympics in front of her countrymen in Torino and had perhaps the most disastrous performance of her career at Worlds last year. If she hits, she could sneak into the final group of skaters, but I don't expect her to hit. Again, the Olympics are rarely the time to pull it all together.

So, medal contenders: Yu-na Kim, Miki Ando, Mao Asada, Rachael Flatt and Joannie Rochette. Based on consistency, I like Yu-na for gold and Miki for silver. Bronze is up for grabs.

Official website of the Vancouver Olympics with live short program results!

Sour grapes, sore loser, crybaby

2010-02-22T20:55:00.005-06:00

I had a totally different post planned for my reaction to the men's competition. (I was away from my computer for a few days). I was going to say how happy I am for Evan Lysacek, going toe-to-toe with Plushenko and winning by a hair. How this is a victory for men's figure skating, because versatile skaters are ruling the roost. How even though I really can't stand Plushenko, I have to give the man his due: he was gone for 3 1/2 years, comes back, wins everything, and was a measly point away from repeating as Olympic champion.

But now, sadly, I have to make this all about my rage towards Plushenko.

This guy really has some nerve.

He has made such a big deal over not winning the gold that he jumped up on the center podium to make a point, never congratulated Lysacek publicly, took cheap shots at everyone else who doesn't do quads, declared that the judging system needs to be fixed (mainly to benefit him), proclaimed his silver medal to be platinum, and has got columnists and YouTube-rs in arms over the Plushenko-Lysacek battle.

I myself have gotten sucked into this, trying to prove all Plushi fans wrong and unwittingly starting arguments between myself and whoever happens to read my comments next.

Here's the thing, and it is just my opinion: Evgeni Plushenko seriously needs to get over himself. (I'd tell him to come down off his pedestal, but then he'd just go and build a new one and give himself a platinum medal). He is acting like a little child who just got his toy taken away and is throwing a tantrum in order to get his way. Someone as experienced as him has to know that losing is part of the game. Losing when you feel you should have won is also part of the game. Not many skaters have competed as long as he has and lost less frequently, but still, this is all part of being an athlete and he should know better. But he seems hard-wired to cry foul until people stop listening (fat chance of that) and has his prime minister and hysterical wife going to bat for him. Real mature, Evgeni. Way to be a champion.

Besides, Plushi is fooling himself if he thinks that he isn't to blame for losing the gold. His jumps weren't on like they usually are. Just because he landed all his jumps on one foot doesn't mean the wildness in the air doesn't count. He has to know that. Let's be honest: while I prefer Lysacek, there is no way Plushi would have lost if he'd done his jumps cleanly. It was only 1.3 points! Plushi is giving Evan crap for doing a program he could do in his sleep, and yet, he couldn't do his flawlessly wide awake.

This is a guy who lost--barely--and he clearly isn't man enough to take it. Poor him: he's been in three Olympics and won two silvers and a gold. He's won three World titles and six European titles. Yeah, the scoring system is really screwing him over. Let's all feel bad for him. Let's all rush to throw our arms around him and stroke his ego until he feels better.

Gah, retire already. And grow up while you're at it.

Men's free skate preview

2010-02-18T15:40:00.003-06:00

Well, this certainly has a lot more intrigue than Torino.

Four years ago, Evgeni Plushenko scored more than 90 points in his short program, securing more than a 10-point gap over the rest of the field. He then ran away with the Olympic gold medal, defeating silver medalist Lambiel by a ridiculous margin.

Now, Plushi has again scored just above 90 points in the short program in Vancouver, but he has two guys nipping at his heels less than a point behind, and four others who could make things interesting.

This tells me two things. One, Plushi hasn't gotten any better--or any worse, which is incredible after a 3 1/2-year layoff. Two, the rest of the world has caught up with him.

I'll bet he wasn't feeling so cocky after that.

Okay, let me get the bombers out of the way.

I called Jeremy Abbott the big "if" of this competition. The last time he was on a stage like this, he choked. He did it again Tuesday night. After opening with a great combination, he popped his triple axel into a single and popped his triple lutz into a double--and got negative grades of execution on both. Ugh. Extremely disappointing. He's sitting way back in 15th.

Joubert didn't make a liar out of me. He turned out of his quad and couldn't do the combination, then completely botched his triple lutz, crashing to the ice short of rotation. I can't help but feel that men's figure skating is a little vindicated by this. I don't really have a problem with Joubert himself. He seems like a good guy and he's way cute. (Sorry, got to be honest, though). But I do have a problem with how much he's running his mouth about the damned quad. He's screaming about how men's skating is moving backwards because so few guys do the quad anymore. Yet, he is the only one that doesn't realize that he's getting passed up by a bunch of guys who don't do the quad. He's hasn't won anything significant since the 2007 Worlds because the premium is on complete skating. The only guy who's been successful with doing jumps and not much else is Plushenko. Plushi's the reigning Olympic champ so he can say what he wants. Joubert is the one going backwards, not the sport as a whole. He can keep grandstanding all he wants but he can do it from 18th place.

Verner--ugh. Always mercurial and he couldn't get anything going his way. He popped his quad into a double sans combination, fell on the triple axel, and got deducted for the makeshift combination he did pull off. Oy. He's back in 19th place. Some Czech guy I've never even heard of skated a terrific program and is in 9th right now. Poor kid. Some guys just don't have the competitive nerve to be successful at the top. To add insult to injury, he gets to skate first tonight, in the group with all the scrubs and when the arena is half-full. Not the experience he wanted to have, I'm sure.

Okay, now for the good stuff.

Plushi, Lysacek and Takahashi skated the best three programs of the night, by far, and are virtually tied going into tonight's long program. Just 0.60 points separate 1 through 3. Those three have put more than six points between themselves and the next four skaters: Oda, Lambiel, Weir and Chan, who are within four points of each other. If the top three all hit, they're staying put. If anyone makes mistakes, the next four are within striking distance to sneak in for a medal. Anything can happen in the long, which features more point-getting potential and exposes weaknesses that can be covered up in a short program.

For example, Lambiel is sitting in fifth because his quad combo wasn't clean and he has no triple axel. The 4.7 points he gave up by intentionally doing a double would put him in a very close fourth, just one point out of first. What is keeping him close? Spins and program components. Lambiel had the best program components scores out of everyone and significantly better than all the top guys except Lysacek. The judges love him. He also received the most positive grades of execution for his spins. (I know it sounds like I'm nitpicking, but that's how close this is). Those PC scores will only go up in the long. He has a lovely program to "La Traviata" that demands more choreography, transitions, and yes, spins. He will lose points to everyone ahead of him because he has no triple axel. But, Plushi is the only top guy doing a quad. If Lambiel can hit his two quads, he can sneak up the standings. He's in good position, but he must hit.

On the flip side, of the top seven guys, Plushi is sixth in PC scores. He's particularly getting killed in his transitions. While Lambiel and Lysacek can exploit every moment of the long program to bolster what they do well, Plushi must hide all the moments in his program when he's not jumping or spinning. Of course, it might not matter too much if he does two quads and two triple axels.

Okay, I always balk at choosing medalists, and I still won't. I'll only speculate what I think will happen.

I expect Plushi and Lysacek to hit and finish 1-2. It will be Plushi's quads against Lysacek's program components, and the former garners more points than the latter. If they both hit and Lysacek wins, it will not be by much. Evan will be first in the last group to skate, which isn't ideal, but I like that he's going before Plushi. He gets to set the standard and make everyone else chase him instead of the reverse. Plushi, I'm sure, is thrilled to be last and knowing exactly what he needs to do to win. Frankly, he's so experienced that it probably doesn't make much of difference.

Takahashi is a bit of a wild card. He's never been this close to the top and the last long program I saw him skate was at the Grand Prix Final--which was awful. He doesn't seem to be affected by the bad knee that kept him out for so long, but it's a tall order for him to go toe-to-toe with Plushi and Lysacek and not be the first to falter. He's still in a good position to stay in bronze, even if he's not perfect.

Oda skated really well at the GPF and I wouldn't be shocked if he pulled out another one here. But he is more than five points behind and had the weakest program components scores of the top seven in the short. He skates after Lysacek, which could hurt if Evan skates really well. Seeing the weakest technical skater skate after one of the best could make a strong impression on the judges. Five points isn't much but it still may be hard for him to make up ground.

Lambiel, as I wrote above, is my dark horse. I haven't seen him skate a clean long program all season. But, he is a two-time world champion, so he'd be the one to bust out the right performance at the right time. He's basically tied with Oda and can move ahead of him with a great performance. He is right in the middle of the final group, following Oda and before Takahashi. If Takahashi falters, Lambiel could make up the ground pretty easily.

I expect Weir to skate well, but not flawlessly. He nearly always has little mistakes that cost him and keep the performance from being perfect. The fact that a perfect-looking triple flip was docked 2.0 execution points in the short program concerns me. There is nothing he can do to out skate the guys in front of him and he's eight points out of the medals. He is second to last, however, and could benefit from the energy of the crowd if the guys before him skate well. I still think he'll end up around fifth or sixth place.

Above all, I hope this is a fierce competition, unlike what we saw in the pairs. I would love it if the top six guys could throw down one great performance after another and make this feel like the Olympics. Make everyone earn it.

Until tonight!

Website for the long program with live results!

It's not just me

2010-02-18T14:28:00.004-06:00

I kind of had an argument with my mom about this last night. I told her that I thought Tiger was being immature, selfish and naive about this press conference sans questions that he's due to give Friday morning. That I think his continued refusal to answer to the media for everything that's happened over the past three months shows that he hasn't changed much and he's still not completely ready to be responsible for his actions.

Mom asked me: "Well, what else do you want him to do? He's already apologized. What else do you want from him?"

Point well taken.

Here's my problem, though. Tiger can blame whomever for creating the melee that is his life nowadays, but he gave rise to it all. He acted recklessly and selfishly. He chose to live his life in the public eye. He spent more than a decade carefully crafting a holier-than-thou image. He chose to market himself as a product, not a fallible human being. When you do that, you must be prepared to take the good with the bad, and he clearly got caught unawares. Tiger has no one to blame for this whole fiasco but himself. He made the choices that unveiled the facade and exposed him for who he is and isn't. It's not our fault, Tiger. It's yours. It's all on you. The fact that he's refusing to answer any questions about it tells me that he still doesn't get that. He can't deal with answering questions, not just because it's unpleasant but because he hasn't yet accepted that this is all his fault.

So, to answer my mother's question, I want him to be a man and admit that he was wrong. Mom said that he has already apologized--no, he hasn't. He hasn't said a word for three months. Everything he's "said" has been in the form of press releases and public relations mouthpieces. That doesn't count.

I don't want an apology because I feel duped. I don't want him to apologize to me on behalf of all blacks, all women, all media. No. I want him to stop blaming everyone else, eat a nice, big slice of humble pie and say something to the effect of: "I'm sorry. I was wrong. I made a lot of mistakes. I hurt a lot of people. I'm not perfect. I tried to make myself into someone I'm not. I have no one to blame but myself."

When everyone in sight builds up your ego and tells you how wonderful you are for the majority of your life, perhaps there is nothing more difficult than admitting when you are wrong. Hell, that's difficult for most adults nowadays. But if Tiger has any realistic hope of making this go away, that's exactly what he needs to do. He needs to say:

"I...was...wrong. I'm sorry."

I'm not the only one who thinks so.

AP writer Tim Dahlberg tells it like it is.

So does my idol, Christine Brennan of USA Today.

Tiger comes out of the woods...sorta

2010-02-17T15:33:00.005-06:00

The Associated Press reported about 40 minutes ago that Tiger Woods will finally break his vow of silence Friday when he speaks to a small group of media in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. It will be his first public appearance since the famous single-car crash back in November which blew the lid off the golf star's picture-perfect life.

Read Doug Ferguson's article here.

But...his agent is saying that he's not going to take any questions.

Err...what?

See, this just tells me that Tiger Woods has yet to learn much from this whole ordeal. It's bad enough that he's waited this long to stand up and say whatever it is he's going to say--which I hope, for his sake, is one hell of an apology. But by not taking questions, that indicates that he still isn't prepared to be held completely accountable for his actions. He still hasn't come to terms with reality.

Now, admittedly, not many people are big enough to face the brutal barrage of pull-no-punches questions Tiger would face after this fiasco. The masterful control Tiger has held over the media is just about over. The jig is up. Anything and everything is fair game.

I hope he doesn't expect this "statement" to pacify us. I hope he doesn't think that he can give some kind of perfunctory speech and expect everyone to get off his back. At some point, he will have to do a press conference, right? He will have to answer questions, whether he likes it or not.

Tiger cannot un-ring the bell. His private life is out there for everyone to see and because he messed up in a most dramatic way, he will have to answer for it. We are way past a simple "I'm sorry," or "I regret how much I've hurt the people that I've loved," or "I'm trying to be a better person." He cannot honestly expect to make this all go away by avoiding his day in front of the inquisition.

I don't know. Sounds like he's stalling.

11am, Friday, on any major sports network that knows what good for it.

Men's preview

2010-02-16T17:25:00.007-06:00

All right. Men's short program this evening. There are certainly some favorites and front runners, but this competition is wide open. At least eight or nine guys can sneak in for medals.

Certainly, the two leaders are reigning Olympic champion Evgeni Plushenko and reigning World champ Evan Lysacek. I actually haven't seen Plushi skate all season, but I know he's been doing so with plenty of success. He reset his own world record in the short program at Europeans and won by 18 points. I've never been a Plushi fan. I see his programs as little more than absent-minded filler moves designed to eat up some time in between his big jumps, of which there are plenty. As much of a showman as he is, his programs have become gradually less imaginative over the years. But he knows how to work the system. Much to my own dismay, his formula still works.

I think Lysacek is the only guy who could legitimately go toe-to-toe with Plushi and win. Evan is world champion and is a much more complete skater. If Lysacek is going to succeed, he has to skate clean, get positive grades of execution on his jumps, and max out on his program components scores. Lysacek's best combined score is still six points below what Plushy scored to win Euros, so his work is cut out for him. Plushy isn't one to mess up in big competitions very often, but if he does, look out.

Among the guys who could all sneak in there and shake up the podium with solid performances include Jeremy Abbott, Brian Joubert, Patrick Chan, Johnny Weir, Stephane Lambiel, Nobunari Oda, Daisuke Takahashi and Tomas Verner.

Let's whittle it down to a digestible number.

Verner is as well known for his skating as he is for his choking.
European Championships: 2006--10th; 2007--2nd; 2008--1st; 2009--6th; 2010--10th.
World Championships: 2006--13th; 2007--4th; 2008--15th; 2009--4th.
Verdict: The Olympics are rarely the time to break out of old habits. Count him out.

The much-beloved Lambiel made a comeback this year after retiring in 2008. Hard to believe this guy is still only 24 years old. He was second at Europeans but nearly 20 points behind Plushenko and didn't look that sharp. He's not landing those signature quads with the same consistency as he used to and he doesn't do a triple axel. I fear that even with flawless performances he doesn't have enough content to get up into the medals.
Verdict: Love him, want to see him skate well but don't expect him to be in the medals.

I don't have much to say about Joubert. He's a great athlete and jumper, but not much anything else. He stubbornly thinks that the quad is the key (and, reportedly, the future of men's figure skating) but doesn't seem to realize that being a quad machine hasn't won him any major titles recently.
Verdict: Might be some fireworks, but has long since been passed up by more complete skaters.

Johnny Weir doesn't have it any more. He is a World bronze medalist but didn't even make it to Worlds last year and hasn't skated a flawless performance in a while. Even if he did, he lacks the content to score big.
Verdict: Past his prime. Not a medal threat unless others mess up.

Takahashi missed the entire 2008-2009 season due to injury and looked like he was getting it back at the Grand Prix Final. Then he skated a terrible long program and fell from first to fifth. He did win the Japanese nationals so maybe he's peaking at the right time.
Verdict: Still has some great skating in him. Threatening if he skates perfectly.

Oda has been skating very well ever since the suspension a few years ago and switching coaches. He has the performance quality and character of the top skaters and was second to Lysacek at the Grand Prix Final. But this is his first Olympics and nerves could play a part.
Verdict: He's a Japanese singles skater. Maybe an outside threat for a bronze if he performs well.

Patrick Chan is carrying the weight of the country on his young shoulders. He already demonstrated that he can handle the pressure by finishing second at the Worlds in 2009 and is certainly good enough to compete with the big boys.
Verdict: Olympic pressure is a mother, but he seems like he can deal with it. Inside shot at a bronze.

Abbott has some redeeming to do. The last time he was on a stage this big he had everyone wondering how this guy won the U.S. Nationals. A dismal 11th at the 2009 Worlds. There's no question that he has the potential to beat anyone when he's on, but skating two clean programs at the Olympics is more than just a notion for him.
Verdict: Bronze medal if he's on--at worst.

Whew! Okay, that's all. Plushi is the first of the medal threats to skate and he will definitely set the bar high. All three Americans skate towards the end and will know exactly what's up when they get on the ice.

The first few guys have already skated. Stay tuned.

The beginning of a legacy

2010-02-16T16:41:00.003-06:00

Remember this?

Now that we know what's happened in the 12 years since, we know that this started everything for Shen & Zhao, for Yao Bin and for every other Chinese pairs team until the end of time.

But really, be honest: who really saw this coming? Maybe we thought that this was the emergence of an exciting pairs team that had already been skating together for six years. But who could have imagined that in a few short years this performance would give rise to a Chinese pairs program that would challenge, rival and eventually surpass the mighty Russians? Who knew that this would be the first of four Olympic appearances for this pair and the only one in which they weren't on the podium? (They weren't far off--fifth in Nagano.) Who knew that these two would open the door for one Chinese pair that became world champions, another that became three-time world silver medalists, and both that became Olympic silver medalists?

Finally, who knew that these two would revolutionize the sport with their crowd appeal, expression and trademark athleticism? Everyone does big, huge throw jumps now, thanks to Shen & Zhao.

This performance was an accomplishment in and of itself, drawing vociferous approval from a typically reserved Japanese crowd. They knew that they'd just witnessed something special. So did we. But who would have thought that 12 years later, we'd still be so lucky to watch these two be extraordinary and win that extra-special prize of Olympic gold?

Go forth and be merry and married, Shen & Zhao. No more putting your life on hold, and no more separate dorm rooms, for crying out loud. Bask in the glow of life. After 18 years of grueling, hard work, you deserve some time to smell the roses.

Two dreams come true

2010-02-15T23:08:00.004-06:00

Well, that was kinda weird.

As competitive as the pairs short program was, the long program was...not. But in the end, Chinese icons Shen & Zhao overcame some awkward and rare bobbles in their long program to win their long-awaited Olympic gold medal. They didn't skate with the same effortlessness as we'd grown accustomed to seeing but their phenomenal short program and good-enough long kept them in front and broke the dominance of Russian teams in this sport.

While Shen & Zhao skated first in the short and had to set the bar for their competitors, they were the final skaters in the long and saw the writing on the wall. Oddly, the team they needed to hold off was neither reigning World Champions Savchenko & Szolkowy nor European Champions Kavaguti & Smirnov.

Perhaps the Olympic pressure got to the Russians. Kavaguti & Smirnov had been on such a roll for the past few weeks and were practicing so solidly all week. Mukhortova & Trankov took themselves out of contention, so K & S were the lone hope to continue the Russian run in pairs skating. But it was all over after the opening minute. They seemed a little indecisive about whether or not to attempt the hazardous throw quad salchow, and she overrotated the triple. They couldn't get back on track, he botching their side-by-side double axels and she falling on the throw triple loop. They finished seventh in the long program and fell from third to fourth overall.

The Germans pulled out a clutch short program despite a sub-par year and days of bad practices, but their luck ran out. Szolkowy barely hung on to his first triple toe loop and Savchenko, perhaps assuming he wouldn't recover, doubled her second triple toe. Then Szolkowy fell badly on his double axel. While they skated rest of their program beautifully to "Out of Africa" with the best costumes of the night, the damage had been done. They fell from second to third, clearly disappointed with their effort.

Then came the biggest surprise of the evening. Knowing that they got the help they needed from the teams in front of them, the long overshadowed Chinese pair of Pang & Tong skated the only clean program of the night to "The Impossible Dream." Weary from seeing one team after another make costly mistakes, the crowd jumped to its feet and roared its approval for the 2006 world champions. With the best performance of their career, they won the long program with almost 142 points and leaped ahead the Russians and Germans to finish second overall.

Finally, the chance that Shen & Zhao had waited for and their competition had made it alarmingly easy. They knew that they just needed to stay on their feet and do what they'd always done and the gold would be theirs.

For a while, it looked like they were in the clear. They nailed their triple toes and hung on to the double axel-step-double axel combination. All that was left were some lifts and their famous throws, which they never miss. Then, Shen got a little too far back on a one-handed lift and collapsed on top of Zhao. They avoided crashing to the ice, stayed on their feet and got right back into the program. Then Shen caught the toe pick and pitched forward a bit on the landing of the throw triple salchow. Still, they avoided a major mistake. They finished their program without incident, realizing it was probably enough to win, but knowing that it was far from their best performance. Their technical elements score was a little lower than usual but they still scored nearly 140 points for the long program and edged out their teammates by three points.

It wasn't pretty and maybe a little close for comfort, but they did it.

As relieved and happy I am for Shen & Zhao, I'm even more thrilled for Pang & Tong. They have long been the under appreciated and overshadowed Chinese team, too often finishing behind the Zhangs despite their far superior skating quality. No one was really taking them seriously as contenders even though they beat all of last year's world medalists at the Grand Prix Final. Tonight, taking advantage of their skating position, they capitalized on their rivals' mistakes, skated the only clean program of the evening and almost pulled off a major upset. Had Shen & Zhao not recovered from their slip-ups so well, Pang & Tong would have been China's first Olympic champions in figure skating and not their more accomplished teammates. Wow. Imagine that.

But all is right with the world. Pang & Tong proved that they are no fluke and have forever redeemed themselves. Shen & Zhao now have the one crown that eluded them their entire career, and got it in their fourth Olympics. They can retire in peace, with no regrets and nothing else to prove. They've cemented their legacy as one of the best pairs teams in history.

Talk about coming full circle. Thirty years ago, people laughed at Yao Bin as he and his partner became the first Chinese skaters at the World Championships. People were embarrassed to watch them and he still shudders at the recollection of those times. Now he has lifted his three star teams to four World titles, 14 World medals and five Olympic medals, including tonight--Olympic gold and silver.

Who's laughing now?

Too close to call

2010-02-14T22:04:00.003-06:00

Well, I was right. The short program was exciting and the top competitors are fractions of points within each other.

Shen & Zhao continued their amazing comeback by skating first of the 20 teams and breaking their own world record, 76.66 in the short. They set the bar, and no one else could jump over it.

Not that they didn't try.

Appropriately, if one gold-medal favorite opened the competition then the other had to end it. Savchenko & Szolkowy rebounded from shaky practice sessions and skated their clowns program beautifully. They are second, 0.7 points behind the Chinese.

The Moskvina protegees, Kavaguti & Smirnov, followed up on their European Championship win with a solid performance to "The Swan," choreographed from the instant they stepped on the ice to the moment they stepped off. They are third, only 2.5 points behind the leaders.

Pang and Tong continued their momentum from the Grand Prix final and skated into fourth, while Zhang & Zhang skated yet another solid short program to slide into fifth.

Everyone is exactly where they should be and only 5.4 points separate 1 through 5. All of those placements are fair and correct. Not something you say often in the world of pairs figure skating.

There was really only one placement that was a little fishy. Hometown favorites Jessica Dube & Bryce Davidson edged out their teammates for sixth place even though the latter skated cleanly and Dube fell on her triple toe loop. With 65.36 points, they are 11 full points out of the lead (which they wouldn't have gotten even with a clean performance) and still six points behind the Zhangs and Pang & Tong. One missed element from the Chinese pairs and the Canadians could sneak dangerously close to the medals. A little inappropriate given the lackluster quality of their performance.

The mild surprise was the other Russian team of Mukhortova and Trankov who took themselves out of contention when he fell on his triple toe loop and she put her hand down. They are back in eighth, more than 13 points away from the top. This was their weakest performance in the short all season and they busted it out at the wrong time. They'll be fortunate if they end up in the top five.

So, it is still very much anybody's ball game in the long program. Just like in the old system, whichever of the top three teams skates the best will win gold. Appropriately, the top three pairs have the best long programs in terms of composition, choreography and potential crowd appeal. The gaps are so minute that any mistake makes the difference. I really think the key will be the side-by-side jumps. All three teams have tough jump combinations they must get through and it's the element most prone to errors from all three. Beyond that, it's the little things--transitions, interpretation, speed, etc.--that will break the tie. If I had to give the edge to one team, I still like Shen & Zhao to pull out the gold. The crowd will definitely be behind them and they know all too well what it's like to be in the final group competing for an Olympic gold. This is new territory for the Germans and Russians, but both teams can score really high with perfect performances. I don't expect anyone to falter miserably, so it should be very close.

Still, you can't count out Pang & Tong nor Zhang & Zhang. They are still very much within striking distance. The Zhangs have had lots of difficulty with their long program this year and I don't think they will gain much ground on their own. But if the teams in front of them falter, look out. Pang & Tong do have a very strong long program that brought them to silver at the Grand Prix final. They're less than three points out of the medals, so they could do it.

It should be one of the best pairs competitions we've seen in years. Bring it.

Official website of the Vancouver Olympic Games

Figure skating preview

2010-02-14T15:25:00.002-06:00

Whee, the pairs starts tonight!!! I've been looking forward to this competition for months, in case the three exclamation points didn't get that across.

This should be a pretty tight competition if all goes to plan. No fewer than six teams have a legitimate shot at medals and three are serious contenders for gold. Realistically, I think the gold medal race is between the iconic Chinese pair of Shen and Zhao and the two-time defending German world champions Savchenko and Szolkowy.

Clearly, the sentimental favorites are Shen & Zhao. At 31 and 36, they are the oldest pair in the competition appearing in their fourth(!) Olympics--and this is probably their best shot at gold. The skating world was thrilled when they announced they would return to eligible competition. But this was no random comeback of a couple of skaters past their prime and laboring around the rink a shadow of what they once were (ahem, like Sasha Cohen). They are better than ever. Now that they're married, there's an extra freedom and joy to their skating that no one else can match. They are even more athletic and explosive than they were when they burst onto the scene in 1997-1998 and they've restored order in the world of pairs figure skating. They breezed through their Grand Prix season and won the Grand Prix Final, easily defeating all of the top competitors for Olympic medals.
Savchenko & Szolkowy were the favorites for gold until Shen & Zhao got in the way, and it could work to their advantage. Without the Chinese, all the bright lights would be on them to win this competition outright. Even though this is their second Olympics, all the expectations might have made them vulnerable to mistakes. But now, all the attention is on the Chinese and they can more easily focus on their skating and the performance. They are strong and athletic and have been skating with the confidence of world champions all season. They could only manage second at the European Championships last month, but I think they will be fired up to get back to the top. They are in good position.

Meanwhile, I feel there are four teams with a good shot at the bronze: China's Zhang & Zhang and Pang & Tong; and Russia's Kavaguti & Smirnov and Mukhortova & Trankov. Ugh, this is a tough one to call. The AP chose Pang & Tong to win bronze, but I wouldn't be so quick. Kavaguti & Smirnov just upset the Germans to win the European Championships last month. Mukhortova & Trankov have been skating beautifully all season but they simply haven't been getting the results from the judges that would allow them to overtake their teammates, the Germans or the Chinese. Pang & Tong have been on an upswing, skating better than they have in years and were second in the Grand Prix Final. Zhang & Zhang have had a miserable season and look a step behind everyone else so far. But they are Olympic silver medalists and twice World silver medalists.

But...all three Chinese teams have something going for them that no one else does: experience. Pang & Tong and Zhang & Zhang are both in their third Olympics while Shen & Zhao are in their fourth. On the other hand, both of the top Russian pairs are in their first Olympics. There isn't enough practice in the world to make up for Olympic experience, so the Russians might be susceptible to cracking under the pressure. Maybe.

I think the short program will be very close. All six teams have been great in the short all season, so there probably won't be much separating them 1 through 6. The long program will be the great equalizer. I still think it's for Shen & Zhao to win or lose. If they skate two flawless programs, they have that je ne sais quoi to put them over the top. I also like Savchenko and Szolkowy for silver. But this is the kind of competition that if anyone makes mistakes, there will be another team right there to take advantage. With the right performance at the right time, we could have a surprising array of Olympic medalists.

I don't try to hide my bias, though. I want Shen & Zhao to win. They've been so great for so long and they've revolutionized the sport. It's only appropriate that they be Olympic champions, as well.

Short program, tonight!

Rest in peace

2010-02-13T12:56:00.002-06:00

By now, you've certainly heard of the the catastrophic accident that claimed the young life of 21-year-old luger Nodar Kumaritashvili during a training run hours before the start of the opening ceremonies. Kumaritashvili, from the former Soviet republic of Georgia, lost control of his sled coming out of the final turn, flew over the track and slammed into an unpadded pole. Rescue workers were at his side within seconds performing chest compressions and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, but he was pronounced dead after being airlifted to a nearby trauma center.

After much deliberation, the rest of the Georgian team elected to march in the opening ceremonies and it appears they will compete to honor the memory of their fallen friend. They and athletes from other delegations wore black armbands in Kumaritashvili's honor during the event. The Olympic and Canadian flags were lowered to half-mast, as the ceremony dedicated to Kumaritashvili observed a minute of silence.

Officials have made some changes to the controversial track to avoid any other accidents, such as lowering the starting position to reduce speed (Kumaritashvili was going nearly 90 mph at the time of his accident), building a wall in the area where the crash occurred and reportedly heightening the track at the last turn so the athletes can maintain control.

Kumaritashvili's death highlights one of the most unfair aspects of the Olympics--indeed, of sport. We fail to pay any mind to the athletes not in contention for the big prizes unless they are spectacularly bad (like Eddie the Eagle), or when they are seriously injured or die. Surely it's a good thing that we are not ignoring this young man just because we had no idea who he was 24 hours ago. I'm happy to see the camaraderie of the athletes and officials, and that everyone was genuinely devastated that this happened. I'm glad that this is not lost on any of us. But how tragic is it, not just how he died, but that most of us will always remember him specifically because he died? It doesn't seem right. Certainly he deserves better than that.

R.I.P. Nodar Kumaritashvili (November 25, 1988-February 12, 2010) and condolences to his family and friends.

Ode to the Olympics

2010-02-13T11:41:00.003-06:00

Ah, the Olympics. I, for one, was thrilled when the International Olympic Committee split up the Winter and Summer Games so that fanatics such as myself only have to wait two years to see an Olympics instead of four. So many people pooh-pooh the Winter Games because there are fewer competitors, fewer sports and more hoarding of the medals from a smaller group of countries (read: Canada, USA, Germany and Russia). Not me, however. While the NBA All-Star weekend and the Great American Race are also going on, the Olympics will not suffer in its ratings because of me. I'm going to be glued to it.

I don't know why it is, but the Olympics bring out the hyperactive sports fan in me. They make me excited about sports I never watch or couldn't care less about in any other context. I can't even name the top competitors in those sports. I don't care, though. I happily sit in front of the TV, yelling and cheering, to watch alpine skiing, speedskating, ski jumping, bobsledding, aerials, cross country skiing, and (gasp!) hockey and curling. (Okay, I mainly watch curling out of curiosity because I don't understand it and I'm still trying to figure it out). You couldn't pay me to watch any of those sports in the interim four years. It's just something about the Olympics.

Of course, the main reason I'm watching is the figure skating. That's always been the main draw for me since the first Games I remember seeing featured one of my childhood idols, Kristi Yamaguchi. This year is no different, although the always-hyped ladies' competition could be the least compelling of the four disciplines this year. The pairs, men's and ice dancing all have multiple competitors who could legitimately win their event outright, especially if the projected front runners aren't as sharp as they could be. On the other hand, the ladies' has a runaway favorite, Yu-na Kim, who will only lose if she's way off her game. This isn't out of the question because, after all, this is her first Olympics. Even Yamaguchi didn't skate perfectly in the Olympics as the reigning World Champion.

Perhaps because these are the highest stakes for the athletes, it becomes infinitely more interesting for the spectators. It is not unlike the World Series, Stanley Cup Finals, NBA Championships or the Super Bowl. But the Games kicks it up a notch because the tension, pressure and sense of occasion build over four years. It's an incredible phenomenon featuring the most extreme forms of success and failure. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but if anyone wants to know what I'll be watching over the next two weeks, I'll give you one guess.

One or the other

2010-02-11T12:33:00.003-06:00

I hope she won't mind, but my good friend from grad school, Meg Handley, just wrote a wonderful article for Time in London about sex testing policies of athletes and I wanted to acknowledge it here. Certainly she's getting plenty of attention for it, seeing it's on the front page of Time.com, but still--I'm proud of her and she wrote wonderfully about a controversial and sensitive topic in sports today.

Read the story here.

Bravo, Meg!!!

Undisputed champions

2010-01-31T05:44:00.003-06:00

I expected two competitive finals at the Aussie Open this weekend. Instead, we got one semi-tough final and one tough tiebreak. In the end, though, the number one players in the world reminded everyone why they are the best.

At least we finally saw a three-set final for the women.

Serena Williams found another gear in her match Saturday, and stormed through a third set to defeat her nemesis, Justine Henin. The Belgian kept it close, then stormed through the latter part of the second set to force a decider. But as I predicted, the difference was Justine's erratic serve. She couldn't establish a consistently good rhythm to bother Serena outside of that incredible surge to win the second set. Justine was also unusually aggressive with her returns and pushed a lot of shots long to give Serena some easy points on her serve. Serena, clutch as always, stayed the course then hit the accelerator to win a fifth (!) Australian Open championship. She finally broke the even-year jinx.

It's easy to diminish Justine's accomplishment here since Kim Clijsters won her first major out of retirement. While this result reminds us of how incredible that win was (appropriately netting her some votes for AP Female Athlete of the Year), we must keep in mind that Justine was one measly set away from matching that feat. She played some really amazing tennis right out of retirement and proved what a phenomenal athlete she is. Keep in mind, she's only played a handful of matches in the last two years, so she probably needs time to shake off the rust and return to the top ranks again. My money's on her for the French Open and I'm sure she will find a different gear at her favorite tourney.

But all credit to Serena. She is one of the most determined athletes in any sport right now and she clawed her way to an impressive 12th major. And she won the doubles title with Venus, mind you. This lady played a lot of tennis over the past two weeks and she didn't always have her "A" game, but she fought hard and refused to settle for anything less than a title. No matter who you root for, it's almost impossible to not be impressed with this lady. She isn't perfect and hasn't always been graceful in the spotlight, but she's an unbelievable athlete.

Speaking of exceptional athletes, my man Federer is just padding the statistics at this point. After losing a heartbreaking final to Nadal last year, Federer redeemed himself with a straight set win over Andy Murray. It was Federer's turn to reduce his opponent to tears--again. I'm really surprised that this wasn't a closer match, because Murray was playing so well throughout this tournament. He showed great initiative in defeating Nadal, mixing up his game and playing out of his comfort zone in order to throw Nadal off. And it worked. But Murray didn't come out with same intensity and blew too many chances to make this a closer contest.

He was up a break on Federer in the third and had chances to serve it out, but Federer ran off three straight games from 5-2 down and forced a tiebreak. In the tiebreak, Federer missed some routine ground strokes to give Murray four set points, but the Scot couldn't capitalize. Finally, on Fed's third championship point, Murray netted a backhand to end it. While Federer did well to come back and not give Murray any daylight to make it interesting, Murray waited until he was down two sets before he began competing. The Scot just looked off tonight.

Maybe it had something to do with the caliber of his opponent? Just a thought.

In the post-match speeches, Murray broke down when apologizing to his fans back home for not being able to win the title for them. Finally, we get confirmation that it was weighing on his mind. And we thought Federer was just doing his form of trash talking, mentioning how much more pressure Murray faced. Now Murray has been to two Slam finals, lost both to Federer, and couldn't manage to win a set in either. While I'm sure he's disappointed, let us keep in mind that he is still younger than Federer was when he won his first major. A lot of great champions didn't win their first major in their first try: Agassi, Lendl and Vilas, for example. It's undeniable that he carries more expectation than any of the top players today, but he has improved so much and it's only a matter of time before he breaks through. He will be fine.

All this reminds me how two years ago, when Federer was still only 26, people were starting to say that he was on his way down. Never mind that he won the U.S. Open; he lost in the Aussie Open semis to Djokovic, the French and Wimbledon finals to Nadal, and the Beijing Olympics to James Blake. Everyone was convinced it was a new era for men's tennis and Federer would be forever supplanted at the top.

Now look at him.

He's 28, married, a new father and he is every bit as dominant as he's always been. He shows absolutely no signs of slowing down. He's now won at least one major every year for the past eight years. He's made 23 straight Grand Slam semifinals and played in 22 major finals, losing five of them to Nadal. He's won just about everything you can win in tennis, and continues to distance himself in the all-time race from the sport's icons. While his closest competitors struggle with youth, inexperience, pressure, injuries and fitness, he is steady as a rock and is still the man to beat. He has nothing else to prove and can play tennis on his own terms now more than ever.

The competition isn't over. There are far too many great players ready to challenge Roger and Serena at the top. But that's a bridge they'll cross in the next tournament. Right now, they are sitting pretty and they just sent the field a message, loud and clear:

Come and get us.

Official website of the Aussie Open

The prize fights

2010-01-29T04:17:00.004-06:00

Well, it can only be wonderful for tennis when us fans get the match ups that make for the most spirited and competitive matches: Serena v. Justine for the women, and Roger v. Andy for the men. If there is ever a chance for both championship matches to go the distance, this is it. If there are two championship matches where it is almost impossible to choose a winner, these are the ones. If there's ever a Slam where both finals are drool-worthy, here it is.

Of course, one of the big stories is whether Justine Henin will match her compatriot's accomplishment, winning her first major after a lengthy retirement. She had a most impressive semifinal win over China's Zheng Jie, dropping only one game in the process and hitting every shot in her arsenal at will. Certainly, it's to her advantage that she finally had an easy match in her quest, and she can spend more time preparing for the final. Meanwhile, Serena's matches got more difficult as the tournament wore on. Serena did what Serena does, mounting a huge comeback to beat Azarenka in three and fighting her own physical exhaustion to beat Li Na in two tie breaks. Serena has played a lot of tennis these past few days, winning the doubles finals with Venus today and having a few tough matches in that tournament as well.

But I really don't think it matters. I think both women are fierce competitors who will bring it in the big occasion just like they always do. There is considerable history and no love lost between the two. It's unbelievable that as long as these two competed against each other, this will be the first time they've ever played in a Grand Slam final. You know that they are both salivating for it. Both are eager to get out on the court and take it to the other, and as long as they're both playing well, it should be fun to see.

I still think Serena has the advantage because she can use her serve so much more effectively, whereas Justine's has the tendency to go haywire. Also, Serena has never lost an Australian Open final and she's not prepared to start now. But Justine has beaten Serena many times before, and never with a particularly powerful serve, so she can do it. But how appropriate would it be if both Belgians won their first major out of retirement and both had to beat Serena to do it? Beating Serena in a final is more daunting task, but you never know.

Federer v. Murray has the potential to be the best match of the year. A lot of people picked Murray to win this, and let me tell you, it would be huge for him if he could beat Federer to do it. If he pulls it off, he would start brimming with confidence and become a much more formidable force at the top--something similar to what Juan Martin del Potro did last fall.

Both guys are playing fabulous tennis and both used their exhausted semifinal opponents as target practice for the big showdown. Murray's only lull was losing that first set against Cilic in the semis, but then he came back firing and won easily. Federer wasn't even on court for 90 minutes to roll over the depleted Tsonga, barely losing one point for each of his service games. Many analysts thought that Murray would have an advantage because of the extra's day rest, but I think Federer just neutralized that. He probably spends more time in hitting practice than it took him to beat Tsonga tonight.

I also think that Federer's abundance of experience in major finals won't give him much of an edge. He's dealing with a very different Andy Murray than the one he beat in the US Open finals in '08. The rough path to the finals took a toll on the first-time finalist and the occasion got to him. But the Scot has finally developed into the player many people hoped he would, combining powerful ground strokes with incredible movement and defense and excellent volleying. You might say he's the taller, slightly better version of Federer. Murray has a lot more pressure to win this match, but he isn't at all afraid to play Federer and he isn't afraid to win. The serve is crucial for both players. Murray might have better statistics in his return games but both are lethal if you give them a weak ball to hit. This one is going to five tough sets, and I still favor Federer. But it's a matter of a couple of swing points going one way or another. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Murray pulled this out.

It's the battle of the heavyweights: both healthy, both playing terrific tennis, and both desperately want to beat the other one.

It's going to be a helluva show.

Official website of the Aussie Open

I know it's a cliche but...

2010-01-26T23:58:00.002-06:00

It's never over 'till its over.

You know, I had a totally different blog post in mind a couple of hours ago. I think it was about the time that the fiery Victoria Azarenka was blasting Serena Williams off the court in the last quarterfinal match, and the youngster was up 6-4, 4-0. Azarenka couldn't miss with her two-handed backhand, hitting winners at will and forcing Williams to find the bottom of the net with her ground strokes. I was thinking: when was the last time both Williamses lost on the same day; Serena's even-year jinx with the Australian Open; the draw's looking really favorable for Justine Henin; once again, Serena managed to lose a major she should have won easily; how incredible that both Belgian superstars came out of retirement to restore order in the tennis world, blah, blah, blah.

Then Serena reminded everyone why she's...Serena Williams.

Somehow, the woman who'd gone through the entire tournament without dropping a service game only to get broken five times through a set-and-a-half, dug out of that huge hole and did some blasting of her own: 4-6, 7-6, 6-2. Towards the end of the match, ESPN showed all the times that Serena came back from behind just in this tournament, but this has to be a new level even for her.

Just when you think Serena has nothing else to prove and no more ways to impress, she goes and pulls a stunt like this. Consider me impressed.

Meanwhile, big sister did the opposite, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Venus was up 6-2, 5-3 and serving for the match. But China's Li Na clawed back to take the second-set tiebreak, and came through one of those awful third sets where the first person to hold wins. She joins her countrywoman, Zheng Jie in the semifinals, the first time China has ever had two players get that far in a Grand Slam. Zheng will square off against Henin while Li gets Serena. Since Zheng and Henin are about the same size, you have to love the chance of a Serena v. Justine final. The Chinese may make it interesting, but I sense that they are merely means to an end.

Gotta go: Federer v. Davydenko on right now and Djokovic v. Tsonga in a rematch of the 2008 final later this morning.

Official website of the Aussie Open

The misstep

2010-01-26T05:38:00.004-06:00

Wow, what a letdown.

Every tennis fan was looking forward to watching Nadal square off against Murray in the Aussie Open quarters. Most were probably a little disappointed that such an obviously competitive match-up was happening so early in the tournament, and both guys had so much to prove with a win.

Then, with one awkward step, it was over.

Rafa Nadal quit while he was down today, losing 6-3, 7-6, 3-0 to the Scot, just a few minutes after he stopped in the middle of his service game to see the trainer about his sore right knee. He wasn't having any problems at any point during the match, but ESPN replayed what seemed like a normal lunge from Nadal and he immediately pulled up lame. After conferring with his uncle, he made that long, lonely walk to the net to surrender.

Watch the highlights here.

Clearly, Nadal weighed the cost-benefit analysis of continuing the match, even if it was only a matter of time before Murray won it. Nadal is such a classy competitor that he would try to finish the match, if only for the benefit of his opponent. Win with honor, lose with dignity sort of thing. But the worry was written all over his face and perhaps the future of 2010 flashed before his eyes. Fortunately, Nadal has a good enough track record that not a single person should doubt that he had a legitimate reason to retire. We've all seen him play through some difficult matches and through countless injuries, but this is the first time I've ever seen him quit. I feel really bad for him and it casts a shadow of doubt over his future like never before.

On the flip side, Nadal only expedited the inevitable. Murray played phenomenal tennis, taking it to Nadal every step of the way and returning every punch Rafa threw at him. Nadal looked defeated before the injury timeout. Just as Federer made a statement with his beat down of Hewitt last night, Murray made an equally bold case for his first major. By not playing three full sets tonight, he has an even greater advantage over the marathon man, Cilic, who's been on court for more than 18 hours during this tournament. I think Murray is on a mission and won't have much trouble dealing with the newbie semifinalist. It's looking good for him to reach his second Grand Slam final and he'll almost certainly be more successful in this go around.

It's really too bad about Rafa, though. Many have feared that his style of tennis would take its irrevocable toll on his body sooner rather than later, but this is premature. His unwillingness to play through the pain shows a lot of maturity, but also his fear that this is no fluke. He will already lose his number two ranking as a result of this loss. He's a great player and champion and it'd be a shame to see his career starting to decline at age 23.

I hope he recovers.

Official website of the Aussie Open

Swing points

2010-01-25T00:37:00.004-06:00

I am so impressed with the quality of the men's matches these past few days and I think it underscores how competitive men's tennis has become in the new decade. Brad Gilbert has been screaming about how skilled guys like Marin Cilic are--never failing to mention that he's number 14 in the world--and they are beginning to prove it.

The top players in the world do one of two things to be successful: they are better than most of their opponents and play their best more often than not, or they find some way to win a match that could have gone either way. Take Roger Federer, for example. Most of the time, he is just way better than the other guy and his scorelines reflect the mismatch. But he doesn't always play his best every time he steps onto the court. No one does. Yet, even if he's not up to his normal level, he almost always finds a way to push through and get the win. Consider his first round match against Igor Andreev. Federer didn't look like his normal self, but he hung in there to level the match and won a couple of pivotal points in the third set tiebreak before running away in the fourth. That's the difference. Andreev proved what a skilled player he is, but Federer figured it out. Even in the matches he loses, he makes his opponent work hard to earn it. That's why he's the best.

Often, the first time you won the match you were so close to losing proves to be the breakthrough. We're seeing that now with del Potro. After that huge win over Federer at the US Open, he's carrying himself like a champion, like someone who should win nearly every match he plays. Those swing points are starting to go his way, and this was particularly evident in that tough five-set win over Blake. Even though he was hurt and not always in the game mentally, time after time he'd come up with a clutch forehand or a bomb serve to keep it going. Tired and injured, he still pushed Cilic to five sets before losing that one.

I think Cilic, Roddick and Davydenko are all gearing up for some breakthrough wins in the near future, because they have all won tough matches this Australian Open they could have lost. Cilic was probably the only won who was playing his best, which makes it even more impressive for the promising 21-year-old.

Roddick and Davydenko, by contrast, are the veterans looking to make some waves late in their careers and both are moving in the right direction. If there were ever such a thing as a breakthrough loss, Roddick had it at Wimbledon last year. Roddick's improvement is with his attitude and being able to stay with it through five sets. He is still fiery and competitive, but he's learned to channel it properly and stay focused. Big stamp of approval for that win over Gonzalez.

Davydenko has always been Mr. Consistent. He never had too many fireworks in his game but he so rarely plays awful matches where his shots can't find the court. Now, he's getting some important wins over the top players. Two wins each against Federer and Nadal in the past three months is nothing to sneeze at, even if they weren't at Grand Slams. In an unstable match with a lot of errors, Davydenko did that extra je ne sais quoi to beat Verdasco 6-3 in the fifth, despite losing a two-set lead. Verdasco isn't in the league of the big boys, but he's number nine in the world and lost that close semifinal match to Nadal at the 2009 Aussie Open. Certainly Davydenko will need to step it up, but this win is exactly what he needs when faces off against Federer or Hewitt in quarters: the knowledge that he has the game to win and that he can find ways to pull victory from the jaws of defeat.

More guys are doing what champions do: finding ways to win whether it's a nothing-to-it three-setter, or a tenuous grinder to the distance. Of course, there's much more tournament to be played, but I think we are seeing more players close the gap on the Federer-Nadal-Djokovic-Murray stronghold. It should be an interesting few days, especially now that delPo is out and Nadal and Murray are destined to battle to the death tomorrow.

Stay tuned. Federer v. Hewitt is next up.

Official website of the Aussie Open