Amateur Tennis

So I've blogged about professional tennis fairly frequently. But is this where the real spirit of tennis lies? I think no. I think that the real spirit of tennis lives in amateurs who go out and hack at the ball as they have time and ability to find others to play with. When you are paid to play, it is hard not to become a mercenary. Those who play for the love of it are the ones who truly have the spirit of tennis (and perhaps a few of them are also paid to do so). As the Bible says, you can't serve God and Mammon, as you can't serve two masters, and "you can't say fairer than that.*" No wonder so many pros find it hard to continue to love the game.

I played on high school tennis team for four years, and the team won the state title each year. But then dropped off completely in college. I think some of the politics of the team aspect had bummed me out about it (younger players selected over older players because it would be more beneficial to the team in later years). And I also knew that I wasn't really going to be a superstar tennis player, which was disorienting and disappointing. A guy who lived across the street from me was much better than me, yet he was getting down on himself because he didn't think he had a shot at division I college tennis. Who then was I?

So I didn't play much in college and tried to play some since, but never with much gusto. It is hard to find someone about the same ability level, and without that it's not that much fun. But I have somewhat recently recaught this amateur love of tennis, thanks in part to finding someone who plays a similar style and ability. So we've dusted off the racquets and play once a week, indoors since our climate is predictably cold and rainy in the winter.

Maybe I'm being vain (again) in thinking that we are among the heart and spirit of the sport. But I wake up at 5:30am, get dressed in the dark so as not to wake my wife, then make coffee, eat some granola and yogurt, stumble out the door with my racquet bag (with my shoes inside it, as otherwise they'll get wet before I play). I pick up my friend, Marty, who lives a few doors down at 6:15, and we drive across town to the tennis centre to start play at 7. We park 15 minute's walk away to get free parking.

This week, the guy who was supposed to open up at 7 didn't show, so along with another regular (the only other 7am Monday morning regular), we snuck into the building through a hole in the tarp-like building. The guy who works there wasn't too happy about it, but he didn't show until 7:45, so what were we to do? Sit out in the rain for 45 minutes? No, we played, and we played well, perhaps pushed by our adrenaline at sneaking in. Perhaps because we play a game called "8 Canadians and an American" where we hit eight shots "nicely" (the Canadians), then get aggressive after that (we're both Americans living in Canada, so we see it both ways). It's a fun game because it forces you to stay consistent and then switch gears.

What is your tennis routine, if you are an amateur player? (OK, any professionals can chime in too, if you're reading this).



*Jack Aubrey, Aubrey-Maturin novels, by Patrick O'Brian.

Grain, Markets, Starvation, Fuel

The Post has a great summary article on what is happening to poor people because of moderate increases in prices of grains:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/26/AR2008042602041.html

It was bad enough when people were speculating on housing, driving its price up. I always thought this quite odious- to be altering the price of a necessity for people for the purpose of making a profit. But to do this on FOOD?!!?!??! Monstrous.

The glim bright side in such a situation would be that farmers might actually start being able to make a living, but it seems most of the profit is being taken on the middle-men trading stage, so that's not so much the case, but appears to be increasing farmers' income some.

Most ironic line:

"Some are even trying to grow their own vegetables."

Let us hope that in twenty years we aren't so out of touch with food that someone writes in the newspaper, "Some are even trying to cook their own food."

And doubly horrible that one of the chief food problems in the US is too much food. Lord, have mercy.

Davydenko's Breakthrough

It's weird to write that someone has just had a breakthrough when they've been in the top 10 of men's tennis since June 6, 2005, and in the top 5 since October 30, 2006, peaking at #3 for a total of 16 weeks. Rankings history here.

But Davydenko had a breakthrough this week. Like my favorite player, James Blake, he has earned high rankings despite not winning any grand slams or even being a contender. Davydenko has earned his high rankings because Federer and Nadal have won and been finalists in most of the grand slams, and consistently being in the QF and SF of big tournaments. He did win the Paris Masters Series event in 2006 (kudos deserved), but that was an event where all the big names qualified for the Masters Cup pulled out (Federer, Nadal, Nalbandian, and Roddick didn't show, and Gasquet and Haas withdrew during the tournament). He faced Ancic (#11) and Robredo (#7) but no one else in the top 20. (Hello, he double-bagelled C. Rochus in the 2nd round, wow.)

Davydenko, it could be said, does well because he wins the matches he is supposed to win. But he doesn't pull the upset so often. In fact, he has the worst record against the top 5 of anyone currently in the top 10:

• Federer: 44-19 (70%)
• Nadal: 16-11 (59%)
• Djokovic: 7-10 (41%)
• Davydenko: 2-22 (8%)
• Ferrer: 9-17 (35%)
• Roddick: 12-24 (33%)
• Nalbandian 13-18 (42%)
• Gasquet: 3-13 (19%)
• Blake: 9-25 (26%)
• Berdych: 5-14 (36%)

His records against top 10 players is not great. Here's what the matrix looked like before Shanghai 2006:

	Federer	Nadal	Ljubicic	Roddick	Davydenko	Robredo	Nalbandian	Blake
Federer	--	2-6	10-3	11-1	8-0	6-0	7-6	5-0
Nadal	6-2	--	3-1	1-1	0-0	3-0	0-0	0-2
Ljubicic	3-10	1-3	--	3-5	2-2	4-1	3-2	4-1
Roddick	1-11	1-1	5-3	--	4-0	7-0	3-1	6-2
Davydenko	0-8	0-0	2-2	0-4	--	1-1	2-4	0-4
Robredo	0-6	0-3	1-4	0-7	1-1	--	2-3	1-3
Nalbandian	6-7	0-0	2-3	1-3	4-2	3-2	--	0-0
Blake	0-5	2-0	1-4	2-6	4-0	3-1	0-0	--

Davydenko (and Robredo) didn't have winning records against anyone. Davydenko was "oh-for" against Federer (plenty of company there), Roddick, and Blake. Unluckily he got two of them in his group that year (Blake was lucky and got the 3 guys he had winning records against and not the 3 guys he had losing records against.)

For Davydenko, it gets worse by the end of 2007, as he adds Nadal to the "oh-for" group and against the other guys are still "oh-for", but he has a great record against Gonzales.


But now, in Miami, he beats Roddick and Nadal for the first time, and wins a big trophy for the first time when at least half of the top 10 players are in the draw. So this is a huge breakthrough for him, and I am very happy for him.

Why now? He had a surgery at the end of last year, which slowed his serve in the Davis Cup final, so perhaps the surgery fixed something. The investigation into the Poland match finished. He switched to a new racquet. And he's just hot.

This is good for tennis: a big breakthrough. And there are gladly a lot of them now. Marty Fish broke through in Indian Wells (first Master's Series final since 2003 and second overall, plus first win over Federer). Roddick's win in Dubai was huge (beating Nadal and Djokovic along the way and Federer this week), though that's not a breakthrough, but the best news for him in a long time. Kei Nishikori, though ranked 288, came out of nowhere and won Delray Beach. Djokovic won his first Grand Slam in Australia.

The curse of Federer

I just discovered something interesting about Roger Federer. You don't want him on your side of a bracket. "Duh!" you reply, but aside from the fact that few people manage to beat him, those that do fare poorly afterward.

His last 8 losses are (with most recent first):

Tourn	Round	Date	Opponent	Opponents next match(es)
Miami	QF	Apr 2008	Roddick	Lost in SF to Davydenko
Indian Wells	SF	Mar 2008	Fish	Lost in Finals to Djokovic
Dubai	1 r	early Mar 2008	Murray	Beats Verdasco in 2r, but loses to Davydenko in 3r
Australian Open	SF	Jan 2008	Djokovic	Beats Tsonga in F, but loses to (withdrew) Davydenko in Davis Cup next
Masters Cup	RR	Nov 2007	Gonzales	Loses next RR to Roddick and also Davydenko
Paris	2 r	early Nov 2007	Nalbandian	Won tournament
Madrid	F	Oct 2007	Nalbandian	Lost in 1r of next tournament (Basel) to Wawrinka
ATP Canada (Montreal)	F	Aug 2007	Djokovic	Lost to Moya in first match in Cincinnati

It's tough enough to beat Federer, but also tough to keep winning after beating him. Explanation? It's not that the next player is unbeatable. Many are very beatable. It's probably too much to defeat the world #1 who seems so unbeatable, and not dwell on it too much. It's such a big deal, the players lose focus on their next match. Also, whoever is up next is probably so relieved not to face Federer, they come out swinging boldly and with lots of confidence - that matchup is much better than facing Federer.

Nalbandian escapes in Paris from this curse, but he had just beaten Federer in Madrid, so perhaps it wasn't quite as big a deal mentally. Djokovic defeats Tsonga to win the Australian, but loses focus in Davis Cup play.

It's also odd that Davydenko picks up the pieces in 4 of the 7 instances on this chart (if we count him winning in RR against Gonzales).

Davis Cup 2008 QF

So the quarterfinals for the Davis Cup 2008 are set. I was good in my predictions about the first round, with the exception of Serbia just not showing up against Russia.

Spain vs. Germany

I wonder where Tommy Haas is for Germany as they face Spain at home. They'd have a real shot with him, especially if Kohlschreiber shows some of his Australian Open brilliance. Not sure they have much of a shot now, but depends on who shows up for Spain. Nadal and Ferrer are listed, so you certainly have to go with Spain if they are both in the line-up. Spain has had cancellations before (last year against the US) that hurt their chances.

US vs. France

Big matchup here, with Tsonga and Gasquet vs. Blake and Roddick. Home court advantage is big. I'd say the likelihood for singles is a 2-2 split, as Blake and Roddick are both playing well now, but so is Tsonga in particular. The order of play will be influential, if one side can go up 2-0, that's huge. If I'm US I want Roddick vs. Gasquet first. If I'm France, I want Tsonga vs. Blake. If either happens, the other will happen later that day, obviously. Blake beat Gasquet a few weeks ago. The Bryans are the chance to be the difference, but Llodra and Clement are no cakewalk.

Czech vs. Russia

The Czech team is very solid here, so I'm going with a Czech upset, even though it's in Moscow. Davydenko is playing better as of late, but Youzhny is hit-or-miss. Berdych and Stepanek are solid players, and their doubles team is quite good, too. Is this just wishful thinking? Maybe.

Argentina vs. Sweden

It's in Argentina on clay. Enough said. They'll win. Nalbandian and Cañas are brilliant players that will keep the rising Söderling busy, and they are far too much for Bjorkman, no matter how much I like him.