Better, by far, than we deserve

The tennis this past week has been stellar. Serena completes another solid run in Australia, winning as she did in the previous odd years to have 4 titles in 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009. A few other good stories on the women's side, including Jelena Dokic's comeback and Carla Suarez Navarro's surprising run to the Quarterfinals, and the Venus-Serena doubles win.


The men's side was at least as good, with an amazing 5-set win by Rafael Nadal over countryman Fernando Verdasco, who beat expectations along with Andy Murray and last year's finalist Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. With extra drama because his final opponent, Roger Federer, had 2 days of rest compared to his 1, Nadal got inside Roger's head once again and won in another 5-set match, solidifying not his but many others' claim that he is the best right now, perhaps better than Federer when it is all said and done. For my part, I love to see Nadal not worry about who is the best ever, who has more rest or a more fair draw, or any of the other things he can't do anything about, and just play tennis with all his heart and that is an extraordinary amount of heart.

This match wasn't as good as the 5-set Wimbledon final between the two, nor was it as good as the Verdasco-Nadal match. But it was amazing tennis. It's better than we, as tennis fans and players, deserve. Consider the poor football fans who have the Steelers and Cardinals to watch in the Super Bowl. That was exciting, at least at the end, but the winners could only do so by being thuggish and a bit lucky. The quality of the tennis and its players is very high right now, even if exceptionally concentrated at the top for both men and women, and I'm very grateful.

The wisdom of 3 years

My son Joe and I have been watching a few tennis matches over the course of the last week in the Australian Open. Joe likes watching tennis (or any sport, really), and wants to know who is who. I tell him. Now he can identify Andy (Roddick), Serena (Williams), Carla (Suarez Navarro, she beat Venus Williams), James (Blake). In the match we just watched, between James Blake and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (pictured right), Joseph had the following observation:

"I don't think Jo likes the ball very much."

I respond: "Why is that?"

"Because he just HITS the ball away REALLY quickly."

James Blake probably feels the same way. Tsonga won 6-4, 6-4, 7-6. James had a chance in the 3rd set, being up a break, but couldn't keep it.

Sometimes James is called a streaky player. The difficultly in being streaky is that it's a lot easier to have a bad streak that costs you 10 points in a row than it is to have a good streak that wins you 10 in a row. Ditto for a few service games. Tough loss for James, as the draw was open after with Verdasco having knocked off Andy Murray.

Joseph has lots of interesting comments. The other one that comes to mind is when we were watching football, he enjoyed calling out the numbers that were on the football players jerseys. After a while he was getting frustrated. After I asked him what's wrong, he said "I'm trying to find 8-7 (player #87)." I told him that he should look on the edges of the field, where the wide-receivers were. After about 10 minutes, he starts whooping hooray. Sure enough, 87 had just come on the field and Joe had spotted him.

Ah, the little things in life.

Transition: Maple Leaf Land to Bald Eagle Land

So I've moved from Vancouver, BC to North Carolina. Or at least, I'm in the process of moving. My family (two kids, my wife and myself) took a full week to make the journey, stopping over with friends in Wisconsin and my sister in DC (don't call it Washington, she says, the locals all call it DC). What a ride! We really enjoyed it, even despite a six hour bus ride across the eastern half of Montana due to a freight train derailment and a delay of 13 hours. We were only 4.5 hours delayed after we got around the derailment, so other things were slowing them down. Anyway, Amtrak gave us a nice voucher to reimburse us for time in the family bedroom that we lost due to the bus ride and delay.

Now I'm left trying to figure out how to adjust from one place to another; from one lifestyle to another. I was working half time, as was my wife, and we cared for our children in the other half. We were paying $125 a month for health insurance, with no co-pays, deductibles, or co-insurance. $125 was all we paid, nothing extra even for two children. Now I am still trying to get through the bureaucracy to enroll with health care at my US-based job. And that will still mean a few hundred bucks a month premium, a few hundred bucks deductible that we pay solely, and after that insurance only picks up a percent of what our bills cost. Wow, what a step backwards.

I've been listening to Tom Allen CBC Radio 2 via the internet. This has been a great link to my life before, as I listed to him sometimes when driving across town to go play tennis with a friend. Tom's very funny and I enjoy his stories about his amateur hockey games, as well as his interesting tidbits on music. Plus, since I am now in the Eastern time zone, I can start work at 9am and hear him at 6am in the Pacific time zone, which is when I was driving across town to play tennis anyway.

Defensive Strategy in Tennis

I have been thinking about defensive strategy in tennis lately. The as the mantra goes "good defense beats good offense." But is this true in tennis?



In other sports, defense is fairly intuitive: in baseball your defense is in your pitching and fielding; in soccer, hockey, and basketball it's in stealing the ball/puck and defending the goal; in football and rugby it's tackling the other players before they reach a first down/touchdown.



In tennis, I think playing good defense is first defending your side of the net by getting to your opponent's shots and getting them back over the net. This is part of the style of play of Rafael Nadal, and it gets into the opponent's head, forcing them to go for more and more risky shots in order to win the point, and eventually they make mistakes. It's also labeled counterpunching.



But there is another style of defense I think, akin to good pitching in baseball. This style of defense is less thought about and talked about, but I think still very effective. You hit the ball in a way that makes it hard on your opponent to be aggressive. This involves, generally shots like low slice shots (Steffi Graf) that don't bounce high enough to give your oppenent much to work on. Also, hitting the ball deep into the court (anyone ever heard that from a tennis coach?) prevents your opponent from stepping up into the court, which would expand his/her angles for a shot. It can also involve hitting the ball more into the middle of the court for players that love creating angles from the corners or just in general hitting in a way that your opponent doesn't like (not enough pace, varied spins, moon-balls).



Federer is quite good at mixing up his shot selection, making you uncomfortable. And when combined with lethal offensive weapons, no wonder he's dominated men's tennis for four years.

RG: Blake's draw opens up

 

This is as much of a dream draw for James Blake as he could ever have wished, at least through to the Quarter-finals. His draw was good to start, not being too close to Nadal or Federer. But he did have both Tipsarevic and Berdych in his quarter, both of whom he's lost to this clay season. But they are both dismissed, and now I'm hoping and praying that he makes it through to the QF. I'm also believing firmly that posting something like this will not affect the outcome at all, certainly not jinx things. And I think if you have to face Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic on clay, you have to pick Djokovic, though that's a tall order. We'll see!

2008 <> 2007 Roland Garros

So you'd think if Andy Roddick pulls out of a tournament, Americans wouldn't fare as well. But that's not the case at the 2007 Roland Garros (French Open).

2007 American results were horrifying:
Roger Federer (1)	SUI	def. Michael Russell	USA	6-4	6-2	6-4
Juan Carlos Ferrero (17)	ESP	def. Amer Delic	USA	6-7	6-3	6-3	6-4
Nicolas Almagro (32)	ESP	def. Justin Gimelstob	USA	6-4	6-4	6-4
Laurent Recouderc	FRA	def. Sam Querrey	USA	6-7	2-6	6-0	7-6	6-3
Diego Hartfield	ARG	def. Robby Ginepri	USA	6-4	1-6	5-7	6-4	6-2
Gilles Simon	FRA	def. Vincent Spadea	USA	2-6	6-4	6-4	6-3
Igor Andreev	RUS	def. Andy Roddick (3)	USA	3-6	6-4	6-3	6-4
Ivo Karlovic	CRO	def. James Blake (8)	USA	4-6	6-4	7-5	7-5
Juan Pablo Brzezicki	ARG	def. Robert Kendrick	USA	6-1	3-6	6-2	6-1
Match record: 0-7	Set record: 9-27
2008 American results are much better:
Roger Federer	SUI (1)	def. Sam Querrey	USA	6-4	6-4	6-3
Julien Benneteau	FRA	def. Vincent Spadea	USA	6-4	6-4	3-6	3-6	6-3
Robby Ginepri	USA	def. Donald Young	USA	6-2	3-6	7-6	6-2
Luis Horna	PER	def. Scoville Jenkins	USA	6-4	5-7	6-3	6-0
Marty Fish	USA	def. Agustin Calleri	ARG	6-7	6-4	6-2	6-4
James Blake (7)	USA	def. Rainer Schüttler	GER	6-4	6-1	7-6
Bobby Reynolds	USA	def. Thierry Ascione	FRA	7-6	4-6	6-3	6-2
Wayne Odesnik	USA	def. Guillermo Canas (29)	ARG	7-6	7-6	7-6
Juan Ignacio Chela	ARG	def. John Isner	USA	2-6	3-6	7-5	6-3	6-4
Match record: 5-5	Set record: 21-18

In 2007 and 2008, Americans did OK in the first set. The difference is after that. In 2007, they are 3-6 and 1-8 in 2nd and 3rd sets, and "oh-for" in 4th and 5th. In 2008, they went 6-4,6-4,4-3,0-2 in the 2nd through 5th sets. Still not working in the 5th, but 2-4 is much better. Perhaps they have increased their grit, which is really needed in these long matches of the Grand Slams.

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.

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.

Davis Cup 2008

Some thoughts on the Davis Cup 2008.

I was thinking while watching Djokovic win the Australian Open that Serbia could be a very dangerous Davis Cup team. His compatriot, Tipsarevic, took Federer to five sets and Zimonjic is a highly ranked doubles player.

Then I see they have Russia up first in the Davis Cup 2008 bracket. Hmmm, Russia could be out in round 1, if Djokovic decides to play Davis Cup.

That's the only seeded team I see falling in the first round, though. Maybe Belgium will lose.

Only three setters from QF in Aus Open '08 and US Open '07

I noticed that there were only 3-set matches from the Quarterfinals on in the men's US Open 2007 last year. That pattern has continued in the Australian Open 2008 (at least through the semi-final round).

Here's a graph:



I began to wonder what's going on here. It's as if when the QF arrive, the 4- and 5- set matches just vanish. There are fewer matches, so it's possible it's just variation on a normal curve, but BOTH tournaments?

It's not just that more of the matches include guys named Federer and Nadal, who are taking everyone out in three, though at least that could be partly the cause with Federer. This Australian Open, however, both those guys lost in straight sets in the SF round.

Is it just that the initial rounds are more competitive, with guys ranked between 30 and 80 just duking it out to more? Maybe, but often the top players are involved in the longer sets in initial rounds too. They just generally have the ability to come back from it, perhaps aided by less experienced players choking once they get a set or two.

Is it because guys are getting weary as the tournament wears on and just can't mount a come-back? That may have more to do with it. I don't know the answer, but I'm curious about what others think. It is not true about Wimbledon 2007. Does it only work for hard-courts?

Links: US '07 QF | Aus '08 QF