- 12:05 AM
- 12/19/24
Fitness-wise, I still don't think she's back to where she was in 2002-03, when she won four slams in a row and five out of six, but, as she proved in Australia, she doesn't need to be. This is what I meant when I said she obviously wasn't in shape. She's by no means a cow hoofing around, but she's also not exactly in her peak shape, fitness wise. You can never count Serena out, but from the 2005 Australian Open to the 2007 Australian Open, she was barely visible at Slams. She didn't make a single Slam QF in that entire two year span. She lost early at a Tier IV event (Hobart) earlier this year. She struggled mightily in her first two rounds against players she would usually smack off the court. She was a serious longshot, and she knew it, too. It started to feel like a destiny run in my mind when she beat Petrova and Peer in tough three-set matches. After that, it was all gravy for her. Now let's just see if she'll stick with it, or if she fizzles like she did in 2005. Venus has been known to come out of nowhere and win Slams, too.
posted by somethingotherthan at 09:53 PM on January 27, 2007
Serena Williams is obviously not in good physical shape, but then again she wasn't two years ago when she cruised to the title. I'm not so sure her win here means that women's tennis lacks depth so much as it means that Serena has the raw talent. If she ever devoted herself full-time to tennis, she could easily rule the roost just like she did in 2002. She moves from #81 in the world to around #14, I believe, with this win. The WTA doesn't have quality points anymore, and changed the points table for Slams to match the men's. All in all, quite an impressive performance. She's supposedly going to commit herself to tennis this year, so it will be interesting to see how she fits into the mix for the rest of the year.
posted by somethingotherthan at 12:31 AM on January 27, 2007
Actually, she made the final two days ago, Mr. Cutting-Edge. Heh. That'd be "Ms" to you, thank you :) And the Serb-Croat violence happened during the first part of the first week of this event. That's why I was surprised that this issue was discussed instead of Serena defying everyone (including tennis enthusiasts) and making the final.
posted by somethingotherthan at 11:45 AM on January 26, 2007
Blake has had some great matches over the past 3-4 years, but I still consider him a second tier player on the level of a Todd Martin. When he puts it together, he can be a thing to watch, but he lacks that extra gear to win a slam. I agree. It took him a long time to have a killer instinct at regular, optional events. He's 26 and he's never won a five-setter -- two strikes against a Grand Slam win.
posted by somethingotherthan at 11:41 AM on January 26, 2007
Can't wait to see the final -- I haven't seen any of Gonzalez's matches, but if he could beat Blake in straight sets, daaaaaaamn... I saw Gonzo vs Blake. It was amazing! Gonzo has always been a hard-hitter, but it was like he was brainless. With Larry Stefanki, he's learned how to put a game plan togoether and have a little margin for error in his shots. The way he's blitzed through the field has been just as amazing. Not just anybody can beat Nadal in straights, and make Tommy Haas (on a good little run of his own) look like a hacker. The final should be good stuff unless Gonzo freezes a la Ferrero at RG 2003.
posted by somethingotherthan at 11:40 AM on January 26, 2007
Not exactly on the cutting edge of tennis news here, are we? I expected a thread about "Fat Serena" making the final today instead of this.
posted by somethingotherthan at 01:15 AM on January 26, 2007
I haven't heard anyone complaining about the "new" surface; everyone plays on the same one, so it's kind of moot. Rebound Ace was a huge mistake. The rubberized surface not only reflects the heat back on the players fivefold (and anyone on court), but it's notorious for the foot and ankle injuries because of the "stickiness" of the court. Darren Cahill made a great point about it during last night's coverage. On what other court can you get blisters from the heat through a pair of tennis shoes and two pairs of socks?! That said, the tourney is quite progressive. The aforementioned heat policy, the way they dress all officials on court (from ballkids to the chair umpire), the sheer amount of ice they must go through is amazing. Rod Laver Arena and Vodafone Arena were the first courts of the Slams to have sliding roofs. And no matter the problems with the surface, Australia has committed to it fully: Cahill mentioned that all the state associations build their junior programs on Rebound Ace courts. The last major ended during the second week of September. Is four months really "jumping into" the next one? Well, the Masters Cup was in November. Not a Slam, but the next best thing (no matter what Miami thinks). Besides the great tennis, it was worth it to hear sweet Miss Sharapova utter an obscenity at the umpire. Sounded funny coming from her. It happens more than you know. Loved hearing the ESPN commentators sputter and backpedal when it happened, tho. he Aussie Open is promoted as "The Grand Slam of the Asia Pacific", which is a good marketing ploy given that more than half of humanity lives in this time zone, or close to it. It's a mutually good decision, for Australia and China. The next summer Olympics host has been pouring tons of money into the sport trying to develop their players; why wouldn't Australia want a piece of that pie? The tourney has also done more for the region as a whole, especially in the WC department. It's a great way to encompass the fastest-growing tennis market in the world.
posted by somethingotherthan at 07:50 PM on January 18, 2007
Any real tennis fan knows that coverage of said sport is so scarce and unpredictable that staying up late is well worth it. And if you can't stomach that, well, that's why TiVO (and those of us who are still old skool with our VCRs) was created. How many tennis fans bitched about that triple-OT basketball game a few nights ago? Each Slam is unique. Roland Garros is the endurance Slam. Wimbledon is the nostalgic-for-grass Slam. The US Open is the rowdy celeb-crammed Slam (with the "fairest" surface). The Australian is the "wacky" Slam. People come out of nowhere to score big results at this Slam more than at the others. Part of it is because of the surface (a real menace to the game if there ever was one), part of it is the heat (the only tournament in the world with a heat policy), part of it is because it's the third week of the season. This year, the play has been good, if not yet compelling, and the drama has been pretty high, between the five-setters and the heat. Darren Cahill is the best commentator since Jim Courier (now if only they'd dump Dicky Enberg...) It's been worth the lost hours of sleep to have the feeling of fandom come alive again.
posted by somethingotherthan at 07:38 PM on January 18, 2007
Round-robin play still feels "fake" to me, probably because before this bone-headed idea, it was in the domain of exhibition hit-n-giggles. The Slams will never go round-robin. That committee is about the only sane body left in professional tennis these days.
posted by somethingotherthan at 10:24 PM on January 08, 2007
FonGu writes: Saban is likely to find that the grass isn't greener in Alabama. Their boosters and alum are in the top 10 for collegic pains in the arse. They want another Bear, and they wanted him yesterday. Saban will be forced to produce quickly or they will send him out the door. Amen, and amen. You want proof? Dig up some local media from the last month or so. This story has been TOP NEWS ever since the Auburn-Alabama game back in November. (Oh God how they wanted Spurrier!) Alabama (the state) doesn't have any professional teams, so all of that rabid fanaticism and pride is funneled into college sports.
posted by somethingotherthan at 11:32 PM on January 03, 2007
I don't think that tennis ever really had a place in popular sports fandom in the US, though. A very true comment. Tennis is a niche sport here, with the stigma of being a pastime of rich white people retiring at the country club. Meanwhile, its the second most popular sport in a lot of other countries on the globe, following footy/soccer. That's why I've always been amused at the sportswriters who turn to tennis merely to write an article about how the decline of the American generation of tennis dominence means the end of the sport. It's lazy writing and it's lazy logic. Interesting in that it never misses a beat, but dull in the long run. While I believe dominance can be incredibly boring, Federer himself and his play on any given day is never dull. People won't realize what they've missed until he's gone.
posted by somethingotherthan at 05:36 PM on September 04, 2006
Chico, I agree wholeheartedly with you. People see what they want to see, and they want to mourn Agassi's retirement as the end of charisma in the sport. I'm sure his retirement from the game will continue to overshadow the rest of the event (how many people have been calling it the Agassi Open, after all?). For sportswriters, it merely means that they won't have to cover tennis again for the foreseeable future, unless it is to talk about its untimely demise. But for fans of the sport who know the players and who enjoy a wide variety of styles and personalities, the sport will endure (ATP threats notwithstanding). There are plenty of young players on the cusp of greatness (Gasquet, Djokovic, Monfils, even the likes of Sam Querrey), and lots of interesting players with loads of personality already out there (like Irakli Labadze or Jarkko Nieminen or Jonas Bjorkman). Of course, the ultimate irony of Agassi losing his last match to a "nobody" is the fact that two years ago, Benjamin Becker was denied a wildcard because he had the audacity to win the NCAA singles title instead of an American.
posted by somethingotherthan at 02:54 AM on September 04, 2006
That outfit deserved to stay in the archives. Ouch. There's a bet on various tennis boards that it wasn't Blake's idea, but Nike's, and that they had to pay rather handsomely to get Blake to wear it. Considering how much crap Domnik Hrbaty got for his pink ensemble last year, it's probably not that far off. As for mojo, Blake needs as much as he can beg, borrow, or steal, considering his play in recent weeks.
posted by somethingotherthan at 11:08 PM on September 01, 2006
what lame Boris Becker jokes are there? I want to see them. As goddam said, JMac brought 'em all out for us last night. Tune in right now for a rehash!
posted by somethingotherthan at 07:10 PM on September 01, 2006
lbb - Not in the first two sets and first three games of the third set, but he did get better in a hurry, gotta give him that. Still a ton of unforced errors. I got home from work and watched almost exactly that amount of the match, amazingly enough. Thus my assessment that Agassi would win easily, and that BagMan was being disappointing. I turned the station over to watch the equally crappy VMAs because a friend was doing a hilarious live blog. So imagine my surprise when I wake up this morning to the strains of USA Network and its continuing adoration for Agassi and his amazing insta-classic comeback. If Ernesto, who seems to be claiming the night session right now, sticks around for two or three days, the "Old Man" may yet have a chance. Especially if the USTA goes for some of that 2003-type scheduling.
posted by somethingotherthan at 07:07 PM on September 01, 2006
What? No lame Boris Becker jokes for the next round? lbb, I thought he *did* win in straight sets until I woke up this morning to the continuing lovefest on USA Network. He definitely made things harder on himself. Baghdatis was not exactly at his most impressive. I only wish DirecTV's interactive coverage lasted beyond the first week so that when Agassi does lose, I'd have a refuge from the horror that will be the main channel (CBS, USA, they will all react equally badly).
posted by somethingotherthan at 12:43 PM on September 01, 2006
Of course, you missed the best part: "Brickbats to ESPN for not following up on what their camera was reporting after the wild Serena Williams-Maria Sharapova final at the WTA Championships. Maria's dad Yuri runs on the court afterwards for the congratulatory hug, then does some joyful running around accompanied by maniacal arm-windmilling ala Pete Townsend, but then seconds later the ESPN cameras show the dad angrily mouthing f-bombs to someone else in the crowd and being restrained by his posse. Hey Cliff and Pam and Mary Joe, way to pretend that didn't happen. Also among the highlights was someone from the crowd bum-rushing the on-court trophy presentation, much to the entertainment of Serena who was doubled-over with laughter at the WTA staff's inability to stop the intruder... " (For all your snarky tennis news needs)
posted by somethingotherthan at 11:50 PM on November 16, 2004
A good article about the ATP's previous bans because of doping is this one from Tennis Week, a very respected voice in the international tennis media. Rusedski is different from the other cases because he has come out and proclaimed his innocence even though his name was not released into the media. The previous case that Rusedski speaks about, Bohdon Ulirach, was a public relations nightmare for the PR-struggling ATP, the governing body of men's tennis. And, of course, there has been a lot of pressure from world sport to crack down on doping, which has ravaged the world of athletics.
posted by somethingotherthan at 10:42 PM on January 09, 2004
Sami of course is typical Finnish class, but it seems to me that they've been gunning for him since the start of the season. His very first performances were criticized very harshly. Sorry to say this isn't surprising, just a bit disappointing. But, I guess the politics in footy can be downright nasty.
posted by somethingotherthan at 04:24 PM on October 15, 2003
It sounds like none of the four of them have any clue what the hell anyone is talking about. They don't. Because they don't fix matches or bet against themselves. Which is my point. How does this happen if someone's not working the inside? It's actually very easy to find out who is injured; usually there is some sort of announcement made through the player or his representative, or on-site reports from fans (the tennis network is pretty tightly woven on the net because of the absolute zero coverage it receives in the mainstream media). MY point is, I seriously doubt players are betting against themselves and then losing the match. Most of them are too proud to do that, especially those that are in the Top 100 in the world. Perhaps it is some other insiders, I don't know, but what I'm angry about is the accusation that players are either doing this themselves, or are somehow 'in on it'.
posted by somethingotherthan at 10:29 PM on October 14, 2003
But calling her a "joke" since 1998 is easily disproven when she went to five semis in 2002 and was the No. 4 ranked doubles player in 2000. In 4 weak events and 1 good event. This from the player lauded as a future Grand Slam champion since her Wimbly SF run in '96 and a former Top 10 player. She's gotten a lot of advantages for her two good years on tour that even top players today don't get to enjoy. To be fair, it's not her fault that she has a chronic back injury (though she's hardly the only one), and it's not her fault that people love to follow her around and speculate. But it does women's professional tennis a great disservice for her to have an on-again, off-again relationship with the game. The sooner she decides to leave, the better. When you get beaten by a 300-ranked player in the first round of a challenger event who can fun of your serve, it's time to hang it up.
posted by somethingotherthan at 10:24 PM on October 14, 2003
1) How does the tiering system work? How many players would start out at a normal tourney in the draw? Does making the semifinal of Tier IV or Tier II make you a serious player in the eyes of the rest of the tennis world? The WTA has 5 Tiers of tournaments. It's actually pretty complicated to explain, but I'll try to make it as simple as I can. Tiers are determined by ranking points and prize money, *not* necessarily by prestige. There are 10 Tier I events. These are considered the most "prestigious" tour titles, offer the most ranking points outside of Slams (Slams are under the control of the International Tennis Federation, so the tours don't have control over the prizemoney for them) & year-ending championships, and also offer the most money (at least a $1 million total purse). Tier II events are also considered pretty big titles, also give pretty hefty points, and have at least a $585,000 total purse. There are some strong Tier III events, but most of them are considered rather small titles. The total purse is only $170,000. Tier IV's ($140,000) and Tier V's ($110,000) are considered very small titles, and are usually won by journeywomen or average-ranked and average ability players. Top players usually do not play below the Tier III level. (The Williams sisters rarely ever play Tier II events, but then, they rarely play at all.) Below the 5 WTA tour level tiers, there are (in descending order) ITF challengers, futures, and satellites. Challenger events range from $25K to $75K for the women, futures are $10Ks and satellites are $5Ks (that's total purse for the event). ITF events don't count towards a players professional record. Draws -- don't get me started!! Usually it's a 32 player draw if its a Tier III or smaller. Tier II's and Tier I's vary from 48-player to 96-player. (For reference, Grand Slams have 128-player draws). Draws are made even more complicated since almost every event now gives out first round byes to at least the top two seeds. Haha, this is why I follow men's tennis, it's not nearly as complicated ;) 2) How is the ATP's Betfair scandal completely undeserved? The players don't deserve that, especially not the ones who's matches have been named. Tennis is an individual sport, and you are literally playing for a living. Unless you become a Top 50 player on either tour, you're doing good just to break even on the year with a full slate of events. It would be disadvantageous to bet against yourself and then tank the match -- especially since you can be fined for tanking the match -- especially in the early rounds of an event. The media has mishandled this whole deal (quelle surprise) and the players at TMS Madrid are now spending more time defending themselves and their friends than they are talking about their matches.
posted by somethingotherthan at 10:20 PM on October 14, 2003
Seeing her name opposite yours on a bracket is the same as playing one of these guys. I see you don't follow men's tennis with any regularity. You are right in your insult, but no need to drag the ATP's latest (completely undeserved) scandal into this. Two. She reached the semis or better five times in 2002. SFs were at Auckland (Tier IV), Tokyo PPO (very weak Tier I), Acapulco (Tier V), San Diego (Tier II), Shanghai (Tier IV). So, out of all those, 1 good result (San Diego) in an entire year. About par for the course in women's tennis. So no, he's right, Anna's been a joke for the better part of five years. She's been threatening to retire (or at least, her management company has been) for about two years now. She hasn't played since May (and a $25K challenger, where she lost in the first round) and she is far away from the Top 100. Even if she's waiting for an injury-protected ranking, it'll only be in the mid-70s, so it's not going to do her much good. Frankly, most of us in the tennis world aren't surprised by this news. It's not been a question of "what if", only "when."
posted by somethingotherthan at 04:18 PM on October 14, 2003
You guys have no idea how much this has been blown way out of proportion, even moreso in the tennis world. You want names? Read between the lines. Yevgeny Kafelnikov is gaining the brunt of the accusations, but almost every player named in the Telegraph's little summary has aroused suspicion. This week from Madrid, the players are striking back: Jarkko Nieminen Fernando Vicente Yevgeny Kafelnikov Feliciano Lopez
posted by somethingotherthan at 04:07 PM on October 14, 2003
It is truly amazing. She has defeated Smashnova twice this year, and then falls relatively easily--6-3, 6-2. And she doesn't look too happy about it, either. It's getting to the point where it's not only comical, but one wonders if the world would be thrown out of balance if Miss K won a professional singles title.
posted by somethingotherthan at 04:09 PM on September 15, 2002
In a word, worldcup: No. Anna Smashnova (from Israel) isn't exactly a difficult opponent, and it's not as if Kournikova has lost in the FIRST ROUND of the last 108 tournaments. If she gets to the quarters or semis, then we can talk turnaround.
posted by somethingotherthan at 08:29 PM on July 24, 2002
Well, tennis is the only sport I'm really knowledgeable about, and it doesn't really apply to your analogy. Tennis is just a hard sport to make a living on--you have to travel 35+ weeks out of the year, and the little tournaments just pay enough money to cover expenses. Breaking even is considered doing good. It is, however, an equal opportunity hardship between the genders. For every Venus & Serena, or Pete & Andre, there are 20 journeymen and floaters, and even more men and women scraping out a living on the level under the pro tour. With the grass roots programs and tennis academies across the world, it's no longer a rich man's game. Tennis careers also usually start and end young, so while a baseball or football player could play into their 30's and be set for the rest of their lives, a tennis pro can usually only survive until 31 or 32 (Agassi is the clear exception, just as Jimmy Conners was before him) and have to start a whole new career to support themselves. So, unfortunately, I can't really dispute your point knowledgeably. I do agree that better female athletes are coming into tennis, and other sports. I think as soon as some of the prejudices surrounding Title IX are dropped, and a new generation of fans starts demanding to see women play, there will be more opportunities.
posted by somethingotherthan at 08:36 PM on July 15, 2002
Vito, you had me in your corner til the very end. I think you exaggerate my point. But if not, just wanted to let you know that, indeed, I tuned in to rodeo and sumo wrestling when it was shown on ESPN. Not women's sports, but it's also not baseball.
posted by somethingotherthan at 04:06 PM on July 15, 2002
Once a generation or two of women athletes start . . . [to] tune into to ESPN rather than Oprah, we correspondingly will see more of it. Well, it's a pretty discouraging thing to tune into ESPN and see nothing but baseball 80% of the time. I don't like watching women's sports particularly, but I'd watch badminton over baseball any day. I think a small part of the problem is that the men's Big Four (football, baseball, basketball, hockey) have equal amounts of commentary before/during/after the game, if not more. If ESPN and the other sports networks would devote more time to all the different kinds of sports and less time to commentary, I think they'd see an increase of unique viewers attracted to different shows.
posted by somethingotherthan at 09:25 PM on July 14, 2002
Just wanted to add a very interesting note: This is the first time since 1922 that no American men have advanced to the second week of Wimbledon.
posted by somethingotherthan at 10:06 PM on June 29, 2002
Oh, I'd love to go to the final, but there's this problem of "living across an ocean" to contend with :)
posted by somethingotherthan at 05:38 PM on June 29, 2002
Sorry, that was 91 total points won to 6 unforced errors.
posted by somethingotherthan at 12:57 PM on June 28, 2002
Greg had 91 winners to 6 unforced errors, which is about as perfect as one can play a tennis match. Roddick and Andrei Pavel were the last of the seeds projected to get through to the round of 16, and neither did so. The highest seed left in the bottom of the men's draw is Nicholas Lapentti (#22). There are some other big servers that could threaten Rusedski (Mark Philippoussis, Richard Kraijeck, and Wayne Arthurs are all still left), but I'm starting to wonder if this is Rusedski's year to make a run. He's never gotten past the quaterfinals, but this has been the year of surprises. These guys are slated to meet on Sunday: G. Rusedski (#23) v. X Malisse (#27) M. Philippoussis v. R. Kraijeck D. Nalbandian (#28) v. W. Arthurs N. Lapentti (#22) v. A. Clement
posted by somethingotherthan at 12:56 PM on June 28, 2002
If you don't mind joining Yahoo, here's the group dh.net's webmaster started.
posted by somethingotherthan at 09:29 AM on June 27, 2002
WorldCup: all of the good new players coming up are even younger than I am--the European players start the tour at 16 or 17. You could always hold onto the fact that Jimmy Conners played well into his 30's :)
posted by somethingotherthan at 09:24 AM on June 27, 2002
Patrick: New word from the webmaster is that Daniela's people are working on an official site. I'll keep you updated :)
posted by somethingotherthan at 09:17 PM on June 26, 2002
Squealy: Sorry, I'm used to being about to read NYTimes because I've been on MeFi for about a year. I think the original logins for NYTimes was Metafilter/Metafilter. Ajax: "Inconsistent"? The fact that a lucky loser who couldn't even qualify for the draw beat the greatest grass court player of all time reveals just how DEEP the mens' field is. It's getting harder and harder to win matches, because everybody has brought up the level of "average". Pete is going to turn 31 during the US Open later this year. Very few players are successful enough to win majors into their 30s.
posted by somethingotherthan at 09:14 PM on June 26, 2002
And it appears I was right: "I wasn't at my best,'' [Pete] said. "But I felt like I was going to win the match, even though I was down two sets to love. "
posted by somethingotherthan at 05:48 PM on June 26, 2002
Neuroshred: I think Pete's sense of pride is getting in his way. At Indian Wells, Yevgeny Kafelnikov said he thinks it's about time to leave, and I think that hurt Pete's feelings a little bit. He said when he starts listening to Yevgeny, that's when he'll give it up, but I think Kafel got to him a little. Kafel also told ESPN then that Pete has signed on for a renewed contract with his clothing company, so he might go out with less than a whimper. I could only hope that this loss, at Wimbledon, will make him see what the rest of us see already.
posted by somethingotherthan at 05:37 PM on June 26, 2002
Dan: the webmaster of danielahantuchova.net said his server went bankrupt just a few days ago.
posted by somethingotherthan at 03:28 PM on June 26, 2002
This was definitely the day the seeds bled all over the courts at Wimbly. The only surprising loss, in my mind, was that of Agassi, in straight sets. Olivier Rochus has always given Marat Safin fits, and Pete Sampras didn't show up to his match until it was almost over. I've been wanting Pete to give it up even before his record 7th Wimbledon title. It's painfully obvious now that he's on the downward slope, and nothing he's done so far--change of coach and fitness routines--have helped him battle back. I say it's time for him to hang up his raquet and retire with a bit of dignity, but he probably won't do that. He says he'll play as long as he thinks he can still win a Slam--and coming into Wimbly, that thought was very strong in his mind. Agassi may be a year older, married, and a father, but he has rededicated himself 100% to the game, and still poses a threat in all the tournaments he enters. He's been down that road and back--but it's that rededication to fitness and practice that have carried Agassi over. Pete has never been one to practice before this year, and I think it might be too late. On another note, you really have to wonder if Tim Henman is being blessed this year. All of his potential final opponents have been knocked out, and though Lleyton Hewitt still lurks in his quarter, he's got to see that the draw has burst wide open and he has a GREAT chance and finally hoisting that trophy.
posted by somethingotherthan at 03:25 PM on June 26, 2002
BigCalm: Actually, Timmy got a break with is draw this year--of all the favorites, his is definitely the easiest. He is projected to meet Thomas Johansson (Aussie Open winner) in the quarters, then possibly Lleyton Hewitt or Roger Federer in the semis. That's some major cruising! He would not meet Agassi, Sampras, Kafel, or Safin until the finals. It's basically his tournament to lose here for a few rounds. Adam: She did some pouting yesterday in the BBC booth after her match.
posted by somethingotherthan at 10:02 AM on June 25, 2002
worldcup: I know, no harm done. :) Patrick: I'll agree that Daniela is a good-looking girl. If she whips out the outfit she wore during her quarterfinal match at the French, she'll really have you drooling!
posted by somethingotherthan at 09:18 PM on June 24, 2002
Not to ruin the boyzone atmosphere (I should have known better than to come into a thread about Ahhh-na, heh), but here are my predictions: MEN'S SINGLES: Winner: Tim Henman=it's about time for the Englishman to make his country proud, and he hasn't had a better chance in years Darkhorse: Roger Federer=knocked out Pete last year, and has a great game for all surfaces. He's only 20, though Outside Pick: Jonas Bjorkman=won tune-up at Nottingham last week But You Can't Count Out: Andre Agassi, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin=all previous Grand Slam winners with top games and great potential; Lleyton is still a bit young on the grass and Marat has been known to mentally check out at times LADIES' SINGLES: Winner: Jennifer Capriati=it's about time for her to break on through and win this one Darkhorse: Daniela Hantuchova=the tall Slovak has already scored a big win this year and has won a few GS mixed titles; only 18 and this is her first Wimbly singles event Outside Pick: Kim Clijsters=has advanced to the quarters before, but more suited to clay & hardcourts than grass But You Can't Count Out: the Williams sisters, Justine Henin, Monica Seles=the Williams are dominating right now, having won 5 of the last 8 Grand Slams between them, and Venus is the defending champion; Justin Henin was the surprise finalist last year and she has a game for grass; Monica Seles might just have another Slam in her somewhere.
posted by somethingotherthan at 04:21 PM on June 24, 2002
What happens in Vegas...
The problem with the round robin system they are using is that there are 8 groups of 3 players, with one player from each group advancing to the quarterfinals. In the event of a "dead match" between two players, one of whom already advanced to the QF, a rule was instated that said retirements or withdrawals would automatically eliminate the retiring/withdrawing player and void any of his group results. Confusing enough for you yet? In Adelaide, the first event of the year and the first to try to round-robin format, Joachim Johansson gleefully blogged about how to game the system with losses and win anyway (scroll down to Friday’s entry). Indeed, he had to rely on the other two players in his group to advance to the QFs that week. At Delray Beach, eventual champion Xavier Malisse lost his last round-robin match after qualifying for the QFs, admitting that it felt strange to win a title after losing a match, and that he didn’t feel motivated to play his final match after qualifying for the QFs. The craziness really started in Buenos Aires (can you decipher that draw sheet?), after a rash of player withdrawals crippled the system. “Nicolas Devilder will contest his first career ATP quarterfinal after the 26-year-old Frenchman topped Group 8, following No. 2 seed Juan Carlos Ferrero's 6-3, 6-3 win over Czech lucky loser Lukas Dlouhy in 64 minutes. Devilder, who battled through the Main Draw Elimination round earlier in the week, beat Ferrero in three sets in round robin action on Wednesday.” (via) The only problem? Devilder left the country before that Ferrero-Dlouhy match took place and was reported missing overnight. Ferrero was due to play Nicolas Lapentti, but Lapentti withdrew before their match, meaning his results were voided, and Ferrero was also screwed because his results would be voided, as he would not face the original third player in his group -- thus, he never had a chance to play for the QFs. So – Ferrero was on site, Devilder was not, and it took a few frantic phone calls to confirm Devilder’s location and get him back to the tourney site! Needless to say, not only were the players in Las Vegas upset about what happened, but Roger Federer has added his two cents as well. James Blake lost a few fans himself after some of the comments he made on the Tennis Channel and in his press conferences while this whole fiasco was being sorted. He thought it was a "common sense decision" for him, the top seed, defending champion, and big draw, to be reinstated into the QFs as he probably would've won his last match anyway.