Stosur not your typical clay-court player
Ordinarily, this blog post would be about the final of the Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters, as that event had more heft than the WTA event in Charleston. But I worked the Rafael Nadal territory pretty fully last week, and just as expected, he demonstrated that on clay, he's money.
The result of the Family Circle Cup was improbable as well as far more intriguing. Slammin' Sammy Stosur whipped Vera Zvonareva in Charleston about as comprehensively as Nadal shanghaied Fernando Verdasco in Monaco. But predicting a Nadal-Verdasco final in Monte Carlo had a "Duh!" quality, while anyone who would have predicted that Charleston would wind up with Stosur and Zvonareva battling for the title could have been said to have a screw loose.
Let's start with this: The Family Circle Cup is a clay-court event, and although green U.S. clay (aka Har-Tru) is certainly faster than the red dirt of Monte Carlo or Paris, it's still clay. And the two women who played the Charleston final -- unlike the men in Monte Carlo -- could hardly be called clay-court experts. In fact, they both have a healthy, habitual desire to attack.
A cynic could put the result down to the mess that is the WTA -- the theory being that none of the very top players was in Charleston, and even if they were, you couldn't count on them to get the job done. So what? The significant thing is that in the WTA we seem to have a bizarre confluence of factors that make the game less predictable than ever before.
If you want to see the glass half-full, you put it down to the increasing depth on the WTA Tour; if you want to see it half-empty, you put it down to a combination of indifference among the top players and basic inconsistency (or is it incompetence?) among the hoi polloi.
Take your pick, but this fact towers above all the rest of it: The WTA seems to be producing more and more versatile players who can't be pigeonholed by surface preference and who play a satisfying brand of all-court and even attacking tennis.
Zvonareva, head case though she may be, has an almost Federer-esque willingness to hit whatever shot her mood calls for. And Stosur, despite some conspicuous limitations (such as a disturbing tendency to drill ordinary rally balls into the back fence), has learned to manage her shortcomings and become something that may be nearly impossible to aspire to in today's men's game: a careful, methodical, attacking player. In a way, she's the Mardy Fish of the WTA.
At the outset of Charleston, the tournament could be said to have been Caroline Wozniacki's to lose -- even if it wasn't quite as definitively as Monte Carlo seemed to belong to Nadal. And although the Woz had to default to Zvonareva in the semifinals (with an ankle injury), she was trailing 2-4 at the time and, perhaps significantly, suffered her injury trying to chase down an artful Zvonareva drop shot.
If you want to read into it, here's the text: Great defense (classic clay-court consistency if you prefer) was by no means guaranteed to earn Wozniacki a W. Those of you who remember how a host of successive champions, starting with the Nadal-esque Chris Evert, once dominated on clay by virtue of sheer consistency and mental toughness will understand what I mean when I say this isn't your mother's clay-court tennis anymore.
Maybe it's just an accident of history or a generational seam, but the result in Charleston supports the idea that stylistic diversity is the buzzword when it comes to the WTA these days. Think about it for a moment: Clay is, if anything, the Achilles' heel of Venus and Serena Williams as well as Maria Sharapova. Kim Clijsters is better on hard courts than clay. Justine Henin is still best on clay, but even she is a bit of an anomaly. You wouldn't call her a classic dirt-baller in any way, shape or form.
If the term "clay-court expert" (we should say "specialist" only about players whose results on clay are far and away better than on any other surface) is usually code for consistent, mentally tough, patient and, well, boring (to some), we no longer have clay-court experts on the WTA Tour.
In some ways, that's as welcome as it is startling.
(c)2010 ESPN Internet Ventures
Tennis player fined for lack of effort
HOUSTON -- Argentine tennis player Eduardo Schwank has been fined US$1,000 following his erratic play Wednesday at the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championship.
A seventh-seeded Schwank lost to fellow Argentine Juan Ignacio Chela 6-1, 6-7 (5-7), 6-1 in a second-round affair, as Schwank battled back problems and resorted to a series of drop shots and lobs en route to defeat.
The world No. 61 Schwank, who said his back has bothered him for a few days, was booed off the court after he foot-faulted on match point. The Argentine decided that he was not going to retire from the bout.
"I don't like to retire, that's why I just played until the end," Schwank said. "I'd rather stay on the court and lose on court."
Schwank earned $7,650 for reaching the second round in Houston.
torontosun.com
Top men's tennis players are faltering -- Roddick beats Nadal in MiamiAndy Roddick's 4-6, 6-3, 6-3 victory over Rafael Nadal on Friday in the semifinals of the prestigious tournament in Miami, Fla., underscores the problems the top men's players have been having this year.
Suddenly, the top five players, who seemed to own tennis not long ago, are vulnerable. Will someone take advantage and climb into that group, or will at least one of the five get it together and start dominating.
Nadal has slipped all the way to No. 4 in the current rankings, but because No. 3 Andy Murray lost in his opening match in Miami, Nadal will move up to No. 3 next week, even though he failed to reach the finals in Miami.
Roger Federer still has firm grasp on the top spot, and he did win the Australian Open, but he is not the dominant player he was a year ago. The Australian Open is the only tournament he has won so far in 2010, and he failed to reach the finals in his other three tournaments of the yeart. He lost to Marcos Bahdatis earlier this season and fell to Tomas Berdych in Miami, and neither of them is a top15 player.
Novak Djokovic is entrenched at No. 2, but he has reached the finals in only one of his five 2010 tournaments, and had not beaten anyone in the top 14. Losing his first match in the Miami tournament to Oliver Rochus, who is ranked No. 59, was particuarly unattractive.
Murray's loss to Mardy Fish in his opening match in Miami follows a series of struggles for Murray, who will be ranked No. 4 next week. He has not beaten anyone in the top 14 either, and along with the loss to Fish, Murray has a loss to Janko Tipsarevic this year.
No. 5 Juan Martin Del Potro has not played since losing in the quarterfinals of the Australian Open and pulled out of the Miami tournament with a wrist injury.
Of course, these top players are less interested in their results during the winter and spring events as they prepare for the Grand Slam tournament of the summer, but they still seem more vulnerable than usual.
Roddick, currently No. 8 in the world, is one of the few name players who seems to be on the upswing. He had lost his last three matches to Nadal, all in straight sets, and it looked like more of the same when he lost the opening set on Friday. But the 27-year-old American produced some of the finest tennis of his career after that to move into Sunday's finals. It's been a long time since Roddick has been in the top five, but perhaps he still has another surge left in his career.
Roddick was particuarly aggressive in the match after he fell behind, even playing serve-and-volley on ocassion, which is not typically his game. He won 12 points in the third set by coming to net.
The match turned when Roddick won the final 11 points of the second set, finishing it off with a 143-mph ace. Roddick had 15 aces in the match.
Copyright (c) 2009 Clarity Digital Group LLC
Serena Williams named WTA's top player in 2009
MIAMI -- World number one Serena Williams was named the 2009 WTA Player of the Year and shared Doubles Team of the Year with sister Venus at an awards ceremony on Wednesday.
Serena Williams won last year's Australian Open and Wimbledon singles titles while also reaching the US Open semi-finals and French Open quarter-finals.
Alongside Venus, Serena captured the 2009 US and Australian Open and Wimbledon women's doubles titles.
Belgium's Kim Clijsters took Comeback Player of the Year honors after her US Open title and won her seventh sportsmanship award from the WTA.
US teen Melanie Oudin, a 2009 US Open quarter-finalist, won Newcomer of the Year honors while Belgian Yanina Wickmayer took Most Improved Player honors and American Liezel Huber won her fourth career Player Service Award.
Russian Elena Dementieva won Fan Favorite Singles Player of the Year in an internet fan vote.
Copyright (c) 2010 AFP
Nadal sets sights on Miami after semi-final exit
INDIAN WELLS, California: Rafael Nadal's bid for a second straight Indian Wells Masters 1000 title ended with a semi-final exit on Saturday, but the Spaniard was encouraged by his first tournament in six weeks.
"You know, I have another tournament in Miami in a week," Nadal said. "I am feeling I am playing well enough to do something important there."
Nadal fell 3-6, 6-4, 7-6 (7/1) to Ivan Ljubicic, but remained full of confidence heading into the next elite Masters 1000 event of the season in Florida.
"I was playing well enough to win the tournament," said Nadal, adding that he needed to play more aggressively despite the windy conditions that prevailed during his match against Ljubicic.
"I have to learn to try to play more aggressive next time and try to convert the opportunities."
Nadal was playing for the first time since a knee injury forced him out of the Australian Open - while he was trailing Andy Murray in a tight quarter-final contest.
"I am happy how I did, you know, after the stop, being at home a few weeks, it's not easy to come back and play with this level, no?"
Nadal noted that his week included tough victories over American John Isner, who pounded down 22 aces, and Czech Tomas Berdych.
"So I'm happy about how I did," he said. "I am playing at my best level. I know that. But not today."
Nadal won't leave Indian Wells empty-handed.
He and good friend Marc Lopez triumphed in the doubles Saturday evening.
"After losing important singles, the victory in doubles makes me happy. It's always is nice to win the tournament."
Copyright (c) 2010 Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd
Hard-fought win for Fed
World number one Roger Federer avoided a second round upset to see off Victor Hanescu 6-3 6-7 (5-7) 6-1 at the BNP Paribas Open.
The Swiss player, who is a three-time title winner at Indian Wells, committed 39 unforced errors on his way to the hard-fought victory, which sees him join Britain's Andy Murray in the third round.
Federer appeared on course for a straightforward win when he broke Hanescu in the second game before closing out the first set in 30 minutes, but the 16-time grand slam champion was broken in the sixth game of the second as Romanian Hanescu fired a backhand return winner down the line.
Battle
Federer battled back to 6-6 but fell 0-3 behind in the tiebreak, which his opponent won 7-5 when the Swiss player sent a backhand long.
The top seed managed to restore normality in the third, however, breaking the Romanian in the second and sixth games to wrap up the victory.
"I was happy with the way I played," said Federer, who will face 27th-seeded Cypriot Marcos Baghdatis in the next round.
"I missed some of the clutch serving when I really needed it, couldn't really get that one perfect serve I was sometimes looking for, but that's something that happens.
"Victor did well to hang in there because I was all over him for at least a set-and-a-half and I could have made a difference really early in the match, and I didn't.
"I didn't play the best tiebreaker, but still had a small chance. I remained calm in the third, and I played good tennis."
An early casualty of the men's field was fifth seed Nikolay Davydenko, who withdrew from the tournament after being diagnosed with a fracture in his left wrist and could be out for up to a month.
Advance
Sixth seed Robin Soderling advanced after beating Evgeny Korolev 6-2 6-4, while seventh-seeded Andy Roddick disposed of qualifier Yen-Hsun Lu 6-4 6-4 to go through.
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga of France, the ninth seed, also progresses after seeing off Marinko Matosevic 6-1 6-3, but 12th seed Gael Monfils crashed out after losing 1-6 6-2 6-3 to Simon Gruel.
James Blake knocked out 13th seed David Ferrer 6-1 6-4, Jurgen Melzer ousted David Nalbandian 6-4 6-1, while Tommy Robredo, Dudi Sela, Thiemo De Bakker, Michael Russell, Nicolas Almagro, Albert Montanes and Feliciano Lopez also secured wins.
(c) 2010 BSkyB
Ken Rosewall: The Real GOAT? What About Roger Federer or Rod Laver?The last couple of years, tennis fans and pundits have been engaged in a GOAT debate.
Eurosport is even running a fictive GOAT tournament, where the readers decide who proceeds in each round - helped by tennis writer Simon Reed's own pick and analysis.
Is Federer the GOAT, ahead of all the other contenders?
More and more people, who buy into the argument of there being a GOAT, seem to believe so due to his play and to his records. The other top contenders for the title are the usual suspects: Rod Laver, Björn Borg, and Pete Sampras.
Most have left Sampras out of the discussion after Federer beat his Grand Slam record. After all, Federer has won on all surfaces and Sampras only made it to the semis of Roland Garros once.
But Borg is still mentioned.
The iceman retired early and there is a lot of speculation on what could have been. Heck, he only went to Australia once so in effect he was really just playing three Slams a year and retired early.
Furthermore, his win percentage overall in his career and in the Slams he entered, are slightly better than the Swiss Maestro's, though not by much. As Federer has continued to extend his Grand Slam record, even the name of Borg seems to have somewhat vanished from the GOAT discussion.
Now only one man is left: Rod Laver, the two-fold calendar GS winner (1962 as an amateur and 1969 as professional).
He stands at 11 Slams, but more importantly there are those five years from 1963-1967, where he was in his prime and was banned from the Slams as he turned pro as pro's weren't allowed to enter the Slams before the Open Era began in 1968.
How many could he not have won, if he had not shut himself out by turning pro?
More than 20 is often presumed.
Some say 25.
Tim Ruffin declares 19 to be the number given that he won eight pro Slams during his five years of the professional tour (Four times at the Wembly Pro Championship, three times the U.S. Pro Championship, and one time the French Pro Championship).
Problem is, we cannot simply add these to his existing 11.
Why?
Because he captured six amateur Slams, including one of his Calendar Slams, while the majority of the top players already had turned pro and thus were banned.
In Laver's 1962 Calendar Slam, Rosewall was equally impressing on the pro tour, winning seven of the eight most important tournaments.
In 1963 during Laver's first year on the pro tour, he lost his first eight meetings against Lew Hoad and 11 out his first 13 to Rosewall. He continued to be beaten throughout the year by Rosewall.
It's hard to imagine that Laver would have owned those players in 1962 or before had they been allowed to compete against him, especially, as there is widespread agreement, that the best pro's were better than the best amateurs.
Laver's 1963 record bears evidence to that.
However, did you notice that he did not have any Australian Pro Championships?
It did not exist.
We can make the following qualified guesses: Laver would have two of his six amateur Slams but he would have an extra three to four Pro Championships had there been an Australian Pro Championship (He won three-four times respectively on the other two Pro Championships played on grass).
Thus, we end up with 18-19 yet again.
But what about Rosewall?
Born in 1934, four years before Laver, he holds four Grand Slams as an amateur and four Grand Slams as a professional. However, whereas Laver won all his Grand Slam titles between 1960-69, in a decade he was clearly dominating, Rosewall won his between 1953 and 1972!!
Rosewall was banned from the Grand Slams for 11 years - a period in which he won 15 Pro Championships plus. We may imagine an additional number of the non-existing Pro Australian Championship, where he won four of his eight Grand Slams ( in '53, '55, '71 and '72).
But, we must also subtract a couple of Rosewall's amateur titles as Pancho Gonzales clearly was the No. 1 pro player throughout the 50's.
We end up with this estimate: one out of his four amateur Slams plus 15 Pro Slams plus five Australian Pro Slams (five Wembly, two U.S. (out of the six he played, he was absent for six years) and eight French Pro Championships), making it a total of 21.
Given his winning record in Australian Open, we might even put the Australian Pro's higher.
With statistics alone one could therefore argue that neither Federer, nor Laver is the GOAT.
Rosewall is.
But statistics alone doesn't do it.
Federer has clearly been the most successful tennis players of the last decade. Likewise was Laver in the 60's (being No. 1 from '64-'69) and Pancho Gonzales in the 50's.
That leaves Rosewall with no decade to dominate although he did dominate the early 60s and he did own the French Pro Championship. He won it eight times plus an additional two French Open's (some of the Pro's were on indoor wood, which is more remiscent to hard court than to clay). He did not even participate there in the 70's, where he won three other Grand Slams of his eight official Slams.
Rosewall did not have the almost decade-long dominance of Gonzales, Federer and Laver. But he did something neither of them did: He won Slams in three different decades and was in the top-20 for 25 consecutive years from 1952-77 both as an amateur and a pro.
Maybe he is not the GOAT, maybe the concept doesn't make sense. But if we are discussing it, at the very least, he deserves to be at the very top of the discussion.
After all, Laver's part in the discussion is always connected to him being the only one with two Calendar Slams (this is obviously not the only reason, but please show me an argument including Laver as the GOAT not mentioning this as one of the main reasons).
But it should be clear, that Laver would not have had two, but only one, had he been competing against top pro's like Rosewall in 1962.
The argument against both Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and all of the other old greats for that matter would obviously be the overall quality of the field, but that is the inevitable problem when you try to do the impossible: compare eras.
Copyright (c) 2010 Bleacher Report, Inc
|
