Goodbye to Super Mario

Mario Ancic is living proof that not every tennis player's story is a fairy tale.

He was a world #1 junior. He made the boys' finals of the Australian Open and Wimbledon in 2000, losing to Andy Roddick and the marvellous Nicolas Mahut respectively. He was Croatia's heir to Goran Ivanisevic, and like Ivanisevic, it seemed that he had a destiny.

He beat Roger Federer at Wimbledon in his first ever Grand Slam match, and I bet there's a few guys out there that will tell you that that is something which is a bit hard to do. He won a Challenger in Hamburg in 2003, which seems like a little thing... until you realise that the other finalist was some dude called Rafael Nadal. He made the Wimbledon semis in 2004. He won a bronze medal in doubles with Ivan Ljubicic at the Athens Olympics.

And that's not even his career years yet. His career high ranking was #7, and he deserved it. Mario Ancic was a fantastic player. He won titles at St Petersburg and s'Hertogenbosch (twice). He was so, so close to making the Masters Cup a couple of times. He was basically made of pure awesome and the train did not seem like it was about to stop.

But then came the monster that every tennis player fears. Injury. Illness.

Glandular fever. Broken bones. An ongoing back complaint. The mind was willing but the flesh was weak. Though weak is not the right word for it - Ancic forced his way back up to about #24 in the rankings for a while there. But he was never the same again.

Yesterday, Mario Ancic announced his retirement from professional tennis. At the age of 26, he is walking away from the sport. His body can no longer take it. The monsters won in this fairy tale. In terms of tennis, there is no happy ending here.

This does not mean that a) Ancic cannot be proud of his achievements, because he did really, really well in his time on tour, and b) that there are not bright things ahead for Ancic. From 2002-2008, Ancic was studying law as well as playing tennis, and he submitted his thesis on the legal underpinnings of the tour in 2008. He's probably one of the foremost experts in the world now on tennis and law, and I think that there is definitely a very, very excellent future for Ancic there. He might be done with playing the sport, but tennis and Ancic will continued to be linked for some time yet.

It's still really sad, though. It makes you realise that injury and illness can happen to any player out there - even the bright young things who seem to have all their career still ahead of them. We might not have seen much of him for the last few years, but we're still going to miss Mario Ancic. He was a big player with a big game and a big heart, and people like him will always, always be missed.

Going Solo

The Amir Weintraub column has really made me think. (See yesterday's post, if you are all like 'who is this Amir Weintraub of whom you speak?') The difference between life for a player ranked #25 and one ranked #250 is something I found very, very striking. Hence devoting that whole post to it yesterday and stuff.

One thing which I found particularly remarkable and that I thought deserved a little more space was the fact that players on the Challengers and Futures tours generally can't afford to bring their coaches with them. Weintraub notes in his column that some people do travel with huge entourages - sometimes they're top echelon players on their way back, other times guys who are somehow scraping the money together because they are so desperate to succeed - but for most dudes like Weintraub, it's a solo act. He brings his coach with him to a tournament in Israel - where he's from - and even that is a massive financial stretch.

I talked a bit yesterday about the striking link between tennis and money - the top guys earn heaps and never have to think about it, the little guys earn pretty much nothing and are constantly pre-occupied with it as a result - but that's not so much what I want to talk about here. I often say that one of the reasons I love tennis so much is that it's a true gladiatorial battle. Two people walk onto a court, with only their wits and their abilities to recommend them. Two men enter. One man leaves. Welcome to Thunderdome.

In the upper echelons of the game, people travel with massive entourages. Not only do they have coaches, but they have fitness trainers and physiotherapists and all kinds of crazy things - quite apart from their families. But when you get down to the satellite tour, all there are are the players. They might have coaches, but they're not there. They truly are alone.

I don't know if this somehow makes satellite tennis a purer form of the game or whatever, but the court must be a very lonely place for people down there. If you're a top seed playing on Rod Laver Arena or Court Philippe Chatrier or wherever, you might be by yourself on the court, but you've got a whole support team who've carried you there. They're there looking down on you, and even though they can't help you on the court - much as they might try to help you, coaching warnings be damned - you know they're there and that they're there for you. And there's a whole crowd to carry you too.

Let's cross over to the satellite tour. No coach. No player's box. Probably not even a crowd. Just you. You are all you have to depend on.

And in a way, that's kind of awesome. Not that players shouldn't have coaches or coaches should be banned from matches or whatever - nothing crazy like that. I'm not suggesting a revolution. But there's something very appealing to me about the idea that you - your mind, your body, your skills - are literally all you have to depend on.

Which is why on court coaching is such a freaking stupid idea. (Sorry. Had to get that dig in there.)

It must be horribly, horribly hard to be so alone. But in a way, it must be character building too. If you can survive all by yourself on the satellite tour with nothing but yourself to depend on... if and when you make it to the top echelon of the game, you'll be tougher for it. And a player who can throw down when the chips are down, who knows that if they're in a hole, they'll have to dig themselves out of it... that's the makings of a good tennis player, right there.

The Oncoming Storm

It's hard to let go of the Slam year. 2010 is, for all effects and purposes, over. We have learned what we are going to learn over the best of five sets thing, and now it's time to phone it in till the end of the year.

Or, if you are that way inclined, pick up some points, and that would not be the worst thing in the world ever to do, Mr I-Would-Be-Ranked-6-if-I-hadn't-won-the-Australian-Open.

And it's a time when we should be reflecting on what we've learned, but I'm not very reflective. Instead, I'm restless.

What have we learned? Well, we have learned that Rafa Nadal is a force to be reckoned with, and outside of being that guy that always denies Federer at the most inopportune times, we need to start talking about him as a great player in his own right. We have learned that Andy Murray might not, contrary to popular belief, ever win a Slam. We have learned that when Serena's out of the mix, just about anyone can win a WTA Slam... but when she is in the mix, you have to pull out something pretty special to beat her.

These are all valid lessons to have learned, but even though the year is effectively over, I have the feeling that we're not quite done with 2010 yet. Rafa has year end #1 all sewn up and I wouldn't be betting against Serena on the women's side, but there's the sense that there is something coming. Surprises are in store.

There's a storm coming. I couldn't tell you what it is, whether it will be for the ATP or the WTA or both, or whether I am just making this up, but I have the feeling that 2010 isn't quite finished yet. We may not have the big tournaments left to warrant it, but there are still a few surprises left in store for us this year.

The Asterisk Problem

It really hasn't been a good news weekend so far. There's a hung parliament in Australia, Tony Abbott might end up being the Prime Minister, Serena and del Potro are definitley out of the US Open...

I won't subject you to my whinging on Australian politics, but if you want whinging about the absence of these two key figures from the year's last Slam, then you have come to the right place. I don't believe in the concept of the asterisk - you know, when someone wins but it's with reservations because of something that happened, like Amelie Mauresmo in Australia in 2006 when Justine Henin retired in the final - but the US Open is just not going to be the same without these two.

We kind of already knew del Potro wasn't going to be there, so this is hardly surprising. And ordinarily, I wouldn't really be too bothered. I managed to get through all of Roland Garros and Wimbledon without missing Delpo at all (in fact, sometimes I'm pretty sure I forgot he even existed). But New York is a different matter. He's a defending champion. And while that has its own mystique but doesn't actually necessarily mean anything given the field, I find that we do miss him more on hard courts. He's a bigger force here than anyone else. You never know what's going to happen when Delpo steps on court. And I think that level of volatility will be missed.

But the real shocker is, of course, Serena.

I didn't expect this one, and I spent some time going 'oh no, both defending champions are out' until I realised that Serena was not, in fact, the defending champ. I just sort of assume she won something if I can't quite remember who won at that moment (sorry, Kimmie) and that, right there, is one of the reasons she'll be missed. In Serena, you always know you have a Slam contender. Sometimes, given the nature of the WTA, she's the only Slam contender you have. One of the things I like most about Serena is that she wins things, she doesn't just lose last. And that is what I am afraid is going to happen at the US Open.

Of course, we could have another Clijsters or Schiavone fairy tale victory. Who knows what will happen? It will definitely be a surprise and that will be exciting. But without Serena - and, for that matter, without Henin - I'm a little worried the WTA will be she who loses last, not she who wins.

Serial Sportsman

The results of the ATP awards are out for another year, and once again, my man Roger Federer has cleaned up. Not only is he Player of the Year (which we knew, because, hello, rankings) but he was also voted Fan Favourite and won the award for sportsmanship as well. That award is named after Stefan Edberg because he won it five times in eight years, or something similar.

Roger's now won it six times in a row.

I read an article the other day about a guy who said that he didn't love Roger, even though he recognised the awesomeness of Federer tennis, because he basically regarded Roger as a serial gamesman. He cited examples like the whole Britain not winning a Slam in 150,000 years comment as evidence of the fact that Roger engaged in gamesmanship and was somehow allowed a free pass because his tennis was so awesome. (And then - slightly off the point, but still - went on to say that Roger was OMGarrogant because he remarked that he was a 'talented' player. Roger admitted he was talented? OHNOTHEGO! Spew.)

To refute that, the notion that Federer is a gamesman who gets wins by messing with his opponents and playing dirty, I think you have to look no further than this award. It isn't people on the outside voting for this one - it's Roger's peers, the guys he sees day in, day out... you know, the guys that would get really, really pissed off if he was some kind of serial gamesman. But no. Six times in a row.

Ain't no one can claim that Roger Federer is a bad sport or some kind of bad example. Not in my book.

For me, that sportsmanship award is the most telling when it comes to statesmanship, but I don't think you can overlook the Fan Favourite award as well. People don't necessarily vote for Roger in this award because he is the best player in the world, even though he is. They vote for him because he is Roger, good example, good player, good guy. Tennis could not have a worthier king.

What We Have Learned

There are tournaments going on this week - shout out to my man Peter Luczak for pulling an upset in Chile - but let's face it, no one really cares about them at the moment. It is over, but it is still, as always after a Slam, all about the Australian Open.

So let's have a look back at what we learned from this Slam, the first of 2010, and what it tells us about the year.

Let's start with the ladies. What has Australia taught us? Well, it's taught us that someone who stepped away from the game for the better part of two years can come back and reach the final. Actually, scratch that. We learned that last year when Kim Clijsters won the US Open. Justine Henin's run to the final here merely reinforced it. Not that there is anything 'mere' about Justine - her performance was mighty. She is truly talented and she has pulled off some truly spectacular results.

But there is something deeply wrong about a tour where players can come back so quickly and so hard and overcome nearly every possible obstacle in the way. If there wasn't a Serena Williams in the world, then Justine Henin would have pulled this off. The tour hasn't set out to make things easy for the Belgians, obviously, but the fact remains that both Kim and Justine have been able to pull it off, and that really, in an elite sport, shouldn't happen. There are very few women who are legitimately Slam contenders at the moment - Serena, Venus if the tournament begins with 'Wimble' and ends in 'don', Sharapova if she catches fire, Kuznetsova if she avoids erratic performers. For Kim and Justine to skip immediately into that top pool... well, that's fabulous for them, and an amazing achievement, but in a tour that was up to scratch, it really shouldn't have happened. People shouldn't be able to sail right back to the pinnacle of elite sport bam! like that.

So allez Belgium! And huge congratulations to Serena, who is really the one person holding up her end of the WTA bargain. Everyone else... lift your game. Please.

To the men now, where things are much brighter. I think the women's game looks so dull nowadays because men's tennis is undoubtedly in a golden age. Before the tournament, people were saying there were legitimately twelve contenders for this Slam. I would have narrowed it to eight - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, del Potro, Davydenko, Roddick and Tsonga - but the fact remains that there are a lot of excellent players at the moment, champing at the bit to reach the upper echelons. There is talent and amazing tennis everywhere.

But what did Australia teach us?

It taught us that Roger Federer really still is a cut above the rest.

Don't worry, I'm not going to turn this into another slurred wineglass-waving ramble on how amazing Federer is... I think I've done that enough over the past few days! But my personal bias aside, he is one of the safest bets in modern sport. He hasn't lost before the semis in a Slam since 2004. Two thousand and freaking four. That is a long time ago. With this victory, he has now won a Slam every year for the past eight. And, oh yeah, he has sixteen Slams, which is more than anyone ever.

He was tested in this tournament by people who were definitely form players coming in - Davydenko, Murray, even Tsonga. He had a totally unenviable first round draw in Andreev. And every time - every time he was under pressure, he came up trumps. What really came to the fore in this tournament was his mental strength - yet another part of his spectacular game that is underestimated. You cannot overstate the value of calm under pressure, and that is where so many of the other men in the draw fell down.

Another thing that came to the fore was just how tough the game of tennis is. We saw Rafa's knees give on him. We saw Jo Tsonga and Marin Cilic burn out because of too many long, long matches. We saw Djokovic drive himself to vomiting... though the Djokovic constitution never seems to have been particularly hardy. This highlights, once again, the amazingness of Federer, because he just really hasn't had these problems. Whether it's fitness, or good scheduling, or just good luck... or a combination of all three! - the fact remains, and was reinforced by this tournament, that Federer, quite simply, is betterer. And the field has got a lot of chasing to do.

A Question Of Consistency

I'd just, for a moment, like to compare the tournament in Kuala Lumpur currently to the one in Tokyo. Look at the semi finalists. In Kuala Lumpur, we have the top four seeds into the semis, wham bam thankyou ma'am - Davydenko, Verdasco, Soderling and Gonzalez. And the top six made it to the quarters, the only 'wild' cards being Youzhny and Gasquet, and, let's face it, they're much higher quality than their rankings would have you believe.

Tokyo has redeemed itself a bit - Jankovic vs Sharapova is a very respectable final - but you've got to think that the tournament organisers are breathing a sigh of relief after the total mess they had earlier in the week. And still, even though it's Jankovic/Sharapova, that's the #7 seed against someone unseeded. That's certainly not top four in the semis.

Not that there's anything wrong with some upsets and unpredictability. But the way the WTA is playing at the moment, the top girls can't win a match. They're almost underdogs when they go into a match - sometimes it feels like the real leaders of the tour are the ones in the #20-#50 range: ie. the ones doing the upsetting. Being in the top ten is almost a curse at the moment, it seems.

The point I am trying to make, I guess, is the hugely different consistency level across the two tours. In the men, the top four in the semis is pretty standard. Sure, it may be a little predictable sometimes, but people are showing they earn their spots. The WTA... the ranking system seems like a bit of a Russian roulette. And I don't know how long this can keep up before we see a complete change of the guard in the top ten.


Today's Results

PTT Pattaya Open (Bangkok)

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga def. Marco Chiudinelli, 6-7 (7-9) 6-3 6-4
Gilles Simon def. Evgeny Korolev, 4-6 6-3 6-4
Jurgen Melzer def. Andreas Beck, 6-4 6-2
Viktor Troicki def. John Isner, 7-6 (7-3) 6-2


Proton Malaysian Open (Kuala Lumpur)

Nikolay Davydenko def. Gael Monfils, 6-3 6-3
Fernando Verdasco def. Richard Gasquet, 7-5 6-4
Robin Soderling def. Tomas Berdych, 6-2 6-2
Fernando Gonzalez def. Mikhail Youzhny, 6-3 6-4


Toray Pan Pacific Open (Tokyo)

Jelena Jankovic def. Li Na, 6-4 6-3
Maria Sharapova def. Agnieszka Radwanska, 6-3 2-6 6-4

Comebacks in the Not-Golden Age

Nothing as major as the seed bloodbath we saw yesterday, but another big women's name made the long journey out of the tournament today - Victoria Azarenka, one of the widely touted next best things, goneski. Now, readers of this blog will know I am pretty much totally anti-Azarenka due to her repellent attitude, but this really is a shame. This means that over half the women's top twenty seeds are out. What kind of tournament is that?

This is why comeback makers like Clijsters and Sharapova have such a chance at this tournament. The players that are theoretically the top players are sweeping themselves under the carpet before they even come close to playing these comeback queens. (That said, Clijsters vs Venus in the round of sixteen is totally mouthwatering, and I am coming out right now and saying that Kim Possible is going to take it. Oh yes.)

Then we look at the blokes, and the top ten is totally intact (Rafa is still battling Nicolas Kiefer as I write this, but he's looking in decent shape), and we've only lost two top twenty seeds en route to the round of thirty two (that I noticed, anyway - Ferrer and Wawrinka). The dudes are stepping up to the plate like they should. This is testament to the totally different places men and women's tennis are in at the moment. Men's tennis is in a Federer-led golden age, where we have incredible depth and talent floating around (any world where someone who is playing as sharp as Roddick is right now can be ranked less than #1 is a pretty amazing world). And women's tennis... is not in a golden age.

To say the least.

That said, I think the result of the US Open on both sides is going to be very interesting. I think there are six major contenders on the men's side (some more major than others) and they are ranked one through six in the world. On the women... Serena has to be the favourite, and then there's Venus, and it's trendy to leave Dinara out of the mix, but after my post yesterday we all know I'm a Safina believer, and she's still there, which is more than can be said for some of her compatriots... maybe C-Woz, and definitely Sharapova and Clijsters. There are contenders... just not the usual suspects.

Bit of a change of subject now... one guy - who I don't think will win the US Open, but who put in a tremendous effort today - who deserves a shoutout is Taylor Dent. His game is boring as hell but he fought tooth and nail against Ivan Navarro today and came out on top. Though I hate fifth set breakers. They seem so... arbitrary. Give me an epic fifth set any day of the week.


Today's Results

US Open (Flushing Meadows)

Men's Draw

Andy Murray def. Paul Capdeville, 6-2 3-6 6-0 6-2
Juan Martin Del Potro def. Jurgen Melzer, 7-6 (10-8) 6-3 6-3
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga def. Jarkko Nieminen, 7-5 6-3 6-4
Gilles Simon def. Thomaz Bellucci, 6-3 6-2 6-4
Fernando Gonzalez def. Josselin Ouanna, 6-4 6-7 (5-7) 6-3 6-4
Gael Monfils def. Andreas Beck, 6-3 7-5 6-3
Marin Cilic def. Jesse Levine, 4-6 2-6 6-0 6-3 6-0
Tomas Berdych def. Horacio Zeballos, 6-3 6-7 (3-7) 7-6 (7-2) 6-2
Jose Acasuso def. David Ferrer, 6-3 3-6 1-6 6-3 6-2
Juan Carlos Ferrero def. Philipp Petzschner, 1-6 3-6 6-4 6-2 6-4
Julien Benneteau def. Viktor Troicki, 6-1 3-6 6-1 6-0
Nicolas Almagro def. Robby Ginepri, 6-7 (9-11) 6-2 6-3 4-6 6-4
Taylor Dent def. Ivan Navarro, 6-4 5-7 6-7 (1-7) 7-5 7-6 (11-9)
Denis Istomin def. Nicolas Lapentti, 2-6 6-4 4-6 7-5 7-6 (7-4)
Daniel Koellerer def. Pablo Cuevas, 3-6 6-2 6-1 6-4


Women's Draw

Serena Williams def. Maria Jose Martinez Sanchez, 6-3 7-5
Venus Williams def. Magdalena Rybarikova, 6-2 7-5
Vera Zvonareva def. Elena Vesnina, 6-2 6-4
Francesca Schiavone def. Victoria Azarenka, 4-6 6-2 6-2
Flavia Pennetta def. Aleksandra Wozniak, 6-1 6-1
Li Na def. Maria Kirilenko, 6-4 6-2
Daniela Hantuchova def. Vania King, 6-2 6-2
Kim Clijsters def. Kirsten Flipkens, 6-0 6-2

An Exercise in Predictability

Talk about totally predictable. In the quarter-finals in Barcelona we have the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7 and #9 seeds. The one odd man out is Radek Stepanek, #9 seed, who knocked out the #8 seed, Stan Wawrinka, last week's Federer conqueror. How long has it been since we saw a tournament fall so cleanly?

*

It's not a bad thing that we rarely see a clean fall of the draw like this - unlike the WTA, where it is a symptom of the headcaseness sweeping the top #10. In the ATP, it shows the level of depth - because there is a huge level of talent going all the way down through the top twenty... maybe even the top fifty or hundred. We usually see some of that top echelon through - you can generally bet at least two of that top four make it through, if not three or all of them - but the rest of the quarter/semi finalists? Could be anyone.

*

One thing did surprise - and disappoint - me in Barcelona, though. I've talked before about clay being a leveller - you have more specialist players on this surface than on any other, who really come into their own on the red stuff. And the captain of the dirtballing crew - Rafa aside, who totally transcends the title of captain and has become something like an emperor or a god - is Nicolas Almagro, the Prince of Clay. And what has he done so far this season? Big fact nothing.

*

He went out to David Nalbandian in the round of sixteen - who promptly handed his quarter final match to Rafa in a walkover with a hip injury. So, although no one can gainsay the prowess of Nalbandian, this has been Almagro's turf for quite some time now. And Dave beat him. On one leg. Something's not quite right with this picture.

*

Perhaps I'm expecting too much of Almagro. I'd never make this kind of demand on him in any other part of the season. But he has brought so much in the previous couple of seasons - c'mon Nicolas, bring it back and bring it on!

*

*

Today's Results

*

Barcelona Open Banco Sabadell (Barcelona)

*

Rafael Nadal def. Christophe Rochus, 6-2 6-0

Fernando Verdasco def. Tomas Berdych, 7-5 5-7 6-4

Nikolay Davydenko def. Feliciano Lopez, 7-6 (10-8) 3-6 6-4

David Ferrer def. Potito Starace, 4-6 7-5 6-2

Fernando Gonzalez def. Juan Monaco, 7-6 (8-6) 6-3

Tommy Robredo def. Igor Andreev, 4-6 6-2 6-3

David Nalbandian def. Nicolas Almagro, 6-3 6-4

Radek Stepanek def. Stanislas Wawrinka, 6-4 1-6 7-5

State of the Game

I've ranted a lot about the state of the women's tour at the moment - as has just about every tennis writer on the planet, I think. But do you know the reason the women's tour looks so bad? It's because the men's tour is so damn good.

*

Look at the quarter finalists in Miami. Every single member of the top eight seeds, with the exception of Gilles Simon, has made it to the quarter finals. The odd man out is Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, and you've got to think that his tenth ranking is more because he was out with injury last year than anything else. How good is that? And while having the top eight line up bang bang bang doesn't happen every tournament, there's usually a few of the usual suspects there. Nadal. Federer. Murray. Even Djokovic, though he's been scattier of late. And it's not because this lot is so far ahead of the field - though you have to say that a couple of them certainly are. There's a level of consistency. And the depth of talent in the men's field is such that pretty much anyone can make it a few rounds and have it not be a surprise.

*

I've read things that say that the current state of the women game is due to the incredible depth there. I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. The top women's players at the moment aren't being beaten. They're losing. Would anyone gainsay that?

*

But the strange thing is that no one seems to be benefiting. With players like Jankovic, Ivanovic and even Safina losing so regularly, it stands to reason that they should fall out of the top ten. Instead, Safina is on the verge of #1. People are beating the top girls but somehow no one is making good on it. We should be seeing a reshuffle at the top. We're not. And I can't even critique the lack of this reshuffle and the rankings system, because I can't think of anyone that should be there in their places. The amount of one-win wonders in the WTA... well, I haven't seen that on the men's tour for some time.

*

My message? The ATP isn't just in a good place right now because of Federer and Nadal. The whole pack of them are really, really strong right now. As viewers of men's tennis, we could not be alive at a more interesting time.

*

*

Today's Results

*

Sony Ericsson Open (Miami)

*

Men's Draw

*

Rafael Nadal def. Stanislas Wawrinka, 7-6 (7-2) 7-6 (7-4)

Roger Federer def. Taylor Dent, 6-3 6-2

Andy Roddick def. Gael Monfils, 7-6 (7-2) 6-4

Juan Martin Del Potro def. David Ferrer, 6-3 6-2

*

*

Women's Draw

*

Serena Williams def. Li Na, 4-6 7-6 (7-1) 6-2

Victoria Azarenka def. Samantha Stosur, 6-1 6-0

250: Almost But Not Quite

So does anyone understand this new ATP system?
*
I was totally down with it before - you had your Grand Slams, you had your Masters Series events, then you had all the other ones (International Series, I think they were called.) But now we've seemed to move into some whicketty-whack new age. Grand Slams are still the same - I think there would be some serious protesting if that got messed around with - and I think I get that 1000 events are analogous to Masters Series events, but what, WHAT is the difference between a 500 event and a 250?
*
My interest is piqued after reading a story about Rafa presenting a plaque to the tournament director of Rotterdam to mark the first 500 event on the ATP world tour. Fine and dandy - but what does that mean? Why does Rotterdam get to be a 500 while Costa do Sauipe and San Jose are only 250? Who made that call? Why did they make that call? Rotterdam is sweet, yeah - but is it special?
*
You know what's going to happen, yeah? The top guys are all going to flock to the 500 tournaments and not play the 250s, which means we're basically going to create another circuit level between ATP and Challenger, the almost-but-not-quite. I appreciate that the tier system has worked okay over in the WTA… but seriously, what was wrong with the old system, ATP guys?
*
(Oh, and kudos to Brydan Klein for winning a Challenger tournament! Onya!)
*
*
Today's Results
*
ABN Amro World Tennis Tournament (Rotterdam)
*
Andreas Seppi def. Thiemo de Bakker, 6-7 (5-7) 6-2 7-6 (7-1)
*
*
Brasil Open (Costa do Sauipe)
*
Nicolas Almagro def. Ricardo Hocevar, 7-6 (7-4) 7-5
Marcel Granollers def. Flavio Saretta, 6-2 2-6 6-1
Eduardo Schwank def. Diego Junqueira, 6-1 7-5
*
*
SAP Open (San Jose)
*
Radek Stepanek def. Dominik Meffert, 5-7 6-3 6-1
Christophe Rochus def. Igor Kunitsyn, 6-2 7-6 (9-7)
*
*
Open GDF SUEZ (Paris)
*
Agnieszka Radwanska def. Oxana Lyubtsova, 6-1 6-1
Alizé Cornet def. Anastasija Sevastova, 6-1 6-3
Alisa Kleybanova def. Tsvetana Pironkova, 6-2 7-6 (7-3)
Monica Niculescu def. Timea Bacsinszky, 6-4 6-3
Emilie Loit def. Nicole Vaidisova, 6-1 6-4
Karolina Sprem def. Petra Kvitova, 6-3 6-1
Daniela Hantuchova def. Ekaterina Makarova, 6-2 6-2
Nathalie Dechy def. Sorana Cirstea, 6-2 1-6 6-2
*
*
PTT Pattaya Open (Pattaya City)
*
Vera Zvonareva def. Andreja Klepac, 6-4 6-3
Caroline Wozniacki def. Chan Yung-Jan, 6-3 6-0
Sybille Bammer def. Urszula Radwanska, 6-4 3-6 6-1
Yaroslava Shvedova def. Tamira Paszek, 6-3 6-4
Sania Mirza def. Nicha Lertpitaksinchai, 7-6 (7-4) 7-5
Neuza Silva def. Jessica Moore, 6-2 6-1
Yuliya Beygelzimer def. Anastasia Rodionova, 6-2 6-2
Ivana Lisjak def. Sesil Karatantcheva, 6-2 4-6 6-3

Tertiary Tennis

I graduated from university today - something which has little to do with tennis. (Surprisingly, there are other things than tennis I'm interested in... Renaissance theatre, for one!) But I thought it thus appropriate to talk tennis and university - more specifically, this so-called ATP university.

*

Question: does anyone actually know what the hell it is?

*

There are tennis players who have earned degrees, and they are thus exceptional - Mario Ancic, for one. But this ATP university is not so much a university as... well, a seminar, really. It's a very misleading name. There was a story on the ATP website the other day about how sixteen players graduated from it. Naturally, I was intrigued, so I went and looked... and on the list of graduates was Thomaz Bellucci and another one of my Stars (can't remember which), who are both VERY young, nonwithstanding them being professional tennis players.

*

Turns out all you have to do to graduate from the ATP university is attend a three day seminar about management and some other stuff (unsure of specifics) and probably not burn anything down. As someone who has slaved away earning their degrees for five years and only now comes away with the precious testamur, I think I object to the use of the term 'university...'

*

In the same vein, Sania Mirza got given an honorary doctorate the other day. I hate honorary doctorates. I know she's awesome and what she's done for Indian tennis is good and everything, but a doctorate is something you work at, damn it! As someone who is intending to do a PhD, I am always really pissed off when someone gets handed something that I, who am not famous, will have to study for for years and years and years...

Finally, a Brouhaha in Doha!

The fields for the early tournaments next year are beginning to take shape - and the organisers of the ATP tournament in Doha must be quivering with delight. The women's season-ending championships (why, why did no one think to call it the Brouhaha in Doha? I thought that was hilarious) may have been a bit dull, but the field that's starting to take shape for the Qatar ExxonMobil Open is very exciting. It includes not only the Andies (Murray and Roddick respectively) but now the two biggest guns in tennis, R-Fed and... Rafa ('R-Nad' just doesn't work.)

*

Federer's played Doha before, but not for a while - 2006, if memory serves - but I don't remember a field of this high a quality there in years. I remember Ljubicic winning it in recent memory, and possibly Gael Monfils, though maybe he was only a finalist. I can't remember. So what a boost for Doha this will be. Maybe this will be the real Brouhaha in Doha. I invented that pun, and I'm dying for someone to use it - so maybe Roger, Rafa and the Andies will give me reason.

*

Sydney, on the other hand, which is close to my heart, because, hello, closest thing I have to a home tournament, is looking... all right, I guess, but not whoa, smash bang fabulous. So far, they've announced Tsonga, Simon, Berdych, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Gasquet, Robredo and most recently Fish and defending champ Tursunov. So not a bad field, but it ain't no Doha. Rafa played there the first year I attended, which was '07 - though to be fair, he only played for about a set before deciding he was injured and throwing in the towel against Chris Guccione. Still, I was there and I saw him, up close and personal (I may be exaggerating slightly there, but in the flesh, nonetheless). It'd be nice for the Sydney folks to see some of the big stars that they might have actually, you know, heard of.

*

But we all know the tournament that's closest to my heart is the Hopman Cup, even if it's clear across the other side of the country. Marat Safin promised he'd give the tournament organiser a decision on whether or not he would play in the first week of November, and we're well past that and his name's still on the schedule, so I'm quietly hopeful that we might be seeing Marat on the ATP tour again next year - hurrah!

The Stephen Hawking of Tennis

The top story on the ATP website today is about a poll they did of fans - I remember voting in it - about who will be the year-end #1 at the end of next year. The winner? Roger Federer, with 42% of the vote.

*

I'm unable to decide if this is surprising or not. Rafa is #1 now, and I think most people have finally caught up with that fact - not to mention the fact that Roger is ten points away from slipping to #3. But taking nothing away from Rafa and yes, even Novak Djokovic, I think this is an indication of the faith people have in the immense genius of Roger Federer. He may not be as young as he used to be (an old man at 27) and he may not have had the bestest year ever this year, but in the public mind and ideology, if that is not too strong a word to use, Federer is still #1. The legacy of his incredible dominance is this profound belief that he is too good to be #2 for long.

*

And I'm right on that bandwagon. Much as I was saying the other day that Rafa is one of the greats too and we're living in an age of true tennis greatness (for men - women is a whole other story), the genius and the greatness of Federer transcends even that. What he has done is so phenomenal that he can lay claim to the title of Greatest of All Time. Rafa Nadal is great, one of the greats, but I doubt anyone would call him the greatest: certainly not yet, anyway. Greatest dirtballer, maybe, but when it comes to Greatest Player Ever, my mind only goes one place, and that is straight to Federer.

*

Historical competition includes Rod Laver and Pete Sampras, both of whom were fabulous, as well as a whole pantheon of other tennis greats. But I don't know if any player has ever had quite the same mystique as Federer. If he is on, playing to the best of his ability, there is only one player in recent memory who has even come close to beating him, and it isn't Rafael Nadal - it's Marat Safin. (Australian Open semi '05 - heartbreaker, but one of the greatest matches ever.) He is a prodigy, the Stephen Hawking of tennis - his genius for the sport is so great I don't know if we will ever see anyone with so much pure, unadulterated talent. He is tennis clinic and tennis statesman all in one - because have we ever seen more evidence that tennis is a gentleman's game than in this man?

*

This wasn't meant to turn into a paeon of praise, but all of it is deserved. I'm part of that posse whom thinks Federer will get back to #1 - and it's good to know I'm in the majority.

The World Below The Surface

It's rather hard to write about tennis when there's no tennis to write about. I'm going to have to think about how to manage Tennis From The Backseat while we're in the off-season - it seems a little extravagant to write about tennis every day when there's no tennis to write about! But the blog will keep going strong into the New Year, bringing us back to where we started - the Australian tennis summer, my favourite swing of the tour (for obvious reasons.)

*

Tennis Australia has also realised the dearth of stuff to write about now everyone's on holiday - but instead of writing about the Davis Cup final like normal people, they've done a list of how the Australians have been doing this week. No one's been playing on any of the major tours, but in Challengers and stuff there've been quite a few active. Let's have a look at the men's singles highlights (this list had no women on it anywhere. Are there just no women's events this week? We don't suck that badly.)

*

*Chris Guccione reached the semifinal at the ATP Challenger event in Jersey, Great Britain.

*Carsten Ball was a quarterfinalist at the ATP Challenger event in Champaign, USA.

*Steven Goh qualified and reached the quarterfinal at the ITF Futures event in Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.

*Zachary Van Min qualified at the ITF Futures event in Queretaro, Mexico.

*Matt Reid reached the quarterfinal at the ITF Futures event in Honolulu, USA.

*Isaac Frost qualified at the ITF Futures event in Honolulu, USA.

*

Reading lists like these, it makes you realise just how hard tennis is, particularly for the kids starting out. There's this whole tennis pantheon of celebrities - your Federers and Nadals and Safins and so forth - but underneath it all is this seething mass of people dying for a chance. Chris Guccione is ranked in the top hundred and he's still losing in Challenger events. That top echelon is really pretty damn small, when you think about it. Imagine if you play all your life and you get to about #200. Out of three billion or so people, #200 is pretty damn good - but in tennis terms, that's nothing of anything. Some minor Challenger or Futures victories, maybe... a lifetime on the pro circuit. You're good, but not quite good enough.

*

Tennis isn't like music - it's not like lurking down in the #300s is some brilliant player who simply has to be discovered and will shoot straight to #1, winning umpteen Aria awards or whatever along the way. The guys in the top echelon are genuinely the best - because they beat everyone else. If there's one thing you can say about tennis, it's that the people at the top genuinely deserve to be there. (Except maybe Djokovic. Because I don't like him. The last two years have been a massive fluke, mark my words.) It must be so incredibly tough to be one of the little guys, schlepping away in Challengers and Futures, knowing that there is no quick fix. There's only hard work, a lot of it - and even then, you might not still be good enough. The guys ahead of you are just that little bit more talented, have those few extra shots... and though you can get a long way by hard work, sometimes it's just not enough.

*

Taking that into consideration, it's amazing that the guys at the top aren't total tosspots with egos the size of Mt Isa (apparently the biggest city in the world in terms of space. Just so my imagery makes sense.) They are the best of the best of the best - because there are a whole lotta tennis players, and they've beaten them all. So congratulations, Roger and Rafa, for being genuinely nice guys.

Corruption Monkey

Well, I guess today's big tennis news is that Nikolay Davydenko and Martin Vassallo Arguello have both cleared of allegations of corruption over that match they played in Sopot last year, where Davydenko forfeited and bets were suspended by a major gambling site because the amounts of money being bet on the match were strangely large. (I had no idea people even knew the Sopot tournament existed, let alone bet on it, but there you go.)

*

So they're innocent. Good for them. But why on earth did it take the ATP this frigging long to decide that? The Sopot tournament was in June last year. That's nearly fifteen months ago. Can you imagine being a professional tennis player having that hang over your head for that long?

*

I suppose it's not too bad for Martin Vassallo Arguello, as no one really knows who he is for a start, and also because he wasn't the one that supposedly threw the match. I know I've been ragging on Kolya for over two months now for being an embarrassment to professional tennis players everywhere what with his poor attitude, but you really have to feel for the guy. If he's innocent - which the ATP has finally decided he is - he's had this monkey on his back for more than a year for no reason. Can you imagine the locker room glares he must have got?

*

Actually, that's an interesting issue - what did the players think? Did they assume he was guilty and do some quality shunning? Or did they stand behind him? I haven't been able to find any comments on the subject... surely someone must have asked someone about it in a presser at some stage. I don't get the feeling that Davydenko is one of the locker room's most popular guys... and with the label of 'corruption' hanging over his head, I can't imagine that won him too many new pals either.

*

Tennis is supposed to be a gentlemen's game. It's very seldom that you get allegations of match-fixing and stuff like that - even cricket, the other gentlemen's game, has more scandal than tennis does. So I can't imagine Kolya was too pleased to be the one that opened the door. Is this the first match-fixing scandal in tennis? It can't be the only one, surely...

*

Oh, and on a happier note, well done to the finalists this weekend! Gilles Simon takes on Carlos Moya in Bucharest, and Tamira Paszek, who upset a few biggish names on the way to the final, takes on Patty Schnyder in Bali. Should be interesting matches both!

*

*

Today's Results

*

BCR Open Romania (Bucharest)

*

Carlos Moya def. Richard Gasquet, 6-2 6-4

Gilles Simon def. Jose Acasuso, 4-6 7-6 (7-4) 6-4

*

*

Commonwealth Bank Tennis Classic (Bali)

*

Tamira Paszek def. Daniela Hantuchova, 6-2 5-7 6-4

Patty Schnyder def. Nadia Petrova, 7-5 6-1

Stars, In Your Multitudes

I do believe I said yesterday that one day in the future Ivan Ljubicic would make a fine ATP chairman. Lo and behold! he's been elected to the ATP board as the official representative of Europe. I like to think this is proof that the ATP listen to what I say. Next thing you know, they'll be knocking on my door, asking me to be the next Etienne. You just wait.

*

Meanwhile, I really should preview the US Open draw, but I'm going to save that for tomorrow. I have to save up my topics of conversation and ration them out carefully before the US Open, when things get all interesting. I think that today I am going to gloat some more about how good the kids in my Stars of the Future fold are. Especially Marin Cilic.

*

When I first added Cilic to my Stars fold, I wasn't expecting him to be quite so spectacular. I thought he'd be one of my secondary stars. But he has had a real career year this year, and I am just counting down the seconds until he's in the top ten. He's seeded at the US Open, which makes him one of my best-performing Stars so far. Go Marin! And he has just made his first career final in New Haven, where he will play Mardy Fish for the title. Can Cilic take Fish? I think that he can - hook, line and sinker.

*

I apologise profoundly for that pun. But if your last name is Fish, then I'm sure you'd be used to it. Go Marin!

*

I think I better clarify who is actually in my Stars of the Future fold, because otherwise I'm going to end up adopting every stray young 'un that comes along and claiming the glory. Currently, the fold includes the following: Juan Martin del Potro (recent addition - very quickly becoming a Star of the Present!), Marin Cilic, Ernests Gulbis (my favourite!), Eduardo Schwank, Jeremy Chardy and Thomaz Bellucci. And I'm sure there's another one, but I can't remember who right now. But they're my picks. They're the ones that are going to make it big. Except maybe Chardy. I'm not so sold on him any more.

*

My special favourite is, of course, Ernests Gulbis, who is one of the most insanely talented young players we have seen in a very long time. I don't know if he's quite at Federer/Safin talent level, but he's pretty damn good. He is officially the only person I have ever seen blow Rafa off the court. (Rafa still came back and won the match, but Swanboy got a set off him. Which is something.) A bit of experience, and he's going to be wonderful. Just give him a while. I think last time I talked about him, I said to give him a year. I might extend that to two, but he is going to be up there, mark my words.

*

But my boy Marin... he's the star of his class right now, nonwithstanding new kid Juan Martin del Potro. He is the first of my original stars to reach a final, and I am very proud. Yay Marin!

*

*

Today's Results

*

Pilot Pen Tennis (New Haven)

*

Men's Draw

*

Marin Cilic def. Luka Gregorc, 6-3 6-3

Mardy Fish def. Fernando Verdasco, 6-0 1-6 6-3

*

*

Women's Draw

*

Anna Chakvetadze def. Amélie Mauresmo, 6-3 3-6 6-1

Caroline Wozniacki def. Alizé Cornet, 7-5 6-4

*

*

Forest Hills Tennis Classic (Forest Hills)

*

Lucie Safarova def. Iveta Benesova, 6-2 6-4

Peng Shuai def. Carla Suárez Navarro, 6-1 6-2

Everybody Hates Etienne

Etienne de Villers is retiring. I bet there's a lot of people that are really, really sad about that. Weeping, wailing, gnashing their teeth, etc, etc. Except not.

*

I am right, aren't I? Everybody hates Etienne, yesno? That has certainly been the impression I've had. He seems to have changed everything round really fast, and I don't think people have liked that very much at all... especially the Hamburg tournament. I do like the fact he added an Asian swing, as I think that was lacking - but I think the players know best.

*

I know there's a players council, and that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all sit on it - does anyone know how much attention people pay to them? I would like to think it's a lot, but I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't. Important as I think it should be, something like that has token written all over it. Actually, wasn't it why the three big boys decided to run for office? To give it a higher profile? I think Ivan Ljubicic and James Blake used to sit on it, and while they're very important and lovely men, they don't quite have the clout that the Big Three do. And even though I have personal objections to certain members (well, member) of the Big Three, I think they're all good choices. Roger is the ultimate tennis statesman. Rafa is dogged. And Novak could just annoy people till they did what he wanted.

*

I remember reading somewhere that a few years back, when they were planning a major overhaul of the schedule - was it 2005? Maybe 2004? - that four of the players sat down with the ATP guys in a hotel room and nutted it out. Federer was there, and Safin, and I think Rafa, but I can't remember who else. I wonder how much of that there was under the Age of Etienne? (I'm pretty sure that was pre-Etienne.) I have a feeling the council got marginalised. I know there was a lot of unrest. So kudos to the Big Three, who might well be partially responsible for the decision of de Villiers. I would like to think so, anyway.

*

This means there'll be looking for a new guy, and while I don't know who they should pick this time, I know someone who would make an excellent Etienne in future. Can you go past Ivan Ljubicic?

*

And another shoutout to my boy Luka Gregorc, who is in the semis in New Haven, despite coming through qualies and being ranked #434 or something in the world. He has taken out several big names this week, including Ivo Karlovic, and his next victim was Andreas Seppi, who he took out in the quarters. Wouldn't it be awesome to see him win? I love a good underdog (except when the underdog is playing Federer.) I confess I am going for Cilic, but should he lose, then Luka all the way!

*

*

Today's Results

*

Pilot Pen Tennis (New Haven)

*

Men's Draw

*

Fernando Verdasco def. Mischa Zverev, 6-2 7-6 (7-4)

Luka Gregorc def. Andreas Seppi, 4-6 6-4 7-5

Mardy Fish def. Jesse Levine, 6-3 7-6 (7-4)

*

*

Women's Draw

*

Anna Chakvetadze def. Sorana Cirstea, 6-3 6-3

Alizé Cornet def. Daniela Hantuchova, 3-6 6-4 6-4

Caroline Wozniacki def. Marion Bartoli, 6-4 6-0

Amélie Mauresmo def. Agnes Szavay, 6-4 7-5

*

*

Forest Hills Tennis Classic (Forest Hills)

*

Iveta Benesova def. Ekaterina Makarova, 2-6 6-2 6-4

Carla Suárez Navarro def. Martina Müller, 6-2 6-0

Peng Shuai def. Vera Dushevina, 6-4 7-5

Lucie Safarova def. Jamea Jackson, 3-6 6-3 6-0

Dalek

Again, not much to report. I really am a shallow, shallow fan. Expect me to start rambling like the Queen of Rambling once Wimbledon starts, but for now, these posts probably aren't going to be too long.
*
Radek Stepanek, top seed at Nottingham, pulled out of his match because of a rib injury. Somehow, I found it difficult to care. There's something about Radek Stepanek which just sort of weirds me out. I'm not sure what it is, and it's probably totally unjustified. (And yes, it does date from before he beat Federer in the quarters at Rome.) Maybe it's something to do with his string of high profile girlfriends who are much prettier than he is... Martina Hingis... Nicole Vaidisova... despite the fact that he's, well, weird looking. (Or maybe it's because his name sounds like 'dalek.')
*
It's kind of weird that I don't like him, because he's a serve-and-volley player, and I love a bit of the ol' serve-and-volley. But his game is... weird. Or maybe it's just him, and that weirdness sort of contaminates his game. I don't get it.
*
I know pretty much nothing about Stepanek, beside the serve-and-volley thing and the girlfriend things. So why do I get so weirded out? Maybe it's because I like Martina Hingis and I feel wronged on her behalf. (Though why she was going out with a man so weird looking is beyond me.) They got engaged in November 2006 but split up in August 2007, though they promised to remain good friends. According to Reuters, they were the 'highest profile couple in tennis.' I wonder if that's true?
*
Actually, I wonder who is the highest profile couple in tennis? Is it Radek and his new girl, Nicole Vaidisova? Gael Monfils and Dominika Cibulkova? Tomas Berdych and Lucie Safarova? Carlos Moya and Flavia Pennetta? (Are they still together?) Andre Agassi and Steffi Graf, obviously, but they're retired now, so I don't know if they really count. My personal favourite is Roger Federer and Mirka Vavrinec - hey, she used to play, they're a couple! It must be a pain for ATP players and WTA players to make it work - they're hardly ever in the same part of the world. I mean, there are a few joint tournaments, but outside the Slams, there really aren't that many - Sydney, Estoril, s'Hertogenbosch, off the top of my head. But not a lot, certainly.

*

To tell the truth, I'm more interested in tennis friendships than in relationships. I'd love to know who hangs out with who. I was pretty surprised when I was reading Rafa's blog from Roland Garros in 2007 to find that Rafa and David Nalbandian (Headbandian) are playstation buddies - along with Ferru, subject of yesterday's blog. I wish I knew more about who hung out with who. It would be... interesting.

*

(I wonder who hangs out with Stepanek, considering he's so weird and all.)

*

*

Today's Results

*

Ordina Open (s'Hertogenbosch)

*

Arnaud Clement def. Marcel Granollers, 6-7 (6-8) 6-3 6-3

Juan Martin del Potro def. Rainer Schuettler, 7-6 (7-3) 7-6 (7-5)

Guillermo Canas def. Rohan Bopanna, 6-2 6-4

Viktor Troicki def. Ivan Ljubicic, 5-7 6-4 7-6 (7-5)

*

Elena Dementieva def. Sara Errani, 6-3 7-5

Sorana Cirstea def. Mariya Koryttseva, 7-6 (7-3) 6-4

Katerina Srebotnik def. Yung-jan Chan, 6-4 6-3

Michaella Krajicek def. Sania Mirza, 6-2 6-2

Tamarine Tanasugarn def. Ashley Harkleroad, 4-6 6-4 7-5

*

*

Slazenger Open (Nottingham)

*

Gael Monfils def. Julien Benneteau, 3-6 6-4 6-2

Ivo Karlovic def. Sam Querrey, 7-6 (7-3) 7-6 (16-14)

Andreas Seppi def. Eduardo Schwank, 6-1 4-6 7-6 (9-7)

Gilles Simon def. Samuel Groth, 6-7 (1-7) 6-4 6-4

Fernando Verdasco def. bobby Reynolds, 6-2 6-3

Marin Cilic def. Alex Bogdanovic, 6-4 6-4

*

*

International Women's Open (Eastbourne)

*

Caroline Wozniacki def. Svetlana Kuznetsova, 6-2 6-2

Samantha Stosur def. Amelie Mauresmo, 1-2 retired

Ekaterina Makarova def. Vera Zvonareva, 6-3 6-3

Gisela Dulko def. Olga Govortsova, 6-1 6-7 (3-7) 6-2

Alisa Kleybanova def. Aravane Rezai, 6-3 5-7 6-3

Marion Bartoli def. Sybille Bammer, 6-3 6-0

Um, Guys, It's Over

Can I just say one thing? Does it not seem a little pointless having claycourt tournaments AFTER Roland Garros is over? Because it seems pretty damn silly to me.

*

I suppose, by that token, you could say having US hard court tournaments in March and April is pretty stupid when the US Open is in September... but hell, that's hardly sensible either. But really... the week after Roland Garros, some fool players are back out on the red stuff.

*

...why?

*

I mean, what is the point? Let me put myself into the mind of a professional tennis player here. I've just played two, long exhausting months on clay. Wimbledon, a grass court tournament, arguably the most important tournament of the year, is in two weeks. I want to do well. And so I go and play a warmup tournament on... clay?

*

Maybe I'm being too naive. Maybe I'm putting myself in the perspective of a Federer or a Nadal, someone so firmly cemented at the top of the rankings that points are kind of irrelevant. Maybe these tournaments are for the claycourters to gain some extra points because they don't like grass, or whatever. That's the only reason for it I can think of. Looking down the list at Warsaw, there seem to be a lot of claycourters... Robredo, Granollers, Monaco, Montanes, Canas. But... Davydenko? Kolya, what are you doing, man? I don't know if he has a favourite surface, but I don't think claycourting is going to help him AT ALL. Why isn't he at Queen's, or in Halle?

*

You're going to have to wait a little longer for my proposed human interest stories, as I'm in kind of a hurry today. But tomorrow, I promise you. And I promise you that tomorrow I won't say tomorrow as well.

*

*

Today's Results

*

Artois Championships (Queen's Club, London)

*

Olivier Patience def. Sam Querrey, 7-5 5-7 6-4

Fernando Gonzalez def. Richard Bloomfield, 7-6 (7-5) 6-3

Mardy Fish def. Eduardo Roger-Vasselin, 6-1 6-4

Andreas Seppi def. Arnaud Clement, 6-3 4-6 6-1

Simone Bolelli def. Frank Dancevic, 2-2 retired

Nicolas Mahut def. Feliciano Lopez, 6-3 6-7 (4-7) 7-6 (7-4)

John Isner def. Kevin Anderson, 7-6 (7-5) 6-4

Xavier Malisse def. Daniel Evans, 6-1 6-1

Ivo Minar def. Bobby Reynolds, 6-1 7-5

Ivo Karlovic def. Joseph Sirianni, 6-3 6-2

Andy Murray def. Sebastien Grosjean, 2-0 retired

Mario Ancic def. Fernando Verdasco, 7-6 (8-6) 6-4

Paul-Henri Mathieu def. Marin Cilic, 6-3 3-6 6-4

*

*

Gerry Weber Open (Halle)

*

Jan Vacek def. Scott Lipsky, 3-6 6-3 6-2

Fabrice Santoro def. Rainer Schuettler, 7-6 (7-4) 6-4

Marcos Baghdatis def. Jan Hernych, 6-4 7-5

Mikhail Youzhny def. Dmitry Tursunov, 6-3 6-1

Nicolas Kiefer def. Robin Haase, 4-6 6-3 6-2

Steve Darcis def. Olivier Rochus, 6-1 6-4

Michael Llodra def. Ivan Ljubicic, 6-7 (6-8) 7-6 (7-5) 7-5

Tommy Haas def. Radek Stepanek, 6-7 (0-7) 7-6 (7-3) 6-4

James Blake def. Bjorn Phau, 6-4 6-1

*

*

Warsaw Orange Open (Warsaw)

*

Nikolay Davydenko def. Pablo Cuevas, 6-3 6-2

Christophe Rochus def. Gilles Simon, 6-1 3-6 6-3

Fabio Fognini def. Guillermo Garcia-Lopez, 7-5 0-6 6-4

Santiago Ventura def. Boris Pashanski, 6-4 6-2

Guillermo Canas def. Luis Horna, 6-2 6-7 (5-7) 6-4

Marcell Granollers def. Michal Mertinak, 7-6 (7-2) 6-4

Juan Monaco def. Jerzy Janowicz, 6-4 6-3

Albert Montanes def. David Skoch, 7-6 (7-4) 6-4

Oscar Hernandez def. Sergio Roitman, 3-6 6-4 6-0

Wayne Odesnik def. Ricardas Berankis, 6-4 6-3

Tommy Robredo def. Michal Przysiezny, 7-5 6-2

*

*

DFS Classic (Birmingham)

*

Petra Cetkovska def. Meng Yuan, 6-2 6-1

Marta Domachowska def. Margit Ruutel, 6-4 6-4

Camille Pin def. Anastasia Rodionova, 7-5 7-6 (7-2)

Kateryna Bondarenko def. Anne Keothavong, 6-3 6-2

Samantha Stosur def. Sabine Lisicki, 6-3 6-4

Melinda Czink def. Vania King, 6-2 7-6 (7-4)

Virginia Ruano Pascual def. Milagros Sequera, 6-3 6-7 (3-7) 6-1

Marina Erakovic def. Stephanie Dubois, 6-4 6-4

Casey Dellacqua def. Julie Ditty, 7-6 (7-5) 6-2

Nathalie Dechy def. Severine Bremond, 7-5 6-2

Michaella Krajicek def. Tatiana Poutchek, 6-2 6-1

Melanie South def. Sybille Bammer, 6-3 7-5

Tamarine Tanasugarn def. Tamira Paszek, 6-1 6-0

Bethanie Mattek def. Aravane Rezai, 6-1 6-4

Ekaterina Makarova def. Angelique Kerber, 6-7 (3-7) 7-5 7-5

*

*

Campeonatos Internacionales de Tenis Femenino de Espana (Barcelona)

*

Sara Errani def. Lourdes Dominguez Lino, 6-3 6-2

Lucie Safarova def. Leticia Costas, 6-2 6-1

Arantxa Parra Santonja def. Maite Gabarrus-Alonso, 6-1 6-3

Ekaterina Ivanova def. Tathiana Garbin, 4-6 7-5 6-3

Maria Kondratieva def. Catalina Castano, 7-6 (9-7) 4-6 6-0

Stephanie Cohen-Aloro def. Dominika Cibulkova, 6-5 retired

Edina Gallovits def. Julia Vakulenko, 6-2 0-6 6-3

Carla Suarez Navarro def. Alicia Molik, 6-2 6-4

Maria Kirilenko def. Lilia Osterloh, 6-0 2-0 retired