One Step At A Time

There is no three title run for Nicolas Almagro. Such a thing was not writ in his destiny. Instead, David 'Lord Farquaad' Ferrer took the title. And he is looking gooooooooood. Australia was no fluke. David Ferrer is a force to be reckoned with and no mistake.

He is one of those dudes that, given the right draw, could go very, very deep at Roland Garros. Or even given the wrong draw. No one expected him to end up in the semis in Australia, and yet semis he made. So keep an eye on this one. No telling where he'll pop up.

He will be seeded. This we know. And he will be seeded high. So while it probably wouldn't be a top player's MOST FAVOURITE THING EVER to have Ferru land in their quarter, he's hardly a dangerous floater.

One of the other winners over the weekend, on the other hand, is. Welcome home, Juan Martin del Potro.

I don't want to go proclaiming that JMDP is 'back' in some definable sense of the word or anything like that. For one, that's not really a quantifiable concept; and two, it's a long way back up to where he was, because he was forced to fall from so very high. But winning titles is the way to get back up there - step by step, rung by rung, hand over hand on the ladder.

Sure, it was a Mickey Mouse tournament - there's not much else going on this week. But Mardy Fish and Janko Tipsarevic are quality opponents and JMDP basically ate them for breakfast. These are all good signs, positive signs. While Juan's results over the Australian summer might not have been spectacular on paper, I think they did give him some useful matchplay. Want to get your eye in? Try playing three hours against Feliciano Lopez. It's been a grinding, wearing summer for JMDP, but it is paying off.

Delray Beach is JMDP's first title since he lifted the trophy at the US Open in 2009. I don't see him lifting another Slam trophy this year - or maybe not even next year - but these signs are all good. In a lesser field, his return might be quicker. Unfortunately, we have an extraordinary level of depth in men's tennis at the moment, crowned with some truly extraordinary players at the top. If JMDP is going to get back up there, climb the mountain again, it's going to take a while. No single title win is suddenly going to propel him back among the echelons of the top ten.

But there's only one way to climb a mountain, and that's step by step. And winning Delray Beach is quite a large step - one might almost call it a leap.

The Art Of Happiness

Watching Alexandr Dolgopolov play makes me happy.

He's not the most aesthetically pleasing player. Considering how much I like pretty tennis, my adventure into Dolgopolove is a little bit unusual. He's stylish, a showman, master of the trick shot (the way to my heart), but beautiful tennis? Not Sascha.

I think one of the reasons I like watching the Dog so much is because he's genuinely happy. At that makes him play better.

I don't know if you can tell he's happy just by watching him. I don't think it's that easier. But after reading the article in the most recent Deuce (you can find it here) I'm more and more convinced that this is the case. Sascha has risen dramatically lately - his form, his profile, his game, everything. And it seems to me it's just because he's enjoying himself.

The article talks about how Sascha's coach, Jack Reader, looks after Sascha as a person first and a tennis player second. Sascha grew up under the eye of his father, a very by-the-numbers, methodical sort of coach. Given how he spent his childhood on a tennis court in this kind of atmosphere, it's unsurprising that Sascha wanted something totally different. He must have grown up with tennis as work. It seems to me what Jack Reader has given him is tennis as fun. And quite apart from the tennis, fun in general. There's a great story in the article about how they once pretended to be a gay couple to get cheap flights. Reader really does seem to have made life on the tour an adventure for Sascha, and that's clearly working well.

Obviously the Jack Reader method isn't for everyone. A lot of players really wouldn't flourish in his 'I don't believe in gyms - the whole world is a gym' approach. But it has worked great guns for Sascha Dolgopolov. Reader has got him healthy and happy and confident in his game, and look how that's turned out.

And that, I think, is really important. Reader is for Sascha a mentor as well as a coach, and I fail to see how his 'take care of the person' thing wouldn't work for a lot more players. Tennis is a game and games are meant to be fun. I think there are a lot of players who could benefit from treating tennis as a game again instead of as a job. And the coach, well - he seems to be a dude who could do a lot about that.

Ask Jack Reader. Look at Sascha Dolgopolov. And look how that's turned out. Happy people play well in the adventure that is tennis.

The Way To My Heart Is Through Stupid Trick Shots

I've been adopting quite a few players from the satellite circuit as Favourites Beyond The Baseline lately. Challenger tennis is fun times. And sometimes these dudes go and play on the big stages. And sometimes, even when they lose, they are a little bit excellent.

I am talking, of course, about Benoit Paire. He ate a bagel in the first set against Ljubicic in Rotterdam today, and then he went down in the second pretty tamely too. It happens. Paire is young and Ljubicic is a class player.

But two points from defeat, he played a shot that made me love him forever.

It wasn't a sensible shot. He didn't even win the point. But come on, how am I not going to love who plays a dropshot from between his legs jumping a metre in the air while in a dead sprint?

It's just silly. And that's why I love it. I like a bit of silly in my tennis sometimes. And while I wouldn't have liked the shot if he didn't make it, he did make it. Sure, he got beaten the very next shot, but maybe if he hadn't fallen over...

Benoit Paire, you are going to have a little bit of love from me forever now. I love a man who can play a tweener.

Benoit Paire first came to my attention when he got the reciprocal wildcard from the French Federation into the Australian Open. I was angry because a) Mahut should have got it and b) I'd never heard of Paire, which meant Mahut should have got it even more. And while I still think Mahut deserved a goddamn wildcard, Paire was not a bad choice. He is young and talented and full of promise and he played a dropshot tweener from a metre in the air on the full stretch.

Benoit, there'll always be a line or two for you here beyond the baseline. You might not get Mahut-level coverage, but there's always going to be a little space for you. Because I think you're awesome.

Oh, and I saw him play in the first round of the Australian Open and I was all, like, impressed and stuff. You can go back and read the blog entry if you like. It is totally true. It isn't just because he played a stupid trick shot and I'm easily impressed by showy low percentage tennis.

...though yeah, that is a big part of it.

A Festival Of Maybes

Reaching a Grand Slam final is a big damn achievement. Even if you lose, simply reaching the final is something massive. Ask Marcos Baghdatis. Ask Fernando Gonzalez. Ask Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. Ask Guillermo Coria, Arnaud Clement, Martin Verkerk, Mariano Puerta. Even though these players all lost the one Slam final they made, I'd bet that loss still rates as the high point of their career - and that their runner up cookie tray is one of their most prized possessions.

Andy Murray has three cookie trays now. And I'd say that getting those cookie trays probably rate as some of his worst memories ever.

Let's revisit Murray's three Slam finals. His first one was in the US Open, 2008. He faced some dude called Roger Federer, who was going for his fifth consecutive US Open crown. Federer had not had his bestest year ever - he hadn't won a Slam yet - and a year without a Federer Slam, well... the world was definitely not ready for that to happen in 2008. Federer had the experience and knew how to win a Slam, especially in New York. Murray was green and maybe a little tired coming off his two day big win over Rafa Nadal. And also beating Nadal and Federer back to back? You'd have to be a wizard to do that.

Murray went down in straights. But not everyone can be Roger or Rafa and win in their first ever Slam final. Djokovic lost the final of the US Open in 2007 in straights before going on to win the Australian Open in 2008. Surely it was only a matter of time for Murray.

But then he didn't make a single Slam final in 2009. Oh well. It's still only a matter of time. Murray has got the goods. He will win a Slam. This was hammered into our heads over and over again. It's not a question of whether, but of when.

Australian Open, 2010. Murray makes the final playing absolutely scintillating tennis. And who is waiting there for him? Roger Federer again. But this time, Murray is ready. Oh yeah. He's pumped. He knows it's only a matter of time before he wins a Slam. And he can take Federer. He's beaten him a bunch of times before. He can do it again. This is his moment - the Murray moment.

Except it's not.

Roger Federer takes Andy Murray to school. Straight sets, down Murray goes. He shows a flicker of life in the third set tiebreaker, but it is too little, too late. There is no performing CPR on this match. The trophy is in Federer's hands and once again, Murray holds the cookie tray. And then he enters a slump so pervasive that it takes him till around Wimbledon to recover.

But he's still going to win a Slam. It doesn't happen in 2010, but it's still going to happen. Maybe the break he took was too long. Maybe he should have come back sooner. There is a festival of maybes.

And one of the maybes that starts to creep in is this one - maybe Andy Murray won't ever win a Slam.

But no. It's 2011. It's a new year, a new Murray. He's recovered from the scars of last year and he is playing magic tennis. He is cutting through the draw like a hot knife through butter, and destiny seems to be on his side. Soderling is swept from his path. Nadal is swept from his path. He has a couple of tough moments with Dolgopolov and Ferrer, but it is largely a ticker tape parade straight to the final.

And it's Djokovic he's facing this time. Only Djokovic, people want to say. It's not a finals thing Murray has - he's won tons of finals! He has a bag full of Masters and 500s and 250s. No, it's just a Federer thing. Federer lights up when he gets to finals. Murray can take Djokovic. Only Djokovic.

Except he couldn't. I don't know if anyone could have taken Djokovic down in this tournament, but Murray was barely there at all. The dude that showed up in the final was not the normal Andy Murray. It was the scared little boy that got his arse kicked by Federer.

If Andy Murray - the Andy Murray, the one that has been in the top five for about 150,000 years now - showed up in a Slam final, he would have a fighting chance. But I've never seen him. Not even once. And while there are plenty of great players who have never won a Slam, the effects of these finals on Murray is affecting his normal play. We saw the long slump after the Australian Open final this year. Now Murray has just gone down to Baghdatis in Rotterdam.

One loss is not that big a deal. But when you look at the way Murray's 2010 played out after the Australian Open, this is not a great sign for 2011.

Murray's first Slam final loss was not, I think, that big a deal. He was new and green and one Slam loss to a guy like Federer is very honourable. I think the rot really set in in 2010, and that scar tissue has lasted a lot longer than we thought. And now that Murray's lost to a guy not named Roger Federer in a Slam final, who knows what could happen?

It's an awful thing to say, but in a way, Murray's career might be better if he stopped making those Slam finals. The cookie trays are not for him a prize, but a burden - a reminder of how close he came and how he didn't come through. They're a tangible sign of failure - because for him, I think, not winning must feel like a failure, even though just making the final is a massive, incredible achievement.

We all know that I'm not a massive Murray fan, but I don't want to join the litany of media condemning him. I fully believe that Andy Murray can win a Slam. He has the game and the brain and the tools he needs. But the first thing he needs to do is to somehow shed this scar tissue and turn up. Even if he turns up and loses, I think that would be better. If he'd turned up against Djokovic and still lost, I don't think the pain would have been so bad. But if he turns up, there is a lot of Slam finals he can win. The turning up is the problem.

He needs to get rid of the maybe - the maybe is what is killing him. Because the more people say 'maybe Andy Murray will win a Slam' (or worse, 'maybe he won't') that pressure is going to continue to mount.

The Actuality of Six

It is time for celebration, for Amir 'The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword, But The Racquet Is Mightier Yet' Weintraub has won his first round match in Quimper in a tough three set match against Florian Reynet. And yes, there is definitely going to be a post called 'Not With A Bang But With A Quimper' sometime this week. Even if it is the awesomest tournament that ever awesomed.

By winning said match against said Florian Reynet, AW (which stands for both Amir Weintraub and Awesome Writer) will gain a very valuable six ranking points. This seems like fat nothing until you consider that you actually get fat nothing for losing, which I think is a little bit mean. You should get at least a point for making the cut.

But anyway, yes, six ranking points. This is a small amount, but when you are ranked #259 in the world and have only 181 points anyway, six is quite a respectable amount. If the rankings were to remain completely static apart from AW, this means he would jump close to ten ranking spots. Not bad at all. Especially when you consider that he has the chance to turn that six into fifteen by beating either Josselin Ouanna or Laurent Rochette in the next round...

But I digress. We're not talking about the possibility of fifteen. We're talking about the actuality of six. Which is a lot, if you're Amir Weintraub.

Which takes me back to a favourite subject of mine - Grand Slam wildcards.

For losing in first round qualies of the Australian Open, AW got eight ranking points. In case you are not good at maths, eight points is better than the six points he got for making the second round in the Quimper Challenger. Nicolas Mahut, who was cruelly denied a wildcard but qualified anyway and made the second round, got 45 points from his Australian Open campaign. I'm pretty sure you get 25 points for a first round loss.

Forgive me, ranking points system, if I am cruelly maligning you, but it seems to me like players from nations with a Slam are getting a bit of an advantage here. If I'm AW - and thus from Israel, a non-Slam country - my chances of getting a Slam wildcard into the main draw are pretty slim. But if I'm, say, Carsten Ball, I'm pretty much assured of a wildcard into the Australian Open every damn year. And I have a decent shot at the reciprocal wildcard into the US Open and/or Roland Garros. I get all those points just for being from a Slam country.

And also, if I'm AW, I don't even know if I'm going to get into qualies. I don't know if I've made the cut. But if I'm, say, Luke Saville... hello, eight points on a plate, even if I get totally drilled by the awesomeness of Nico Mahut in the first round.

Maybe I am totally wrong and there are different points for qualifiers and wildcards. In which case this blog entry is pretty much pointless. But I like to think that it is more ammunition on the bonfire of the Wildcard For Awesome (tm). Wildcards -whether into the main draw or the qualies - shouldn't just be for people from Slam-having countries. Awesomeness is international.

Missing Ivan Dodig

Here is a list of facts I know about Ivan Dodig:

1) He is from Croatia.
2) His first name is Ivan.
3) His surname is... wait for it, drumroll please... Dodig.
4) He is humanoid. (Probably. I assume.)
5) He plays tennis.
6) He is pretty good at playing tennis. (I think.)

Seriously, had anyone heard of Ivan Dodig before this year? I have totally never heard of him. The first time he popped into my frame of vision was at the Australian Open this year when he played that epic late night match against Karlovic. I could have stopped by and seen a little bit - I was in Rod Laver Arena that night - the night that Djokovic beat Granollers - and that session finished before this outside court epic.

But I didn't stop by. Me and Ivan Dodig missed each other again.

Dodig lost in the second round of the Australian Open (there is another fact I can add to my list!) which seems pretty unremarkable, until you consider who he lost to. You might have heard of him. His name is Novak Djokovic and he's been doing pretty okay recently.

So okay, in fact, that he only dropped one set in the whole tournament. He played a bunch of awesome guys - Federer, Murray, Berdych. But that one set he lost to was to some guy named Ivan Dodig. Of whom I had never heard.

I didn't see the match. I missed Ivan Dodig. Of course.

But clearly his set-winning was a sign, because Ivan Dodig, of whom I have never heard, just went and won himself a title at Zagreb. He's also got a pretty good 2011 record - he's won seven matches and lost twice, or so the ATP website tells me. And those two losses came to Djokovic at the Australian Open and Berdych in Chennai, so he's not exactly losing to Mickey Mouse opponents here. Ivan Dodig - whoever he is - has very suddenly made the big time.

Zagreb had a couple of local hopes in there who were real chances at the title. Marin Cilic was one. Ivan Ljubicic was another. If either of these dudes had taken out the title, then it wouldn't have been surprising. But this Dodig guy? He's the homegrown hero that no one expected. Because as far as I can tell, he just popped into existence this year.

I wish I could say something more meaningful about him, but you've seen all I know about him in my awesome List of Ivan Dodig Facts. (To which I can add this, courtesy of the ATP website - he is coached by a dude called Martin Stepanek. Any relation, do you think?) What it really proves - once again - is the depth of the field. I think I'm pretty knowledgeable when it comes to, you know, knowing tennis players exist and stuff. Put me in front of a Challenger draw and I'll recognise a bunch of the names. But before this year, Ivan Dodig wouldn't have been one of them. And now he's gone and won not a Challenger title, but a full tour title.

That is a major-ass achievement. There is a whole ton of tennis players out there - very successful ones - who have never won a title. Never come close. Look at Janko Tipsarevic, for example. We all know who he is, but he's never won a title. Same with Potito Starace. Rendy Lu. But this Dodig dude has. He's smashed through the wall that these dudes never have.

And all I can tell you about him is that he is humanoid (probably). Tennis can always surprise you.

Worth Watching

This week, I watched my first ever Challenger tennis. I've always known it was out there, sort of in the abstract... you know, out there, existing, but I never thought of watching it. Or even checking the results.

You have Nicolas Mahut to thank for my transformation. With a soupcon of Amir Weintraub, because his column has got me absolutely fascinated with the hardcore life these players live.

The match I watched was an absolute cracker - a Hopman Cup reunion match in Courmayeur between Ruben Bemelmans and my beloved Nico. Mahut ended up winning in a third set tie break. It was engaging and entertaining and generally, the level was pretty damn high. I mean, neither dude is Federer or Nadal, but only two dudes get to be them. It was a good match. I don't think it would have been out of place in a tour level tournament.

Amir Weintraub writes in his column about how playing Australian Open qualies really made him feel like he was on the same level as the guys ranked #100-#200 and how he could really send himself skyrocketing up the rankings, how it was real and tangible and could really happen. But then the next week in Eylat he lost to a guy ranked in the #600s and he got all depressed, because he felt like maybe he wasn't doing as well as he thought.

What this really highlights for me is how good so many guys are, how close. It's a fight for every ranking point on the Challenger and Futures tour because one ranking point can be a big difference. At the top of the game, it wouldn't matter whether Nadal gained a point or lost a point, because he'd still be 3,000 points ahead. On the satellite level... if you gain a point, you could jump quite a lot on the computer.

If Nicolas Mahut wins in Courmayeur, I'm pretty sure he'll go back into the top hundred. I felt pretty gypped on his behalf when I found out he got 45 ranking points for making second round at the Australian Open - I felt like that was barely anything. And then I read Weintraub's column about how happy he was to get eight ranking points just for playing first round qualies - how he played the tournament in Eylat in the hunt for 17 points. 17. It seems like nothing. But it's everything.

And yet the level of these guys, if the Mahut/Bemelmans match is used as an indicator, is not so far off the tour level. It's a very fine line between good enough and not quite there. And it seems to me that there must be a lot of luck involved - as well as talent and skill and tenacity and whatnot - in getting there. Getting into the top hundred, playing on tour level instead of being stuck in the satellite dogfight... everyone works for it, but only a few get lucky.

There's part of me that wants every single guy on this satellite circuit to make it - for their hard work to pay off. The reality is that not every guy is going to make it. Not every guy gets the fairy tale. Some guys are going to be stuck here slogging it out forever, in this world where one ranking point can make you or break you.

But that doesn't mean that they're not awesome tennis players.

Challenger tennis. It's worth watching. For reals.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Love

Wow. Just wow. If you have not Amir Weintraub's column what life is like when you're ranked #270-odd, READ IT NOW. Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four.

When we write about tennis, when we talk about it, when we think about it, we think of it as a rich sport. We think of Federer and Nadal and their massive entourages, of Sharapova and Ivanovic and Wozniacki with their huge endorsement deals... of rich people who got rich by being great at sport and who basically attract money like giant magnets. We see them on red carpets, on billboards, at fashion shows, at soccer matches... modelling Armani, driving in Mercedes Benz cars, wearing Tiffany earrings. And we see them holding aloft massive trophies with massive cheques shoved in their back pockets, and this is normal.

What we don't think about is the guy for whom playing the first round of qualies and picking up eight ranking points and $3000 is a massive, massive achievement.

"In the next few weeks I'm going to tell you about my life, about the life of a pro tennis player, and how it is nothing like you would imagine." This is the first sentence of Amir Weintraub's first column and he is dead on the money. I don't know about you, but this is not how I imagined the life of a professional tennis player.

He writes about getting to Brisbane for his first ever 'big' tournament and then learning he has no hope of getting into the qualies... so turning around, going back to the airport and flying to Noumea for a $75,000 event. So that he can get free accommodation, he has to play singles and doubles (after a night or two crashing on the floor in another player's room). "You need to understand that a big part of the considerations players in our level make have to do with how to save costs," he writes. "Sometimes those considerations exceed the professional considerations."

I'd heard that life was hard on the satellite tour. I didn't know how hard.

He gets injured in his victory in the second round of qualies for this tournament and the doctor and physio tell him not to play today. He replies, "I didn't make all this way from Israel to this hole so someone could tell me whether I'm healthy or not." He plays - injured. He loses second round in both singles and doubles. He doesn't even break even on the whole trip, but, as he says, "what's money in comparison to the chance to earn a few more ranking points?"

To do this - to live the life that Amir Weintraub does - takes guts, chutzpah, dedication and heart. Huge amounts of each. But most of all, it takes a great love for tennis. How much do you have to love a sport to keep living flight to flight, no certainty, no surety, never knowing what will happen next?

And alone, too. "Me, like other players in my status, are a one man industry," he writes. "No family, no coaches, no nothing. I don't want to make it sound like an excuse, but I have too many thoughts about things other than tennis, about the future and about procedures, like flights. In general, flights and flight arrangements occupy about a third of a player's time." I cannot even begin to imagine how intense living in that kind of uncertainty must be.

And why do you do it? For the chance, that one, small, tiny chance, of playing in Slam. Weintraub doesn't even know if he'll make the cut for qualies - he's two spots out - but he's so excited about being an alternate and getting two cans of new balls for practice (instead of three old balls) that it all seems worth it. But damn it, he wants that badge that says 'player' on it - the alternate badge brands him as an outsider.

And he gets it! He's the last player to make the cut for qualies. He gets his player badge and access to all the facilities that go along with it - including a locker next to Andy Roddick's.

He loses in the first round of qualies, but he's pleased with his performance. He's exhilarated by the whole Slam experience. And he's determined to get back next year. "Leaving Australia. Swearing I will do everything, but everything everything, to be back here sometime. This can't be my first and only time." I hope it isn't. Because if you're back in Australia next year, Amir, I am going to come to at least one of your matches - and I'm going to cheer my freaking head off.

Because this dude clearly loves tennis so, so much. Listen to this:

"For the very first time I able to understand what fellow tennis players and friends are talking about when they tell me, 'Come on, Amir. You haven't seen a thing. The day you reach a Slam you'd understand'. Understand why people won't give up their careers, why they are willing to hold on to this dream by their fingernails, why they won't retire even when they know it's over."

Hot damn, Amir Weintraub. You can write. Someone get him a book deal, stat.

He goes on to write about playing a Futures event in Eylat, Israel - which he describes as like leaving a Champion's league game to play a C league one. I won't spoil it for you, because you need to read it yourself. Seriously. AMIR WEINTRAUB. His column. Read it. I cannot emphasis this enough.

It's so easy to forget that under all the glitter of the upper echelons of Slams is this world, where players play week in, week out, where getting one ranking point is huge, where players live or die by tournament cutoffs - to quote Weintraub, "'The Cut' is the term players in my level die by". To get to the top, you usually need to go through this world - but not everyone makes it. Some people stay here, in the dogfight, for their whole careers - Weintraub talks about a guy he once played whom people were saying was destined for the Top 20, but he forgot how to hit a forehand literally overnight and gradually lost all his ranking points. It's a hard life - a demanding, stressful, full-of-pressure life. I think Weintraub says it best when he says this:

"I'm back to the reality where victory is worth one ranking point (how can you move ahead like that? It's like trying to conquer Everest when you're only allowed to take one step every day) and to a financial reality where I spend more money than I make."

And why do this? Why live this life? Why live like this, with all this pressure: "The pressure to get ranking points. The pressure not to mess up in small tournaments, the pressure not to mess up in Davis Cup. The pressure to start and make some money. Pressure." Why do it?

For the love of the game. For the chance to go to a Grand Slam once again. The chance to play the qualies. It's a mountain, one that Amir Weintraub and hundreds other like this are trying to conquer. "Point by point. Game by game," he writes.

And that love - the simple love of tennis - is enough. Enough to keep fighting. And that is something else indeed.

The Foot Of The Mountain

One of the strangest things about the time immediately after a Grand Slam is the fact that there is still tennis going on. There is no quiet time, no downtime... the players who gathered in Melbourne have scattered to all corners of the earth, unable to put their racquets down. Tennis players must feel like they're wearing the fairy tale red shoes sometimes - they just can't stop playing.

Of course, if you're Roger or Rafa or one of the top dudes, you can take a break. But for the little guys, there is none of that. You need the points to claw up the rankings. Every week is another battle. And just because a Slam is over and the whole tennis world is trying to catch its breath doesn't mean that you get the luxury of a break.

No, no, no. You are in Santiago or Zagreb or Johannesburg, trying to win a few rounds and gain some much needed points if you're a little little guy or notch up a tournament win if you're slightly bigger. Or some little guys might be in Courmayeur or Burnie or Kazan playing on the Challenger circuit, trying to grab the win and the valuable points there. And this is what you do, week in, week out.

When you're at the top, you can care about sensible scheduling. When you're not, then every week is another dogfight.

My newfound great love for Nicolas Mahut, he of the awesome hair, means that there'll probably be a lot more of the little guys on this blog - which is a good thing, I think. The little guys need some love. It's easy to be a Fedal fan (which, as you know, I am LIKE WHOA) but when you're not so famous, when you get shunted to the furthest court there is when you manage to qualify for a Slam... you deserve some screentime.

Mahut is the fourth seed in the Challenger in Courmayeur this week, and he had a first round win against Dieter Kindlmann last night in two breakers. Yay! He also jumped fourteen spots in the rankings up to #118 after his second round showing at the Australian Open! Also yay!

I tried to stay up to watch the match - Courmayeur has a livestream - but it didn't, you know, happen. However, I am definitely going to make an effort to watch at least a little of this tournament this week. Challenger tennis is something I don't know much about, and that's something I endeavour to change. Grand Slam tennis may be the pinnacle of the mountain, but Challengers and Futures are all about the climb.

50 Thoughts on the 2011 Australian Open

The flags have come down, the stadium is empty. The people are all gone. It is quiet. Rod Laver Arena is still. The Australian Open is over for another year. The slate that was so clean a few weeks ago has been written on, rough sketches of things to come beginning to take shape.

*

It’s time to reflect. Or try to forget. Or drink. Any of the above.

*

I could do some in depth analysis of the tournament and what it all means and stuff, but that sounds like it would take a lot of energy and as much fun as deconstructing is, two weeks of solid tennis really takes it out of you – even if you’re only watching and not playing. So instead of actual, like, paragraphs and stuff, let’s make a list of stuff. Stuff that I noticed, stuff that I think is cool, stuff that I think is not cool. Stuff.

*

1. When Li Na is done with tennis, she needs to have a stand up comedy career where she just makes fun of her husband all the time. She is COMEDY GOLD.

2. Why haven’t I noticed how cool Li Na is before?

3. It was nice that Kim Clijsters got to celebrate her victory as Kim and not as Jada’s mum. Jada is adorable and all, but Kim did this all on her lonesome.

4. Thank you, Kim Clijsters, for that takedown of Todd Woodbridge. It was awesome.

5. I can deal with Todd Woodbridge as a commentator. I’m fine with him. Love Jim Courier, surprisingly love Lleyton Hewitt. HATE BRUCE MCAVANEY. FIRE HIM AT ONCE. HE FILLS ME WITH RAGE.

6. Novak Djokovic was genuinely the best player on the men’s side this fortnight and was definitely due another title.

7. I had never, ever realised that Djokovic was such a speed demon. Or that he could do the splits.

8. Djokovic has improved over the years. He is no longer my most hated player. I’m never going to be a fan, but am glad to see he’s maturing.

9. I look at Djokovic, all I can see is Bert from Sesame Street. Or Screech from Saved By The Bell. Can’t help it.

10. There is a real chance Andy Murray might be the next Ivan Lendl.

11. There is a real chance Andy Murray might be the next Dinara Safina.

12. Dinara Safina is indeed the player I feel most sorry for all tournament.

13. Except for maybe Svetlana Kuznetsova, because NO ONE deserved to lose that match.

14. Francesca Schiavone is a FREAKING LEGEND. Seriously, how awesome is she? She rocks the kasbah.

15. Just because Caroline Wozniacki was funny in press conferences doesn’t mean I like her game any better.

16. I think Ekaterina Makarova really might be something in the next couple of years.

17. Same goes for Aleksandr Dolgopolov.

18. Actually, how freaking awesome is Sasha D? I am filled with so much Dolgopolove right now. Any man who is man enough to wear an Alice band is a man indeed.

19. I never realised how much I loved Rafa till he went down like that in the quarters.

20. Roger Federer will always be my favourite, no matter what happens in the rest of his career.

21. That said, the rest of his career is going to be pretty damn sparkly.

22. The world unfairly maligns David Ferrer. He is much more awesome than people give him credit for.

23. One good semi final does not a career make. Fernando Verdasco is the anti-Ferrer.

24. I’m not quite ready to jump on the Milos Raonic bandwagon yet. Sorry.

25. I am, however, quite ready to jump on the Anastasija Sevastova bandwagon, because I liked what I saw.

26. And then there’s that Dolgopolove bandwagon, which I have primo seating on.

27. And Richard Berankis, even if he got to the third round via Nalbandian-fail.

28. It was worth the Nalbandian fail to get to see that epic first round match against Hewitt. Best match of the tournament, second overall after Franlana.

29. Lleyton Hewitt is really a very good commentator. Never thought I would say this, but MOAR LLEYTON.

30. Did I mention how much I hate Bruce McAvaney?

31. Did I mention how much I hate Viktor Troicki? Because it is A LOT. I like fiery players. I’m a Safin fan. But he is vile.

32. Not just because he knocked out he of the anime-hair, Nicolas Mahut.

33. A great love of Nicolas Mahut seems to be the one thing all tennis fans can agree on. Fedophiles, Rafanatics... everyone loves Nico.

34. He should have got a wildcard to the Australian Open.

35. Sabine Lisicki should also have got a wildcard.

36. In fact, there should be an official Wildcard For Awesome.

37. Even though it failed, #wildcardformahut was an awesome experience. And it’s going to keep popping up every time he needs one.

38. I just generally think Mahut is the bee’s knees. In case you hadn’t noticed.

39. You know who else is awesome? Andrea Petkovic. There needs to be more people like Petkorazzi.

40. Petkorazzi has had an awesome summer and is due for a big rankings rise. Watch this space.

41. Likewise the tall left-handed space shaped like Petra Kvitova, because she is rocketing up so fast she will leave you in her dust.

42. Sandra Zahlavova’s screech is worse than Michelle Larcher de Brito’s. Yes, I’m saying it.

43. Venus Williams is a freaking WARRIOR.

44. Even if her dress did look like a pie.

45. Ernests Gulbis is not a warrior. I think I’m off the bandwagon.

46. Andrey Golubev was also disappointing, but there’s no way I’m giving up on him.

47. Marin Cilic was surprisingly un-disappointing. Good times.

48. Insert something vaguely complimentary (with conditions) about Bernard Tomic here.

49. Tobias Kamke is going to be so awesome so fast it will BLOW YOUR FREAKING MIND.

50. We are going to miss Justine Henin so, so much.

*

What would you add to the list?

*

I liked the result of last year’s tournament better. Any tournament with a big fat RF on it is a tournament I love. But I don’t think I’ve ever had a better time than I did at the Australian Open this year. Good tennis, good wine, Federbitching friends... these are the things that make a real Grand Slam experience. And I was lucky enough to have all three.

*

And now the countdown to Roland Garros begins, and I cannot wait. Not just because I finish work the Friday before, either...

Duck Unbroken

Well, that was a bit... anticlimactic.

Despite not having a horse in this race, I was - I confess - a tiny bit excited against this final. I thought we could see five sets. I thought we could see a real battle. I thought we would finally see British tennis break its 150,000 year old duck.

Being half a Brit myself and having a British tennis playing cousin, I was pulling for Murray tonight. A little bit. Andy Murray is emphatically not my fave. But considering Djokovic definitely isn't either, I had to pick one of them, and Murray it was.

And he was so freaking disappointing. There is a name, and the name is Safina.

Sure, Ivan Lendl took four finals to win his first one. Kim Clijsters was sitting on zero for many for a long time. But they are the exception, rather than the rule. And just like last year, the question has to be asked - will Andy Murray EVER win a Slam?

But enough of this. I don't want to be too mean. I have a British tennis playing cousin after all, and knowing what the media are going to do to Murray tonight, I don't want to add fuel to the fire.

Novak Djokovic was genuinely the best player this week. Anyone who beats a member of the Great Fedal Bromance has got something going on, and he was totally superior this week.

I don't normally break into paeans of praise for Djokovic. It is not a secret that I am not a fan. But he deserved this one. I felt, before the match, that it was Murray's turn, but once I saw the match, I knew it wasn't to be. Murray didn't play great, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Novak played awesome. Like, majorly awesome.

His defense in particular this tournament has been out of this world. I still rate Rafa as the best defender on tour, but Novak is up there in the ranks. Some of the shots he played tonight - and, indeed, this fortnight - have been incredible. He has played amazing tennis. And he has showed why he has consistently ranked higher than Andy Murray.

It's been a long time coming - congrats on your second major, Nole.

Battlers (not little Aussie ones)

This was a women's final worth waiting for.

It wasn't the match of the tournament, because hello, Franlana. Francesca Schiavone and Svetlana Kuznetsova definitely take the cake on that one. But it was a damn good match between two ladies that definitely deserved to be there.

I think what I liked most about was that it was a freaking battle. I like both women - I was pulling for Li, but Clijsters-hate, you will not find it here - so my investment in the outcome was not as major as it might have been. Instead of making me nervous (yes, Roger, I am looking at you), this time, the battle was kind of exhilarating.

After she pulled herself out of that 2-0 hole in the first set, I thought no one was going to be able to take Li Na down. She was on FIRE. Like WHOA. I'm not surprised she started a little slow - first Grand Slam final and all, but boy, did she make up for it with speed and power after that. Like CRAZY. Seriously, there are no words to describe the awesomeness of her play in the first set.

Clijsters didn't know what hit her - and faced with an opponent so obviously streaking, and to whom she had lost so recently, it would have been very easy to fall off the pace right there and let Li run away with it. But she did exactly the opposite - she stepped it up majorly.

And that is the difference between Kim 1.0 and Kim 2.0. Kim 1.0? Fragile, mentally. She did lose four Slam finals before she won one, which must have taken a toll. Kim 2.0? Made three finals, won all of them. The Second Coming of Kim Clijsters is made of stern stuff, and she showed it in this match, because with the way Li Na was playing, I didn't give her a chance. Shows what I know.

Li did fall back to earth a little. This is not to say that she suddenly played awful or anything, but no player can be on fire forever. But she was right in there - right in there the whole way. Even during the third set, where Kim got on top quite quickly, there was always a possibility that Li could come back.

Even though it was three sets, the scoreline - 36 63 63 - doesn't truly signify the battle this match was. Kim Clijsters expressed in her speech that she wouldn't mind playing more Slam finals with Li Na, and you know what? I wouldn't mind seeing a few.

And LI NA FOR A SLAM, ANY SLAM. She is made of AWESOMENESS and ADORABLENESS.

(And also, I was so happy that Kim Clijsters got to celebrate this victory on court on her own. Not that her family aren't adorable or anything, but I think it's time that we celebrated Kim for Kim, and not just for being Jada Lynch's mum. Jada is cute as a button, but Kim is so much more than this supermum label she's been tagged with! And also, can we please stop calling her Aussie Kim? Can we just let her be Belgian? WHY MUST WE TRY TO STEAL PEOPLE ALL THE TIME? Remember how that attempt to poach Baghdatis turned out?)

No Accident

If I have learned one thing from this Australian Open, it is this: never, ever underestimate David Ferrer.

I have been guilty of doing this for a long time. He's sort of my anti-Kohlschreiber - I always expect Kohlschreiber to do better than he does, and I always expect Ferrer to do worse than he does. In fact, if you asked me before this tournament who I genuinely thought I was a better player, I might have even said Kohlschreiber. David Ferrer is the ultimate under-the-radar guy.

It's amazing how he's managed to stay under the radar when he's made multiple Slam semis. I knew this, and I still continually underestimated him. I didn't even notice he was in the tournament till he played Raonic in the first round, and even then I had a mental asterisk next to him that said 'bunny'.

'Oh, he will lose to Rafa easily!' thought I. Obviously this was not to be. Sure, Rafa was injured, but he was still moving, still fighting. It must be very easy to lose to a wounded warrior - to get so excited about them being on the ropes that you forget about the business of winning the match. And Rafa, while obviously hampered, wasn't quite on crutches yet.

Ferrer kept his head. He played smart tennis, and he won - deservedly so - in straights. There was a lot of attention on how humble Rafa was, refusing to talk about his injury and giving credit to his opponent. Sure, he was very humble - it was a great press conference. But he was also right. Ferrer won this match. Full credit.

But still, thought I, 'oh, he has no chance against Andy Murray! Muzz will hand his arse to him!'

And yes, Ferrer lost. But he went down swinging like a real champion. He played amazingly to get that first set, and if he had taken that set point in the second set, who knows what direction the match would have taken?

This has been a great tournament for Ferrer. But he didn't get to the semis by accident. And I - and everyone else - need to remember that Ferrer deserves all the glory he can get. No more under the radar. Let's stand up and applaud David Ferrer.

This Is Tennis

Sometimes the other guy is just a little bit better.

And that is what happened to Roger Federer tonight. No excuses. No rhyme, no especial reason. Novak Djokovic just played better than him tonight. And that is tennis.

Federer didn't play his bestest match ever, but even if his level had been a little higher, I don't know what would have happened. Novak Djokovic played better than I have ever seen him tonight. He was a backboard in some points - I don't know what his unforced error count was, but I bet it was pretty low - and in others he ripped some spectacular winners. His forehand has long been lauded as his weaker wing - it did not seem weak tonight, when he hit crosscourt forehands with consummate ease.

His serve was a weapon. His backhand was sublime. Djokovic played like a man who deserved to win the match - and he deserved every bit of it. It's no secret that I'm not exactly his biggest fan, but there is not one element of his game I can fault tonight. He was the better player on the court, plain and simple. And after three years, it might finally be his turn again to win a Grand Slam.

It's strange to be in a world where Roger Federer does not hold a Grand Slam title - but it's not necessarily a bad thing. Roger has been on top for so long - now he has things to work towards, new mountains to climb. It can be depressing or it can be exciting, and I choose the latter. And there is a particular year in my mind - 2009. In that year, Roger didn't win the Australian Open either - but look at how it turned out.

But even if Roger never won another title ever, he would still be my favourite player ever. There is no loss that can take away what he has done and what he is.

So I can remain upbeat about this loss. He was outplayed. This is tennis. It happens. And he is the greatest tennis player ever. He has a lot of career left in which to play beautiful, wonderful tennis, perhaps win another couple of Slams, and to generally continue being awesome in.

Congratulations, Novak. All the best for the final. And Roger - we'll see you again soon.

Here Be Monsters

Today is not a tennis day that made me happy.

There is Rafa. Oh, Rafa. I didn't actually realise how much I loved you until I saw you struggling to play through pain - and it must have been a lot of pain to hamper you so badly. What a sad way for your quest for the Rafa Slam to end.

And then there is Justine, retiring for the second time. Her elbow is too fragile for her to continue. I guess we can just be grateful for the time we had.

These are obviously not exactly connected issues, so let's start with Rafa. In fact, let's start with David Ferrer, who played an outstanding match. I want to take absolutely nothing away from the killer performance he put in here. I have seriously never seen him rip so many winners. And even though I knew he was the Energiser bunny, I had no conception of how fast he was. That seriously surprises me every time.

And when you're Rafa, and you're clearly injured - even if you are being so gracious and not talking about it - the Energiser bunny, who will make you play ball after ball after ball, is the last person you want to play.

Rafa was such a gentleman about his performance. He didn't want to talk about his injury, he said, because he didn't want to detract from the performance of his opponent. Full credit here. More than full credit. This is the kind of behaviour that led him to getting the sportsmanship award as voted by the other players.

Murray's road to the final suddenly got a whole lot easier. He may have lost a set to everyone's new favourite Dolgopolov (whom we all Dolgopolove) but he is still the form player on this side by a mile. With Soderling and Nadal swept out of his path, he practically has a free ticket straight to the final. Great as David Ferrer played - and even though he has a winning record over Murray - I don't see Ferrer doing much to hurt the Muzz.

But I would have said that about Nadal, so go figure.

And then the other tragic news - the second retirement of Justine Henin. I thought there was no way she would ever come back from her first retirement, but this time it's final. Her body physically will not let her play. She can't. And so we have lost her.

I adore watching Henin. Her backhand is the most beautiful shot in women's tennis and now we have lost it forever - and when he eventually lose Francesca Schiavone, we may lose the one-handed backhand altogether. But it's not just her backhand - and her game - we're losing. We're losing Juju. We're losing everything she has brought to tennis. And she's losing her chance at a Wimbledon title.

We'll miss you, Justine. I cannot tell you how much we will miss you.

Flat Stanley

Okay, so I chose the headline because I thought it was funny. The book Flat Stanley made me cackle with mirth for many hours as a child. I actually don't think Stanislas 'Stanley' Wawrinka was that flat at all. I just can't resist wordplay.

Let me qualify. Stan wasn't playing his bestest tennis ever, that is for sure. But it wasn't necessarily his fault. He wasn't playing his bestest tennis ever because his ol' mate Rog wouldn't let him.

It's hard to play your friends. Stan talked a bit about how he had to imagine there was no face on the other side of the net. Roger clearly doesn't have the same problem - nor could he afford to, being on the top of the game and having a committed bromance with rival Rafa. But quite apart from that, it's hard to play your friends because they know all your tricks.

Roger knows Stan's tricks. He knows all about the backhand down the line, and the angled backhand crosscourt, and the backhand in general. He knows about Stan's serve and his forehand and his volleys. This goes both ways, of course, but Roger has a LOT more tricks. You just have to look at the game played at the end of the second set to know that.

In a way, because Stan knows all his tricks, Roger had to play exhibition style tennis to beat him. This is a Stan very different to Stans we've seen before - this is Lundgren!Stan, who is aggressive and not afraid to get in his opponent's face and who rips winners like whoa. It reminds me a little bit of the early days of Dinara Safina and Zeljko Krajan, actually. This is a Stan like we've never seen him before, using his gifts - his backhand in particular - and his mind to play smart tennis.

So Roger had to play smarter. He had to reach into his bag of tricks and pull out some magic. He had to pull a rabbit out of his hat. And he did. Several rabbits and a few of those really long scarves with all the different colours and oh, what's this? a straight sets win! And next to that, Stanley - even the new, improved Stanley, who did not play awful - looked a little flat.

Roger will play Djokovic next, who overcame Berdych in straight sets in the Battle of Sesame Street. (Bert vs Big Bird, in case that is unclear.) Djokovic played some scintillating stuff, though he should probably never take up a career as a poker player - he hammed up rather than played down his vision problem, and it is to Berdych's detriment that he didn't take more advantage of that. But Djokovic wouldn't let him play well, at the end of the day - he played really, really well.

And so the semi-final will be a festival of frazzles for the Federer fan!

In the ladies, Li Na is firming as my tournament favourite - she played awesomely against Petkovic and has proved she can get it done against Clijsters, who will probably be her finals opponent. And then there was Schiavone - oh, Frankie. She played so valiantly against Wozniacki - winning the first set in very stylish fashion - but fell in the end. After you play nearly five hours, this is understandable. But the heart, the courage and the willpower she displayed to stay in this match was astounding. She is the kind of player that young tennis players should aspire to be - the type of player who never, ever stops fighting.

Dolgopolove

Alexandr Dolgopolov is going to be a top ten player. Maybe even top five. And it is going to happen soon.

Robin Soderling did not know what hit him when he walked out on Rod Laver Arena. At first, I'm pretty sure he thought it was fat nothing, when he walked all over his opponent 6-1 in the first set. And even when he was broken in the second set - hell, even when he lost the second set - I'm pretty sure he was still feeling all right.

We were all applauding. 'Wow, Sasha got a set!' we cheered. 'A set from Soderling! He really is going to be something special one of these days!'

But Sasha was not content with 'one of these days'. No, Sasha wanted today.

And that is what he got.

When Soderling lost the third set... he knew he was in a match. And even after Soderling won the fourth set, and when he went up a break in the fifth... this was somehow Sasha's match. After he won the third set, there was not a moment in this match when Dolgopolov was going to lose.

Andy Roddick called him 'aggressive to the point of psychosis'. Sasha Dolgopolov has all the shots. He can rip winners from anywhere in the court - like, ANYWHERE, in that manner that only Federer and Nadal can do on a consistent basis. I can see how, on an off day, it could all go horribly wrong, and I suppose that's why he isn't higher ranked right at this second, but (first set aside), it was all going right for Sasha against Soderling. And if he can play like this on a consistent level, it is hard to imagine too many people who could stop him.

He has a huge forehand. He has a scintillating backhand. He can volley and slice and has a nice serve too. He can hit with spin, he can hit flat. I saw his match against Becker the other day live and after his match against Soderling, I haven't seen a shot he can't hit and hit with panache.

He plays the type of tennis which is most watchable when it's on and agonisingly painful when it's off. His mission, should he choose to accept it, is to make sure he can keep his level up week in, week out. Because if he can play like he played against Soderling all the time, he will be into the top ten with a rocket.

In other news, Nadal seems to have recovered from his illness woes - he really played a good match against Cilic, who couldn't really hurt him too much. Murray absolutely mauled Melzer in a terrifying way - that will be a really tough match for Sasha next. And a Murray/Nadal semi - that could be an absolute cracker. (Or totally anticlimactic, depending on how well both dudes play.)

In the ladies, the Kim Clijsters train rolls on - she put out Ekaterina Makarova, whom I really liked the look of and hope we see more of in the future. Vera Zvonareva continued to slice through the draw quietly (hot knife, butter, etc) and Agnieszka Radwanska had a very good win as well and Petra Kvitova is looking very nice as well...

Fighters. History. Tennis.

There were a lot of matches yesterday. Wozniacki won. Wawrinka won. Federer won. Petkovic won.

But it was really only about one match.

Francesca Schiavone and Svetlana Kuznetsvoa played an instant classic. It was somehow more instant than an instant classic - it was a classic while it was still being played. Three long sets - well, two normal sets and an epic. The longest women's Grand Slam match ever, clocking in at four hours and forty-four minutes. A testament to these two wonderful players and to two fighting spirits.

There is a lot to be said for people who simply refuse to lose.

Schiavone, in the end, came away the victor... but even though Kuznetsova lost, this match was a wonderful one for her. It's like Isner/Mahut - any victory in a match this long is Pyrrhic. The W next to one's name becomes inconsequential, even though it's the prize being fought over. A match like this transcends a tournament. A match like this is a match for history.

Not that that would be particularly easy for either player to come to terms with right at this second. Frankie must be elated (and exhausted). Sveta must be crushed (and also exhausted). But later on, when they look back at this tournament, the wins before this one will not be what is remembered. It will be this match - a match that was more than a victory, much more than a loss. A match that was a celebration of tennis.

Unless Frankie goes on and wins the tournament. That memory might be a little sweeter.

Much as I would like Frankie to go on and win the tournament, I think that this match will do to her exactly what it did to Isner, and she will go into her next match super-tired. I know five-odd hours is not quite eleven hours, but it's hours enough. However, if she does pull out the win over Wozniacki, I will CHEER MY FREAKING LUNGS OUT. Because someone who played in a match like that deserves to win a(nother) Slam.

And the same goes for you, Sveta. You're not going to win Australian Open 2011, but there are three other Slams this year. May one of them be yours.

Brief sidebar - Wawrinka played TERRIFYINGLY well against Roddick. When did he suddenly get so awesome? As a Federer fan, I am officially scared. Glad that his friend Stanley has come through, but SCARED.

Tomic In Transit

I did not get to see much tennis yesterday due to being in transit for most of the day - there was a whole incident with a cancelled flight that left me hanging around Melbourne Airport for six hours and then having to wait for a train for another two hours (quite apart from the two hours I spent on said train)... suffice to say it was a long day, and if I'd known it would be that painful, I would have somehow contrived to stay in Melbourne another day. As a result for this twelve-odd hour transit drama, the only tennis I got to see was the second two sets of Nadal and Tomic.

And much it pains me to say it, because we all know I can't stand the kid, I was impressed by Bernard Tomic.

I was not only hoping for a triple bagel, I was vaguely expecting it. I was convinced that there was nothing in Tomic's game that could hurt Nadal - that Nadal would eat up those dinky little tap shots Tomic is so obsessed with, that Tomic didn't hit flat enough to even begin to mess with Nadal, nor did he have anywhere near enough power, that Nadal would exploit Tomic's movement and drag him around.

But it didn't happen. Nadal won - and won comfortably in the end - but Tomic genuinely did play an excellent match.

There were signs in this match of the player Tomic could be. Jim Courier was very insightful earlier this week when he said Tomic was very mentally developed for a player of his age but not physically, and I definitely think that's true. Tomic hasn't grown into his height yet - though it certainly did help him neutralise (to some degree) the high bounce on the Nadal lasso forehand. And because he is so gangly his movement - particularly up and down to the net - isn't the best that it can be. Because he is so tall, maybe it never will be world-beating.

But his tennis brain is outstanding. Simply outstanding. I read somewhere else that he has a high tennis IQ but a low social IQ, and I think that's definitely true. If he behaves in the locker room like he does to the public, he's not going to be that popular. And that could really affect him in the long term.

It pains me to say it. It really does. But Bernard Tomic really did impress me last night.

Speaking of things that are impressive, you know what would be impressive? More Nicolas Mahut in a dress. Some of Venus's dresses, in particular. Melinda Samson (aka @GrandSlamGal) and I were discussing this on Twitter, and basically we concluded that they should have their own reality show. You can read her post on Mahut, Styled By Venus here.

Life On Show Court 2

Today was my last day at the Australian Open - sadface. I finished it off with wonderful drinks with Dootsiez and PJ from All I Need Is A Picket Fence, which was the perfect way to end what has been a wonderful tournament for me. I have had the time of my life, and you can bet your bottom dollar that I will be back for 2012 - for even longer, if I can possibly afford it!

I spent a great part of my day on Show Court 2 today - first for Almagro vs Ljubicic and then for Azarenka vs Scheepers. Herein is my report.

Almagro was playing as well as I have ever seen him on a hard court. We all know that he is the Prince of Clay, but he was absolutely on fire today against Ljubicic. If you'd asked me to place a bet before the match, I would have said Ljubicic in straights. Instead, it turned out being the other way round.

I never realised Almgaro had such massive shots - he can hit the ball HARD. I think the only person I've seen hit the ball that (noticeably) hard is Soderling. And maybe Nadal. Seriously, his strokes were MASSIVE today. He has a real flair for the passing shot and the angled forehand. And he played a totally fierce second set tiebreak. That tiebreak was the real key point in the match, and it was Almagro who held tough. I was very impressed. I totally understand how he gave Tsonga such a good run for his money last year! Actually, Almagro has a pretty decent record in Australia, and I totally get why.

Ljubicic, on the other hand, was doing something weird with his shots. I don't know if I was influenced by his grunt, which made him sound extremely like he was in pain, but he seemed to be collapsing inwards on a lot of his shots - sort of curling up, which seemed to be really hampering his movement. I don't know if I've missed, like, his entire career, and he's always played like this, but I felt very much like he was playing through big pain. I was kind of glad Almagro put him out of his misery, to tell the truth.

And then it was time for the ladies. This was the first full ladies' match I have watched outside of Rod Laver Arena, and it was suitably compelling, even if the scoreline did not suggest it.

I have not been a big fan of Azarenka in the past. I don't know if I have changed my opinion, but I was pretty impressed with her today. Scheepers possesses some big shots - like, BIG. She can hit winners like nobody's business and she has a lot of power. But Vika didn't panic and deflected all that power straight back at her. It was great tennis from Vika, combined with a bit of inexperience from her opponent, which won her this match. And in a women's draw more wide open than ever, why shouldn't it be time for Vika to make a charge?

And then it was time for Federer. I didn't have Rod Laver Arena tickets, but I watched on the big screen in Grand Slam Oval. And had twenty minor heart attacks, even though Federer was in front virtually the whole time.

Federer played this whole match like he'd left the oven on - distracted and wanting to get off as soon as possible. He managed the latter, but it was a strange, nervy match. He oscillated between extreme brilliance and Federror, his evil shadow-self. And then there was his strange obsession with the drop shot...

But he'll be right. He's Federer. And that is the truth of the matter.

I'm watched the Rod Laver Arena night session as I write this. Stan Wawrinka has just put paid to an awful Gael Monfils. Seriously, could Monfils have played any worse in this match? He possibly has the worst mentality in tennis. I came to this conclusion after watching him tank the third set against Gil the other night, and it was only reinforced tonight.

We've watched Federer and Nadal. We know that tennis champions have minds of steel. Monfils demonstrated tonight that he does not have one. He fell apart, totally and completely. He might have the talent, he might even have the game, but unless he works on what he has upstairs, he's not going anywhere.

In short, it is time for Gael Monfils and Roger Rasheed to BREAK UP. Rasheed is infecting him with douchiness.

Stan, on the other hand, played wonderfully. He may be a little douchey in his personal life - I cast no stones, I said 'may' - but his backhand is a freaking work of art. That thing is gorgeous.

And then the second Rod Laver Arena match... poor Venus. That poor girl. Poor scheduling decision, considering her injured-ness, but oh my goodness. That girl was HURTING. Get well soon, Lady V!