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.

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.

Not His Destiny

So I'm sitting here watching ATP World Tour Uncovered, because, you know, that is what you do sometimes, and there is a feature on Tomas Berdych. 'Huh,' say I, because I am still a bit sore at Berdych for all the pain he has inflicted on my beloved Roger Federer this year, and don't really pay too much attention.

And then they ask, 'so when will Tomas Berdych win a Grand Slam?'

Whoa. We're talking in 'when' now? Whatever happened to 'if'?

I will tell you one thing and it is this - I do not believe Tomas Berdych will ever win a Grand Slam. (Watch him go ahead and win one now.) I think that at the end of the day, no matter how great his year this year has been, he is going to be remembered as an underachiever. If he was playing like he is now three years ago, then I would have been all 'sure, Berdych, Slam winner, I believe you'. But now...? I think Berdych has reached (and maybe passed) the height of his powers. I think the train has left and if he's clinging onto anything, it's the caboose.

I got a bit caught up in metaphors there, but what I think is this: you can cry 'late bloomer' till the cows come home, but I think Tomas has missed the up-and-comer part of his career. He can make a surge here all he wants. He can win Masters titles, if he wants. But a Slam...? I do not think that destiny is one for Berdych.

Where I do think Berdych can attain tennis glory is in Davis Cup. But I just don't see Berdych, Slam winner. It does not compute.

Love Fifteen

So it kind of hit me when I was at work (yes, I was not doing much) - Roger Federer has fifteen Slams.

*

I mean, I knew that. The record was fourteen, and he beat the record, and fourteen + one = fifteen. This is not rocket science. But dude! FIFTEEN!

*

That is a LOT of Slams.

*

I tried to imagine Federer's trophy room. We heard that quip from Serena the other day about how she uses trophies to hold makeup brushes, and she plays a pretty tight schedule. Roger's now won sixty singles titles and has a few of those runner up things as well. I imagined him walking in and stubbing his toe on the US Open trophy from 2005, then rooting through an explosively full cupboard to find his Cincinatti 2007 trophy to give to Baby Fed as a teething ring. Mirka might come in to see why it was taking so long and might fall over the trophy from the Australian Open in 2004, and he might catch her but run into a shelf, causing a few of those swords from Dubai to fall down. And then Baby Fed might crawl in and they might get panicked thinking they've lost it, only to find it nestled asleep inside the replica Coupe de Mousquetaires. They'd be so happy they'd have to make cookies, and Roger would ferret out the runner up plate from Wimbledon in 2008 to serve them on (which he's hidden in the highest cupboard in the house).

*

Then think of the trophy room of a one Slam wonder. You can bet that that one Slam trophy is the highlight of his collection. It's the centrepiece, the marvel, the life achievement of which he is most proud. He has special lights shining on it. People are like 'wow... a Slam trophy!'

*

In Roger's house? He's got a Wimbledon trophy on the mantlepiece. And five more out the back. And he's got a few spare trophies out in the mountains holding Juliette's feed - you know, from the not-quite-so-important tournaments, like the Masters Cup.

*

Fifteen Slams. Fifteen.

*

What kind of insane level of consistency is that? Pete Sampras won fourteen Slams over twelve years. Roger's won fifteen over six. That means, of the twenty-five Slams played since (and including) Wimbledon 2003, Federer's won fifteen of them. Leaving ten for everyone else.

*

Ten. And when you consider that six of them belong to great champion in his own right Rafa Nadal, that leaves very, very few left. One to Roddick. One to Safin. One to Djokovic. One to Gaudio.

*

Think of how many more Slams guys like these would have won, if Roger Federer hadn't hogged them all! He's single-handedly overshadowed the careers of not just a few players, but of a generation.

*

And I love it. I love fifteen! Because fifteen Slams couldn't go to a nicer bloke or a man that deserved it more than Roger 'I use my trophies for fruitbowls and to hold my razors and perhaps my firstborn' Federer.

*

The rest of the field? Love. Federer? Fifteen.

*

*

Today's Results

*

Campbell's Hall of Fame Tennis Championships (Newport)

*

Philipp Petzschner def. Horacio Zeballos, 6-4 6-7 (4-7) 6-2

Alex Bogmolov def. Arnaud Clement, 1-6 6-3 6-4

Nicolas Mahut def. Amer Delic, 6-4 6-4

Sam Querrey def. Ruben Ramirez Hidalgo, 6-3 6-2

*

*

Collector Swedish Open Women (Bastad)

*

Caroline Wozniacki def. Petra Kvitova, 6-4 6-2

Dominika Cibulkova def. Nuria Llagostera Vives, 6-1 6-1

Flavia Pennetta def. Masa Zec Peskiric, 6-1 6-2

Gisela Dulko def. Sorana Cirstea, 6-3 4-6 7-6 (7-5)

Maria Kirilenko def. Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, 6-2 6-3

Carla Suarez Navarro def. Ellen Allgurin, 6-1 6-4

Alla Kudryavtseva def. Iveta Benesova, 6-2 6-4

Maria Jose Martinez Sanchez def. Angelique Kerber, 6-3 6-2

*

*

GDF Suez Grand Prix (Budapest)

*

Shahar Peer def. Alize Cornet, 6-2 6-0

Edina Gallovits def. Sybille Bammer, 4-6 7-5 6-2

Alona Bondarenko def. Ioana Raluca Olaru, 6-4 4-6 6-4

Petra Martic def. Mariya Koryttseva, 6-3 6-2

Patty Schnyder def. Andrea Petkovic, 7-6 (7-3) 6-3

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

A Kind of Quiet Confidence

The big man R-Fed has released his schedule for next year, and what everyone's talking about is its lack of clay. 'Only two events!' they say. 'Mon dieu! How will he ever be ready in time for Paris! Ca alors!'

*

Me... well, I think back to 2006. That was arguably Roger's best showing at Paris - ie. the tightest final he gave Rafa, possibly in competition with 2007 - and he played exactly two tournaments before Roland Garros: Monte Carlo and Rome. (God, who can forget that Rome final in 2006? That was possibly the most intense tennis match I have ever seen: Roger and Rafa's greatest match up outside Wimbledon this year. And then they made Masters Series finals three sets. Yeah, that was smart. Cough cough.) This year he played a crushing clay season - four tournaments - and got crushed in the final in return. So why not return to the old ways? I think it's terribly clever. Let us not forget that Roger will be looking for his fourteenth - or, probably, his fifteenth - Slam at Roland Garros. I think he's very clever.

*

I'd be more worried about Rafa's schedule, to tell the truth. With all his knee problems, will he continue to play four clay tournaments? Kid's gotta cut back, or he'll be retiring before Roger even begins thinking about it.

*

And is anyone else thinking that this tournament in Abu Dhabi kind of looks like fun? I'm unsure why so many people have agreed to play it - Roger's pre-Australian Open schedule is looking chockas, what with that and Doha and Kooyong - but it's going to be a cracker of an exhibition tournament. Everyone who's anyone will be there - just what I like to see. Kind of like a mini Masters Cup: only this time I reckon the real Master will come out on top. I have a good feeling about Federer's 2009 - a kind of quiet confidence. Grand Slam ahoy!

Missed Opportunities

All that talk about Todd Reid earlier got me thinking - how many missed opportunities are there in tennis?
*
I mean, Todd Reid is only 24, but if you haven't made it by that age, then you're pretty much not going to, right? The only genuine late bloomer I remember is Ljubicic, and even then, I think he'd bloomed a bit earlier than this, so to speak. But Todd Reid was the #4 junior in the world back in the day, which, when you think about it, was not that long ago - 2002, I think, for him. That was just before the golden age of Federer began, but not that long before it. So just a few years ago, Todd Reid was seemingly going to be one of the tennis stars of his generation. Two junior Slam finals, one victory. A promising start in the first round of the Aussie Open against Nicholas Escude. And where is he now? Just scraping past sixteen year old Bernard Tomic in some schlep tournament in Perth.
*
Largely, if you win a junior Slam, you go on to do a bit of something at the senior level. Roger Federer won junior Wimbledon. David Nalbandian was his junior nemesis, and he picked up a title or two. Andy Murray won the junior US Open. Stan Wawrinka won the junior Roland Garros. Names we think about now. Actually, let's go and look at who won the junior Slams in '02, the year of Todd Reid...
*
...the Aussie Open was won by someone called Clement Morel, of whom I have never heard (anyone?) but the French and the US were both won by someone called Richard Gasquet. Heard of him?
*
So what does this prove? I suppose one always has to assume that a good juniors career doesn't mean a great senior's career - I guess some people just burn out young, or plateau and stop improving while everyone else around them gets better. Maybe some never adjust to the pressure of the senior tour. But how different could the face of tennis be? Looking at the lists of those who have won in juniors but never translated it into the proper tour is like looking at a tennis graveyard - a litany of missed opportunity.

The Kuerten Falls for Guga, or; the Tennis Pun So Bad It Cannot Be Denied

So much for my weekly roundup of tennis, huh? I guess that was being a little ambitious. After the Australian tennis summer, I'm always subconsciously convinced that the world will realise just how exciting tennis is and everyone will still be into it. But it never happens. Everyone forgets.

*

Actually, on a sort of tangent, I realised how little people know about tennis at the Australian Open this year when I was watching Rafael Nadal practice with Carlos Moya. 'Who's that practicing with Nadal?' I heard someone ask. 'It must be his dad,' someone else replied. I cringed. What is the point, I asked myself, of coming to an event like the Open when you recognise two, maybe three of the players? I mean, if it was Jarkko Nieminen or Sam Querrey or Philipp Kohlschreiber or someone practicing and they didn't know who they were, I'd get that - none of them are that famous - but Carlos Moya? Come on. He won a Slam (albeit in 1998, but still), was ranked #1 in the world and is, as one of my friends might say, a stone cold fox.

*

Speaking of Carlos, he lost at Roland Garros yesterday. I like him quite a lot, and I was very sad. This brings me back to the reason I've revived the ol' backseat tennis blog - we are, once again, in Grand Slam territory. Roland Garros, the French Open - which is, in many respects, the most interesting Slam of the year - has once again begun.

*

And, as I was saying, unfortunately, Carlos Moya, who won this tournament ten years ago, lost in the first round to Eduardo Schwank... who is really an interesting character in and of himself. I'd never heard of him until there was that hotel fire in Paris (that he started, apparently) and his prize winnings from one of the Challengers he'd just won went up in smoke. I must admit, my first thought was that that was a bit dodgy, because who pays in cash? but I suppose Challenger tournaments might have different standards. So yeah, he's never won anything before - this is his first ever Grand Slam match, if you don't include the qualies he played - and suddenly he wins three Challengers in a row. (Cremona, Rome and Bordeaux apparently.) And now he's beating Carlos Moya, who is a great player and seeded at the tournament... maybe he's going to pull a Marcos/Jo-Wilfried. Actually, if Marcel Granollers-Pujol wins his first round match against Michael Berrer, they'll face each other, and that could be interesting - Granollers ain't no slouch on clay, as he showed at the Houston tournament. Schwank is in the Djokovic quarter of the second half of the draw, along with Canas, Blake and Baghdatis... it'll be interesting to see how far he can go.

*

Actually, speaking of Challenger events, the whole Schwank story led me to looking at who has been winning the Challengers this year... I'd always assumed it was, like, this lower echelon of players that no one ever hears of, but a lot of them are top hundred - sometimes even top fifty. Ivan Ljubicic won a Challenger this year. Ivan Ljubicic, who used to be #3 in the world not that long ago, and who is seeded at Roland Garros. Seeded #27 or #28 or something, sure, but seeded. Who knew Challengers drew such good players? It makes me wonder what the Futures circuit is like. Are there people there that I've heard of as well? I had this image in my head of Challengers being people ranked down to about #500, and then Futures being #500-#1000ish (not that I ever thought it through). However, the standard is obviously a lot higher. I wonder how many of those top thirty, fifty players ever play a Challenger?

*

The real story of the first Sunday of Roland Garros, however, was obviously the emotional retirement of Gustavo Kuerten. (There is a really nice article in this month's DEUCE magazine, which does him much more justice than I can do here.) It was hardly surprising - and really, logistically speaking, everyone knew he wasn't going to get better after his hip surgery, and he really did draw this out A LOT - but it was still very sad. I wasn't really into tennis during the Guga years, but I still remember his three Roland Garros victories... him drawing the heart on the court in 2001 (or was it 2000?) and that great takedown of Sergi Bruguera in 1997. His run to the final that year was very Baghdatis-esque, with one change - Federer took Baghdatis out, much as Djokovic took Tsonga out this year, but Guga took out Bruguera, and he did it EASY. He was one of those instant superstar players that we haven't seen for a while... not since Nadal, really, when he won Roland Garros in 2005. And even then, Rafa was still seeded #6 or something, and I think he'd just won 5 clay court titles in a row, so it wasn't like it was totally unexpected. Guga came pretty much from nowhere. Don't quote me on this, but I think he was the lowest ranked player to win a Slam since Edmondson in Australia in '76. So that's some achievement right there.

*

And Guga was a good fun player as well. He was deceptively harmless looking... all thin and lanky, with that mop of funny hair, but if you gave him an inch, he'd wipe you off the court. And he was always so smiley. I like a good smiley tennis player. The more I think about it, Guga really is a prototype for Marcos Baghdatis - except that Guga made it to #1 and stayed there for a while, whereas Marcos made it to the final of the AO '06 and has been drifting round the top 20 ever since, but has hardly made huge waves. Not that anyone would ever expect the Baghdatises of the world to dethrone the Federers, but Guga's success is still proportionately much greater, I think.

*

So, farewell, Guga. It is sad to see you go... even if it has been coming for a long time.

*

*

Roland Garros Results - Day One

*

*

Men's Draw

*

Paul-Henri Mathieu def. Gustavo Kuerten, 6-3 6-4 6-2

Novak Djokovic def. Denis Gremelmayr, 4-6 6-3 7-5 6-2

David Nalbandian def. Carlos Berlocq, 6-2 6-4 6-1

Andy Murray def. Jonathan Eyserric, 6-2 1-6 4-6 6-0 6-2

James Blake def. Rainer Schuettler, 6-4 6-1 7-6 (7-3)

Nicolas Lapentti def. Janko Tipsarevic, 6-4 4-6 6-1 7-6 (9-7)

Juan Martin Del Potro def. Josselin Ouanna, 6-3 6-2 6-3

Eduardo Schwank def. Carlos Moya, 7-6 (7-4) 6-2 6-7 (1-7) 4-6 6-3

Sebastian Decoud def. Olivier Rochus, 3-6 6-4 6-3 6-7 (8-10) 6-1

Jose Acasuso def. Dominik Hrbaty, 6-4 6-2 6-4

Maximo Gonzalez def. Roko Karanusic, 6-3 7-5 4-6 3-6 6-2

Jeremy Chardy def. Frederico Gil, 6-3 6-2 7-6 (7-1)

Nicolas Almagro def. Boris Pashanski, 6-4 7-5 6-1

Ernests Gulbis def. Simon Greul, 6-4 6-0 6-4

Miguel Angel Lopez Jaen def. Frank Dancevic, 7-6 (8-6) 3-6 7-5 7-6 (7-2)

*

*

Women's Draw

*

Alize Cornet def. Julia Vakulenko, 7-5 6-4

Ana Ivanovic def. Sofia Arvidsson, 6-2 7-5

Serena Williams def. Ashley Harkleroad, 6-2 6-1

Klara Zakapalova def. Virginie Razzano, 4-6 6-3 6-2

Mathilde Johansson def. Camille Pin, 6-4 4-6 6-2

Iveta Benesova def. Nicole Vaidisova, 7-6 (7-2) 6-1

Nathalie Dechy def. Julie Ditty, 7-5 7-6 (7-3)

Caroline Wozniacki def. Yvonne Meusburger, 6-0 6-2

Dominika Cibulkova def. Angelique Kerber, 6-2 6-2

Lucie Safarova def. Sandra Kloesel, 6-1 6-1

Anastasiya Yakimova def. Hsieh Su-wei, 6-7 (4-7) 7-5 6-4

Selima Sfar def. Stephanie Dubois, 7-5 6-2

Galina Voskoboeva def. Youlia Fedossova, 6-0 6-7 (4-7) 6-1

Milagros Seguera def. Lilia Osterloh, 7-6 (7-5) 7-5

Ekaterina Makarova def. Catalina Castano, 7-5 6-1

The World Comes To Play; or, The World's Best Buffet

So now I'm back, after what was easily one of the best trips in my life. A short trip, yes - I flew out very early Monday morning and flew back Tuesday evening. But what a two days it was!

*

What they don't tell you about the Australian Open is that the back courts is where all the action is - the practice courts. Of all the tennis I watched, probably 75% of it was practice. It seems funny, when there is all this actual tennis going on around you. But the practice courts... that's where you see the big names. The heroes of the game.

*

I saw Dmitry Tursunov practice. I saw Marat Safin. I saw Rafael Nadal and Carlos Moya practice together. I saw Justine Henin, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Ana Ivanovic and Jelena Jankovic. I saw David Ferrer, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Jarkko Nieminen, Andy Roddick, James Blake, Fernando Gonzalez... the list goes on and on.

*

And yes, I saw Roger Federer.

*

I had just finished watching Tursunov's practice on Court 22. I was walking back down towards Rod Laver Arena when I saw the crowd round Court 16. 'Hello,' thought I, 'it must be someone famous.' I'm small, so I managed to squeeze my way through to the fence. And there he was, hitting forehand after forehand - that Roger Federer forehand, the most feared shot in the modern game.

*

I couldn't help it. My eyes filled with tears. There he was - this man, who has meant so much to me - there he was, barely three metres away from me.

*

(Needless to say, I felt fully ashamed of how lame I was. But it was Roger - and if there's any man who can bring tears to my eyes just by being there, it's Roger!)

*

I was talking to my friend Erin (she who gave me the idea for this blog) about my Roger encounter, and she gave me another idea for an article: 'Life Lessons I Learned From Roger Federer.' Because I certainly have learned a few lessons, watching his career develop! But more on that in my next post - I'm going to devote one to his match against Hartfield last night so I don't spend this entire post (which is supposed to be about my trip!) rabbiting on about how much I love Roger!

*

Another thing they don't tell you about going to the tennis is how uneducated most of the people are. I don't mean to sound like a snob, but surely, if you're going to go to something like the Australian Open, you should at least know who some of the players are. From what I saw, people know Hewitt (duh), Federer and generally Nadal. In the women, they know Henin, Sharapova and the Williams sisters, and maybe Davenport. Anyone else, they're lost. There are a few incidents that stick out in my mind. I was watching Juan Carlos Ferrero practice, and someone asked me who he was, and I told them that it was Juan Carlos Ferrero, because, you know, it was, and then five seconds later some other woman tells this person, 'She's wrong, you know. It's Rafael Nadal.' (Which they pronounced 'rafayl nadal'- all short a's.)

*

Excuse me, but you're wrong! I wanted to turn around and smack her. (Luckily I didn't, or, who knows? maybe I would have ended up pepper sprayed.)

*

Watching Lleyton Hewitt practice, I heard people behind me trying to work out who his practice partner was. 'It must be his brother!' one said. 'Maybe it's someone that won a competition,' another said.

*

It was Nathan Healey - one of Australia's better tennis players. Honestly, people don't even know their own countrymen!

*

Likewise, watching Nadal practice, I heard this priceless exchange. 'Who's that Nadal's practicing with?' 'Oh, it must be his dad.'

*

It was Carlos Moya. Carlos Moya, who is a French Open champion and former world Number One, veteran and formidable tennis statesman. Why on earth would you come to the tennis when you don't know someone as famous as Carlos Moya?

*

I think it was summed up for me when, watching Safin practice, I heard this. 'Oh, who's this? They should put up signs to tell you who they are!'

*

I thought everyone in the world knew who Marat Safin was (and was a little in love with him into the bargain.) Apparently I was naively optimistic!

*

But this was the only vaguely negative thing that I got out of the tennis (except sore feet!) And, really, it had a bright side. I got to be all smug about how educated I was and feel like I got more out of the experience than everyone else.

*

Because it was incredible. It was like a buffet, but with tennis. Oh, Nieminen's just finished his match? No worries! Here's Roddick practicing two courts over. And the atmosphere in Rod Laver Arena is amazing. It was much more friendly than at Olympic Park on Saturday. People cheering for Kaia Kanepi (there were not many!) were not looked at like freaks. (I could be wrong, not personally being part of the minority squad this time, but there was a Kanepi supporter two seats away, who seemed to be doing fine!) And I think I might have done a 180 on my attitude to the court. 'Why does it have to be so blue?' Safin moaned, but Federer brought up a point - it's much easier to see the ball, so it's better for both player and viewer.

*

And no, I'm not just agreeing because Roger said it.

*

But where else in the world can a Kuznetsova practice seem so passe? I clearly remember thinking, 'oh, it's just Kuznetsova. I'll see if anyone more interesting is around.' And this is the Number 2 player in the women's game! Normally, I'd be glued to it. But at the Open... spoiled for choice. And two courts away, there's Dmitry Tursunov, my personal Number 2.

*

To conclude - Grand Slam tennis. It's the place to be.

*

*

Australian Open Day 1 Results

*

Men's Draw

*

Jo Wilfried-Tsonga def. Andy Murray, 7-5 6-4 0-6 7-6 (7-5)

Rafael Nadal def. Victor Troicki, 7-6 (7-3) 7-5 6-1

Richard Gasquet def. Nick Lindahl, 6-0 6-1 3-6 6-2

Andy Roddick def. Lukas Dlouhy, 6-3 6-4 7-5

Nikolay Davydenko def. Michael Llodra, 7-5 7-5 6-3

Stefan Koubek def. Carlos Moya, 7-6 (7-5) 6-7 (2-7) 7-5 6-4

Paul Capdeville def. Brydan Klein, 6-4 7-5 6-4

Mikhail Youzhny def. Mathieu Montcourt, 6-0 6-2 7-6(7-3)

Tommy Robredo def. Mischa Zverev, 4-6 2-6 7-6 (7-2) 6-4 7-5

Stanislas Wawrinka def. Julien Benneteau, 6-3 6-3 6-3

Rainer Schuettler def. Arnaud Clement, 6-4 6-2 6-7 (3-7) 6-4

Kristof Vliegen def. Olivier Patience, 6-0 6-1 7-6 (7-3)

Evgeny Korolev def. Marcel Granollers-Pujol, 7-5 6-2 6-0

Michael Berrer def. Donald Young, 6-7 (5-7) 7-6 (7-4) 6-3 7-6 (7-5)

Ivo Karlovic def. Jamie Baker, 6-4 6-4 6-7 (1-7) 6-4

Philipp Kohlschreiber def. Roko Karanusic, 6-4 7-6 (7-5) 6-1

Gilles Simon def. Bobby Reynolds, 4-6 6-4 6-2 6-7 (3-7) 6-4

Sam Warburg def. Juan Pablo Brzezicki, 2-6 6-2 6-3 2-6 6-4

Jesse Levine def. Martin Vassallo Arguello, 6-1 7-5 6-1

Andreas Seppi def. Harel Levy, 6-4 6-2 6-1

Marc Gicquel def. Yen-hsun Lu, 3-6 6-4 6-7 (6-8) 6-4 6-2

Florent Serra def. Florian Mayer, 6-3 7-6 (7-2) 7-6 (7-5)

Nicolas Mahut def. Jose Acasuso, 7-6 (7-2) 5-7 6-2 3-6 7-5

Jarkko Nieminen def. Frank Dancevic, 6-3 6-1 5-7 2-6 6-1

Igor Andreev def. Andrei Pavel, 5-7 6-2 7-6 (7-4) 6-3

Agustin Calleri def. Luis Horna, 6-4 6-7 (6-8) 6-3 6-4

Guillermo Garcia-Lopez def. Juan Ignacio Chela, 6-4 6-2 1-6 6-2

Paul-Henri Mathieu def. Victor Hanescu, 6-1 7-6 (7-4) 6-2

Feliciano Lopez. def. Wayne Odesnik, 7-6 (8-6) 6-1 6-4

Mardy Fish def. Boris Pashanski, 6-2 6-3 3-6 6-3

Alejandro Falla def. Kevin Anderson, 5-7 7-5 6-7 (8-10) 6-2 7-5

Dudi Sela def. Martin Slanar, 6-2 6-4 6-2

*

*

Women's Draw

*

Justine Henin def. Aiko Nakamura, 6-2 6-2

Alicia Molik def. Kaia Kanepi, 7-6 (7-4) 7-5

Serena Williams def. Jarmila Gajdosova, 6-3 6-3

Maria Sharapova def. Jelena Kostanic Tosic, 6-4 6-3

Jelena Jankovic def. Tamira Paszek, 2-6 6-2 12-10

Lindsay Davenport def. Sara Errani, 6-2 3-6 7-5

Amelie Mauresmo def. Tatiana Poutchek, 6-7 (6-8) 6-0 6-0

Nicole Vaidisova def. Ioana Raluca Olaru, 6-3 6-0

Elena Dementieva def. Tzipora Obziler, 6-2 6-2

Casey Dellacqua def. Karin Knapp, 4-6 6-3 8-6

Hsieh Su-wei def. Klara Zakopalova, 2-6 6-4 8-6

Edina Gallovits def. Stephanie du Bois, 7-6 (9-7) 6-3

Jessica Moore def. Julie Ditty, 6-3 6-2

Ai Sugiyama def. Vera Zvonareva, 6-3 1-1 ret.

Meng Yuan def. Ekaterina Ivanova, 4-6 6-4 6-2

Olga Poutchkova def. Monique Adamczak, 6-4 6-0

Patty Schnyder def. Lilia Osterloh, 6-3 6-3

Elena Vesnina def. Julia Vakulenko, 6-4 1-6 6-4

Sandra Kloesel def. Julia Schruff, 6-1 6-7 (1-7) 6-4

Angelique Kerber def. Maret Ani, 0-6 6-3 6-2

Tatiana Perebiynis def. Madison Brengle, 7-5 6-2

Yaroslava Shvedova def. Tatjana Malek, 6-2 6-2

Jill Craybas def. Yung-Jan Chan, 6-4 6-2

Sybille Bammer def. Tamarine Tanasugarn, 6-7 (6-8) 6-4 6-2

Aravane Rezai def. Kateryna Bondarenko, 7-6 (7-4) 6-2

Anabel Medina Garrigues def. Petra Cetcovska, 7-6 (7-1) 6-0

Francesca Schiavone def. Emilie Loit, 6-3 7-6 (7-5)

Tatiana Golovin def. Stephanie Cohen-Aloro, 6-1 4-6 6-3

Shahar Peer def. Renata Voracova, 6-2 2-6 6-0

Flavia Pennetta def. Dominika Cibulkova, 6-4 5-7 6-4

Virginie Razzano def. Ashley Harkleroad, 6-3 7-5

Victoria Azarenka def. Akgul Amanmuradova, 6-2 7-5