And Finally, In The 'Completely Stupid' Category...

It's Davis Cup week. Yawn. At least until Friday, there's going to be pretty much fat nothing to write about. Except the INEVITABLE GLORIOUS RUN of my main man Nicolas Mahut in Cherbourg (antijinx). He is the second seed in the singles (after Grigor Dimitrov) and the top seed in the doubles with Edouard Roger-Vasselin. And they just won their first round doubles match. So... yeah. Awesome.

But due to this very little 'actual tennis' thing I have to write about, I thought I would write about this. It's a study. Possibly one of the worst studies of all time. The formula it uses analyses and tallies up how many wins players had over other 'quality players', regardless of arena, and then churns out a Greatest of All Time.

The GOAT, according to this study of stupidness? Jimmy Connors.

We all know where I stand when it comes to GOATness. If one has to pick, I'm Team Federer forever. But even if this survey had come out and said that yes, Federer is the greatest of all time, their methodology is clearly more than a little specious. Did you know that Federer has only, according to this, won 39 quality matches in his career? So that's eight victories over Rafa, thirteen over Djokovic, six over Murray, eight over Agassi... that's 35. Oh! one over Sampras. Make that 36. Chuck in a few others, and hey presto! Roger Federer has never won anything else ever.

And that's not even starting on the Rafa stats. He's only won 21 matches of quality. Because that's how you win five Roland Garros titles, bitches.

Surely when results like this came out of the study - Connors at #1, followed by Lendl and McEnroe - they should have realised it was a bit, how shall we say it... not very good? I mean, those dudes were great, and they did great things, but the greatest? I think not. If they're the results you're getting, your scale is wrong, bro.

I don't know if it is possible to quantify a Greatest of All Time. But if it is, this is not the right way to go about it.

I wonder how the system decides what a 'quality win' is, as well. Does Federer's victory over Andy Roddick in Wimbledon in 2009 count as a quality win? Because it was pretty freaking spectacular. But Roddick has been his bunny for a while now, so I'm sure that twenty-odd wins against Roddick can't be counted in those 39 wins he's apparently had. There's no regard to situation either, so matches like Roger's AO win over Baghdatis probably doesn't count.

I hope this 'prestige ranking' thing doesn't catch on. Because I am telling you right now that I think it is stupid. And you should all listen to me. Just because.

The Last American Hero?

I was reading through Tennis Australia's little Off the Court article that they put out every week (it was very short - clearly they aren't the only ones struggling for something to write about!) and something struck me. There was a story about John McEnroe thinking about retiring from Blackrock after losing so badly in London, and then a story about Pete Sampras saying that there are dark times for American tennis ahead.

*

These guys are two of the major figureheads of the US tennis pantheon, yeah? And they are so incredibly different. McEnroe is all racquet-smashing and fire and temper and swearing, whereas Sampras is more gentleman-like -not quite to the epic standards of Federer, but still. He could be accused of being boring sometimes. And yet they're both still beloved - and, I might venture to say, probably disliked by equal amounts of people.

*

And now we come to the point - what does US tennis have now?

*

Andy Roddick, who probably drew more attention from his engagement to Brooklyn Decker than from his tennis this year, and James Blake, who was a bit of a non-event this year, apart from at the Olympics. Then I suppose there's Fish and Querrey and all that crew, but there is no real American tennis god right now, no McEnroe, no Connors, no Sampras, no Agassi. I guess Australia isn't the only place seemingly in a tennis recession. And Sampras seems to think there are dark times ahead for America - no one coming up, no one coming through. (I still pray at the altar of Tomic for the sake of Australian tennis every day. Go Bernard - though not with your little temper tantrums, please.)

*

Tennis is almost wholly European at the moment. Look at the top - a Spanish guy, a Swiss guy, a Serbian guy, a British guy. Europe's got the monopoly on the top. Not that I'm complaining - there's nothing wrong with it. But how on earth did we go so quickly from a USA-USA duopoly in Agassi and Sampras to a Hispano-Suisse one?

Blast From The Past

It hasn't been a good week for the legends of the sport - and I'm not talking Federer and Nadal, our current legends, here. No, we're going old school. Tennis is clearly fraught with drama, even from beyond the proverbial grave.

*

First, Boris Becker gets dumped by text message. I thought this was pretty hilarious, to tell the truth. Tennis Australia does this piece every week called 'Off The Court' - here's a paragraph from their article on the Becker incident:

*

'Becker has led a tortured personal life in recent decades, divorcing from the mother of his two sons, Barbara Feltus, in 2001. He later gained playboy notoriety after fathering a child, now eight, with a Russian model, after a tryst in a London restaurant broom closet.'

*

Can you tell me that he doesn't deserve to get dumped by text message? He seems like a bit of a tool, really. Maybe this is some kind of grand karmic revenge. Ha ha ha. That's pretty much all I have to say on the matter.

*

And then Jimmy Connors goes and gets arrested at a basketball game. Guess he took his break up (presumably not by text message) with Andy Roddick pretty hard, returning to his old badarse ways after a brief stint as a respectable coach type. John McEnroe got sent off the court in a seniors match a while back for being a dickhead - guess Connors couldn't stand to be beaten and had to one-up him.

*

It kind of makes you wonder - what will today's tennis heroes be like in twenty years? I would bet you any money that Roger and Rafa will be tennis statesmen in the model of Laver and Agassi, the classy guys: still making the sport proud, quiet family types, some endorsements, light commentary duties. (Can you imagine Rafa the commentator? Hilarious!) Djokovic, on the other hand, will still be trying to seduce Paraguayan javelin throwers and Slovakian singers, and will probably be getting dumped by text message for his troubles...