A Horrible Thing

The big tennis story of today is, of course, the theft of Pete Sampras's trophies. Which is a horrible, horrible thing.

There's not too much more I can say other than it being a horrible, horrible thing. Sure, any number of jokes have been made about the fact that Sampras was keeping them in a cheapish storage facility, but than in no way means that he deserved for them to get stolen. It's such a tragedy. All those memories... well, I suppose he still has the memories, but it would be better if he had the trophies to go with them.

He still has thirteen of his fourteen Slam trophies, but the one that was taken was, I believe, his first Slam - Australia in 1994. He came out and said that he wanted these trophies to show to his kids, who are largely too young to remember him playing, and you have to think that your first Slam - well, that's a biggie. That's one for the kids. Straight to the pool room. But not any more.

I sincerely hope that Pete gets his trophies back and that they haven't been destroyed. It's not like 1994 AO trophy is something you could hock on eBay and make a ton of money from, so I hope that whomever took them realises it is relatively worthless to them and gives it back - because while it might be worthless on the market, it's priceless to Pete.

The Great Game of Wait and See

So Paul Annacone, huh.

Everyone seems to have a lot to say about this whole - rather sudden - development, and I feel a bit left out, because I don't really have too much of an opinion.

I never really followed Sampras that much - I was too young - and so I can't really make any grandiose sweeping statements on how Annacone affected Pete's career or anything. Basically all I've got against that aspect of the story is that Sampras = pretty good, so Annacone must have a little something something going on.

But Federer is such a different player.

What I do know is this - Federer's at his lowest rank in a number of years. Something is clearly not working for him - whether it's the niggling injury he seems to be carrying or whether he's just in a funk. The best way to change things up and make a difference? Change something around you. So regardless of who Annacone is, I think this is a good move from Roger's perspective - even just psychologically. Things around him are different, and so he is different. I just hope Severin doesn't get too offended.

As to how the partnership will work out...? I have no grandiose predictions. I don't know enough. All I can say is this: wait and see.

A Time And A Place

So, um, that was awkward.

Don't get me wrong - I think Hit for Haiti is awesome. This one was definitely not the pure distilled radness that was the first one, but hey, it got it done. It made the big monies for charity and the crowd had fun times. And I think just about everyone reckons Navratilova, Graf and Davenport could make some pretty sweet comebacks. Navratilova especially. She has got it going on.

And then we had the dudes. And it started out well - I mean, hello, it had Tennis's Greatest Bromance out there with Roger and Rafa, and there's obviously bromances between Roger and Sampras and Agassi as well...

...but it is pretty obvious, no matter how many 'I love you, man's get thrown around, that there is some unfinished business between Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras. There is a whole lot of anger and bitterness and it's pretty clear that they just don't like each other much, end of story. Which is fine. They have every right not to like each other.

But Hit for Haiti was not the place to start making caustic remarks at each others' expense. It was pretty clear that Roger and Rafa found it really awkward, and the crowd found it awkward, and hell, everyone that watched it must have seen it was awkward.

The money still got raised and it's not going to make a difference in that sense, but dudes, time and a place. Hit for Haiti - not that place. I don't think it was ever going to be as awesome as the first one - you just couldn't fake that joyful spontaneity - but at least the players there just got into it and had a blast. Roger and Rafa kept those grins plastered on their faces throughout the whole Andre/Pete exchange, but there was no blast being had there.

C'mon, Pete. C'mon Andre. This is weird to say, considering the dudes you were playing with/against are younger than you, but grow up. Roger and Rafa are exemplary for the sport. Pete and Andre... great humanitarians, both of them, obviously... but this was not the right time for dirty laundry.

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?

Lucky Star

And so the last, LAST event of the year has finished, with the Pro circuit event in Sorrento wrapping up. I can't say I am too familiar with the people that won - Marinko Matosevic in the men's and Olivia Rogowska in the women's. I don't have too much more to say about that, except that this Matosevic character has apparently won four Pro circuit titles this year... maybe he'll graduate to Futures or even Challengers at some stage. He is exactly four years younger than Roger Federer... I suppose you could say he was thus born under a tennis lucky star.

*

And how about Cedric Pioline? Knocking out Pete Sampras - God, I bet that felt sweet, though I'm sure he would have preferred to have done it a little earlier in his career! - then going on to beat Greg Rusedski for his first seniors tour title. I confess I don't follow the seniors tour very much, which I suppose is a shame, because it looks kind of interesting... actually, Jonas Bjorkman said when he retired that he'd played on the regular tour for so long he could go straight on the seniors tour. Ah, Jonas...

*

So what is the point of the seniors tour, exactly? Is it just a chance to set up epic grudgematches, like the Sampras/Pioline rematch? How serious is it? Is it just a group of old guys kicking around having fun or do they really get down and dirty?

*

I would like to note that I exempt John McEnroe from this question. He would get down and dirty with anyone, anywhere, anytime...

Hotel Sorrento

Pete Sampras. Cedric Pioline. Could be epic. Here's hoping it is. I'd like to see Pioline avenge his Slam losses, but I'm backing Pistol Pete on this one. Just a feeling.

*

Anyway, we're not talking about Pete and le Ced today. No, it's back to local homegrown Aussie tennis and what is apparently the last Pro circuit event of the year, the tournie in Sorrento. Quality tournament, they say... but that doesn't mean people will have heard of most of the guys. Ah, Aussie tennis.

*

What is disturbing me is that at least half of Australia's Davis Cup team is playing this tournament - a tournament on a circuit so low I hadn't even heard of its existence until a few months ago. Top seed and hot favourite is Brydan Klein, then second seed is Sam Groth. Marinko Matosevic defeated Bernard Tomic today, who retired after what one presumes was an injury and hopes wasn't a temper tantrum... I've heard he's prone. There's our Davis Cup team, pretty much. Oh dear.

*

That said, here's hoping Brydan or Sam can win this one... though I'm liking the form of our old man Andrew Coelho, who pulled that good win the other week in Perth. Maybe he can join team Davis Cup next year when we play our (next) relegation tie?

*

...remember when we used to win Davis Cup?

*

Bernard will save us. HE MUST!

The Stephen Hawking of Tennis

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

Thirty-One Grand Slam Titles... and James Blake

Okay, so a question. This exhibition event in Macao that Federer's playing with Borg and McEnroe. Why, why, WHY is James Blake the other guy?

*

Not that James Blake isn't a great player. I had that whole discussion yesterday about the insane achievements of anyone who makes it anywhere near the top hundred. He's a wonderful player. He has mad tennis skillz. But... he hasn't exactly won multiple Slams. He hasn't exactly won ONE Slam. Federer has thirteen. Borg and McEnroe have a pretty healthy number between them. I would feel like such a schlep if I were James, such a ring-in. You have these three major tennis greats... and James Blake. Poor guy.

*

Federer beat Blake in a scrappy match, and McEnroe overcame Borg. I'm not sure what happened in the doubles. I'm not exactly sure what the point of this exhibition was, but it sounded like fun. Pity that that other one had to get cancelled - I think it was supposed to be in Penang. Still, the Macao thing sounds like it would have been fun to watch.

*

Speaking of fun to watch, who else would kill to see that Sampras/McEnroe showdown in the BlackRock masters event in London? That one will be a dogfight of the old guys. I bet they'll sell a whoooooole lotta tickets.

Lucky Thirteen

Thirteen Slam titles. Five Wimbledons, three Australian Opens and now five US Opens. Roger Federer is the man. He is, in my mind, without doubt, the greatest player of all time. He still may have one to go to match Sampras, but is there anyone alive who would bet against him? He isn't going to stop at thirteen. I heard him say so, and I believe him. I believe every word he says.

*

What a beautiful final this was. It may not have had the drama and the sense of epic that Wimbledon had, and it may not have been the symbolic victory over Rafa Nadal that Federer really needs, but it just had a sense of being right. Of coming home. What kind of year would it be without Federer winning a Slam? This is where he belongs. He is a champion, in all walks of his life - and he deserves this win so much. So, so much.

*

It was not, I will concede, the highest quality match of all time, especially from Andy Murray's perspective. He played a good second set, but he was really quite crippled by the sense of the occasion, I think. It certainly wasn't the match he played against Nadal. Nevertheless, he did take it to Federer on occasion, including breaking him when Federer was serving for the match. I think we're going to see Andy Murray here again next year - maybe in the US final, maybe in the Australian. I wouldn't be surprised to see him win a Slam one of these days. I don't think he's going to be a one-Slam wonder like Baghdatis. I would not be surprised, as I discussed yesterday, to see him go down the Djokovic route and really start taking it to the big guys. It will be interesting to see how he goes at the Australian Open next year. He doesn't have anything to lose there - he lost to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the first round this year (I was there!) I think Murray is made of stronger stuff than many - I only hope that he can improve without becoming as abrasive and awful as Djokovic.

*

But today belongs to Roger Federer. He is still the one. Rafa may be on top of the rankings now, but I think Roger Federer is going to be #1 in the public psyche for a very long time. Have we ever seen such a champion? Even Sampras was not as beloved as Federer. He is the ultimate sports gentleman, a statesman, a champion. Everyone has been talking about what a dodgy year he's had that year - a year where he has made two Slam finals and a semi. And now he has a title. Dare anyone gainsay him now?

*

I think this victory owes a lot to that doubles gold in Beijing, purely because Federer is obviously enjoying tennis again. There were some moments in the third set when, to go up 5-0, we saw Federer in full flight. Has any player ever played such exquisitely beautiful tennis? Rafa Nadal has the shots and his game is excellent, but I don't think anyone could really call his tennis beautiful. That is what Federer's game has - a sense of beauty, of fluidity, of elegance. His genius lies in his artistry, made possible by his amazing ability.

*

And if we're comparing Federer to champions of the past, this year was very much like Sampras's 1996. He wasn't doing so well, was being criticised, and came out and beat Michael Chang in the US Open final in three sets, 6-1 6-4 7-6. What has Federer done? Won the US final in three pretty routine sets. At Wimbledon, we have seen his finals get harder every year, particularly with the evolution of Nadal. This US final was, I would contend, easier than last year's against Djokovic. Certainly Murray never had any set points, and Djokovic had what, seven? And the pressure on Federer was even more intense this year.

*

And he answered.

*

Sampras went on from 1996 to have a pretty great 1997. So what will Federer do in 2009? I can't tell you for sure, but I'd put a lot of money on the fact that it'll be pretty awesome!

*

*

Today's Results

*

US Open (Flushing Meadows)

*

Men's Draw

*

Roger Federer def. Andy Murray, 6-2 7-5 6-2

*

*

BCR Open Romania (Bucharest)

*

Potito Starace def. Marcel Granollers, 6-2 6-4

Guillermo Garcia-Lopez def. Mischa Zverev, 6-4 3-6 6-0

Florent Serra def. Nicolas Devilder, 3-6 7-6 (8-6) 7-6 (7-4)

Denis Gremelmayr def. Jeremy Chardy, 6-1 5-7 6-4

Albert Montanes def. Hyung-taik Lee, 6-1 7-6 (7-4)

*

*

Commonwealth Bank Tennis Classic (Bali)

*

Francesca Schiavone def. Sandy Gumulya, 6-2 6-0

Peng Shuai def. Ayumi Morita, 6-2 6-1

Marta Domachowska def. Lavinia Tananta, 6-2 6-3

Akgul Amanmuradova def. Ayu Fani Damayanti, 6-2 6-1

Tamira Paszek def. Anna-Lena Groenefeld, 7-5 6-4

Yuan Meng def. Yaroslava Shvedova, 5-7 6-2 7-5

Game Over, Game On

Honestly, Rafael Nadal, I don't know what to do with you. You win when I want you to lose, and then you lose when I want you to win. I feel a bit betrayed. Of all the people to lose to, did it have to be Novak Djokovic?

*

What I'm now faced with is a final between two of my most disliked players on the circuit, including the #1 on that list, and with Rafa certain to become #1 in the world. Could things really get much blacker for me?

*

No, not really. And so the only way is up. The victory over Lapentti yesterday meant that Rafa will become #1 sometime in the next few weeks - I think after the Olympics, no matter how he and Roger perform there. That means that the glorious reign of Federer comes to an end after 237 weeks. Not a bad run. No one else has ever done better. And perhaps, in order to appreciate this streak, it had to come to an end.

*

And it might just a herald a renaissance. This is 1996, and Federer, like Sampras, is a champion. The first Golden Age of Roger Federer is coming to an end. The second might just be about to begin.

*

And how is this for a symbolic turning point? On the 8th of August, 2008, his 27th birthday, Roger Federer will carry the Swiss flag in the Opening Ceremony of the Beijing Olympic. He might lose the #1 spot, but I think an Olympic gold medal would alleviate the pain of that considerably. And hey, he can always get it back. How about a US Open victory? That'd be nice. And the Masters Cup. For so long, Roger has been maintaining. Now he'll be chasing, hunting - and if that doesn't put some fire in his veins, I don't know what will.

*

Watch out, Rafa. Roger's coming home, and he ain't pleased. This is not game over. This is game on.

*

*

Today's Results

*

Western and Southern Financial Group Masters (Cincinatti)

*

Novak Djokovic def. Rafael Nadal, 6-1 7-5

Andy Murray def. Ivo Karlovic, 6-4 6-4

*

*

Rogers Cup (Montreal)

*

Dinara Safina def. Victoria Azarenka, 6-0 2-6 6-3

Dominika Cibulkova def. Marion Bartoli, 4-6 6-4 6-3

*

*

PS. Go Dinara!