Egotism ....a lifelong romance

Monday, July 24, 2006

Finally, the Pete you’ve always wanted...

In his return to tennis, Sampras puts the focus on grinning, writes Karen Crouse of the New York Times. And the world sighs in relief.

If people didn’t like Pete Sampras before, they should certainly do now – cos finally, he’s doing the two things he failed to do during his glorious ATP career – smile, and lose.

I watched Sampras lose two matches at the WTT Tournament on TV last weekend and decided to ignore the ticket I had safely tucked in my cabinet a month ago, my maiden opportunity to see the tennis sensation on the other side of a celluloid screen forgotten without much ado. If my first flesh and blood sighting of Pete has got to be one where his backhand is rusty, his frame stiff and his second serve not nearly as good as everyone’s first, I decided to forgo it and stick with the memories.

Meanwhile, Pete seems to have learned something from his more popular and less talented counterparts – that an endearing shake of the head and an amused smile go a long way when you miss that easy volley. Unfortunately, I don’t watch Pete Sampras for amusement or endearment – that’s what Hugh Grant is for, or Andy Roddick, for that matter.

But while Pete’s return to tennis has been a tad disappointing for me (I’m being unrealistic of course – this is his first real tournament after four years of retirement, but hell, nothing’s realistic about Pete), I’m guessing it should be vindicating for the Pete-bashing section of the world.

They must be stopping short, taking notice, and saying – aaahh, a Sampras that flexes his facial muscles, a Sampras that loses – finally, a Sampras we can all get on board with...

So, good samaritan that I am, I think they should savor it while it lasts, cos knowing Pete, his losing streak does not have long to run...Once the warm-up’s done, he’ll be too busy making his way to silver to find the time to grin.

Cos there are two kinds of tennis players in this world – those that grin and those that win.

Sunday, July 09, 2006

Keeping the eye on the ball – Part 4 of ∞

What an unbelievable match – and so fitting for a Wimbledon championship.

Many, many things to savor – first, with due credit to Rafa, he wasn’t supposed to be in the picture, but he doggedly and determinedly made his way to championship Sunday, only to receive a bagel, so convincingly dispatched by Federer playing the flawless, unanswerable tennis only he can.

And then, quite unexpectedly, after Roger began cruising along, Nadal turned it around in the way only he can – the 7-6, 6-7 to follow speaks volumes – and finally, Federer, to prove that he is still king as long as the grass is green, won the deciding set so decisively – not so much because of Rafa’s shortcomings, as for the fact that he is unbeatable – at his game, in temperament, in style.



[Ok, a rare picture on my verbose weblog! But this is rare, especially the way Rog initiated this -- as if to say, 'Ok, now that I can beat you, you're welcome to my club'! (Photo courtesy of usta.com)]

Call me crazy but I think people don’t give Roger enough credit. Everybody keeps wondering at Nadal’s fast learning curve, but what about Fed’s? He got to the French Open semi-final and followed it up with a trip to the final just a couple years after getting into the majors ballgame while ruling on grass, and losing only to the eventual champion on both occasions. The other thing is his excellent return game, which loses its thunder to his phenomenal serve and all-court aggression. He dismisses big servers like Ancic and Roddick with little effort and much as Rafa is not a great server by any stretch of the imagination, he broke him 6 times in this match, though Nadal had lost serve just twice so far in the entire championship.

Now for some credits to Rafael --- Rafa is more aggressive than most baseliners and more adaptable than most clay-courters. He hardly lets a point go by, and much as his game lacks finesse, his relentlessness is laudable. His serve has become a very reliable shot and he’s even comfortable attacking at the net. And the fact that Wimbledon has lost some of its speed and the other slams have even less pace wont hurt. Not to mention his mettle - he certainly looked like he might come back in the third and fourth sets today, but we didn’t see that kind of grit from Roger after he lost the second set at the French last month. Granted, Fed had more at stake at the one major that has eluded him against the one man that gets the better of him, than Rafa has at Roger’s undeniable house. And we cannot ignore the fact that the Swiss sensation has set his own bar so high. Hell, we are flabbergasted if a near impossible crosscourt from Rog so much as nicks the net, instead of sailing over it.

Nevertheless, unconditional tennis greats are supposed to get out of those situations and come out on top. And I have no doubt in my mind that Roger will. Roger has been on the wrong side of a lopsided head-to-head one too many times – against Henman, Hewitt and Nalbandian to mention just a few. And he turned them all around, with unquestionable finality. The difference with Nadal is probably that he’s going to try just as hard to get better – and isn’t that what tennis fans want – the two top players, testing each other, facing challenges, getting better, bringing out the best? If all goes well, September should be delicious.

The most endearing scene (in picture above) was of Roger giving Rafael a low five as they passed each other in their lap around the court, Rog with his champion’s trophy and Rafa with his runner’s-up plate - a sure sign of mutual respect, Nadal’s open awe of Federer, though slightly incomprehensible considering his record against him, and Roger’s mixed feelings, that started off with dubious appraisal, soon turned to reluctant acceptance and now, a willing welcome of a worthy rival. He’s been up there all alone, too long. This was only reinforced by the two Tonies, Roach and Nadal shaking hands on the promise of their proteges’ beautiful rivalry, who might, at some point in the near future exchange silverware both at Rolland Garros and at the big W.

And Federer doesn't just get better at his tennis with time. Somewhere between losing his very eloquent so-called rival and becoming the unofficial ambassador of the sport, Roger’s acquired a sense of humor! On a suggestion that he was probably not enjoying this rivalry as much as the rest of the world, he smiled, "Now I like it again." I’m a sucker for arrogance but some self-deprecatory acknowledgement of a deserving opponent is always endearing. Another point to be noted – there was no “you know” in Fed’s acceptance speech!!! How great is that!!!!

Talking of improvement, it sure would be delightful to see development in reverse for a change – a clay-courter trying to move fast and forward, instead of the other way around. And talking of fast, Nadal’s got to learn to get his serve going – he drives me nuts every time he contemplates over the ball. If this guy becomes a consistent star at the majors, that’s about 5500 hours of my life (yeah, I did the math).

And again, while I love to hear Johnny Mac talk, I’m sure glad Roger doesn’t have to. Will he get over his fascination for the net, already? We all know Federer is a great serve-volleyer, when he wants to be, want being the operative word. He knows enough to know what works for him. McEnroe almost willed him to volley a couple times in the third set and Rog promptly lost the subsequent points, giving due credit to Rafa’s ability to pass. While Federer is predominantly an attacker, going after every opportunity at a winner, his style looks even more beautiful when he uses the entire court for his attack. Pete won at the net, Lendl won from the baseline, Fed is gifted with the unique ability of unfurling winners from every corner of the court using every shot imaginable. That’s what makes his playing style look so effortless – he rarely has to scramble to get to a winning position. And he keeps you riveted between winners.


If you didn’t look at the scoreboard, you’d think Rafa was winning – pumping his fists, yelling approval, kicking and screaming, likening his racket to a vicious dagger - a dagger that unfortunately for him, is less lethal than Roger’s seemingly innocuous Wilson.

Roger Federer sure wins championships, but while he's at it – he’s also strumming a quiet melody. Perk up your ears – in the deafening silence, you might actually hear it.

Saturday, July 08, 2006

What a day for Women’s tennis...

First, Justine Henin-Hardenne and now Amelie Mauresmo are double-handedly responsible for my decision to start focusing a little more on the women, at least since the Seles-Graf crowd left the stage.

Can’t blame me for giving the women little clout. You only get so much time in a day and you have to get your facts right for the next day’s match – styles, match-ups, surfaces, odds, head-to-heads, quotes, records, numbers and what have you. They’d still be on in the background though, cos the sound of a racket hitting a ball is always pleasing to the ear - especially when it’s not accompanied by Enberg’s “Oh My” or Sharapova’s blood-curdling scream. After all, I could always lift my head to look up when the commentator ooh-ed and aah-ed about something and believe me, for a long time, there wasn’t much lifting to do.

And then came Justine, armed with her -- well – arm, that refuses to let anything go by – angles, balls, nerves. It was time to set the computer down and give the lone woman a 100% -- especially when the diminutive fighter was outwitting her giants of opponents. I hate to make this a size issue, but hell, sport is a size issue. We saw it today, when li’l Justine would go after every shot, trying to be even more aggressive than the natural serve-volleyer at the net and miss a perfectly caressed volley cos she couldn’t reach it at the right moment. And we know that the nerves factor is almost non-existent for her. The woman’s made of steel. She sometimes seems like Sampras’ mettle and Federer’s game rolled into one tiny person – and believe me, coming from me, that is golden.

As for Amelie Mauresmo – she may be a late bloomer, but boy, have I waited for her to bloom. I remember loving her serve-volley style, and wondering why she couldn’t do more with it. Having schooled my tennis-watching prowess under the greatest serve-volleyer that ever lived (boy, must Pete be glad that Roger doesn’t volley enough!), and continuing to judge the sport by grass-court acumen, I could want nothing more than to have a bonafide woman serve-volleyer win at the big W.

If the tennis gods had watched her play (and for once, I don’t mean Fed here), they would have bestowed upon her a talisman to win on the fast-eroding grass. Unfortunately, she spent a decade waiting for nerves. And today, finally she found them.

It's pleasurable enough for tennis fans to watch a well-fought championship match, where each contender is equally capable of walking away with the trophy, but with so much history between both players and the promise of it being followed by a delightful men's final (one that has been denied us the past three years), makes it even more rewarding.

Mauresmo unequivocally proved that there is nothing to beat serve-volleying on grass, to the eyes, the ears, the Venus Rosewater Dish and the sport of tennis.

Yo men, are you listening?

Thursday, July 06, 2006

More Odds – yeah, I’m addicted

Don’t they say that the more you lose at a casino, the more you keep going back. This is akin to that – only I’m not putting my money on the line here, just pride.

But in my defense, I might have been way off in the men’s predictions (except Roger Federer who still stands at a solid 99:100) but I was pretty darn close with the womens’. So, Amelie Mauresmo and Justine Henin-Hardenne are going into the final!!! (Only Venus got in the way of my odds, but then she’s so unpredictable she doesn’t count).

Women's Final:

Amelie Mauresmo 2:9

She’s got the game to win on grass – both brain and brawn, and an oh-so-wonderful style. Now if only she went and bought herself some mental strength. A tight 3 sets.

Justine Henin-Hardenne 8:10

Well, unless a virus or advil gets in her way (that's what the -2 is for)... This woman’s on a roll. 2-3 sets.

Ok, I’m throwing caution to the wind and doing the men’s predictions as well.

Men's Semi-Finals:

Rafael Nadal vs. Marcos Baghdatis

Nadal 1:4

If Nadal continues his grinding relentlessness (which he will) and if Marcos loses interest fleetingly (which he might), Nadal might jump ahead and then there’ll be no stopping him. 4 sets.

Baghdatis 1:3

Baghdatis has often showed us (including yesterday) that he can topple a relentless, feisty go-getter and if he wins this one, his amazingly well-placed passing shots and oh-so-delightful drops will have something to do with it. This guy plays dangerous, he plays like he has nothing to lose and everything to win and he’s been on top gear through these championships. If he finds his form early, he’ll have answers to all of Rafa’s --- uhmmm, what does he do again -- scrambling. 4 sets, possibly a tiebreak, which the Cypriot will win closely.

Roger Federer vs. ‘whatever-his-name-is’ Bjorkman

Bjorkman 100:1

If Roger doesn’t show up. 0 sets

Federer 100:100

Now, that doesn’t need explaining, does it? 3 sets, possibly a bagel.

I have some interest in watching Rog and Baghs in the final, cos Marcos comes closest to matching Fed’s shot making prowess. Uhmm, a repeat of the Oz Open Final in the men’s draw as well wouldn’t hurt.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Temporal taunts

‘Where are you, Pete Sampras?’ cried out Mary Carrillo, as Roger Federer stared down at the fourth likely ‘vanquisher’ on his road to the championships, after steamrolling through the first couple sets and most of the third, Wednesday afternoon. The score: 6-4, 6-4, 5-4, 40-0 triple matchpoint.

If that was the fate of the towering, big-serving Croat, cut from the same block as his countryman Goran, his disposal of the preceding potential ousters in an apparent tough draw was even more convincing.

The Swissman put away the up-and-coming, talented young gun, Richard Gasquet, the grass-bred, serve-volleying veteran, Tim Henman and one of the biggest hitters on the tour, Tomas Berdych, without conceding a set and having been out on court for a shorter period of time than anyone else. What is more, he was broken only for the second time in this championship so far by the unrelenting Croat – unfortunately too little too late for Ancic, who came into the quarter finals with the prestigious label of ‘the last man to beat Roger on grass’ – a feat for which you’d have to go back four years. Today, however, the court unequivocally belonged to Federer. At one point, Mario actually stopped to applaud a beautiful backhand crosscourt from his opponent. I sometimes wonder how players keep their focus when playing Roger. The only apt thing to do is to stand aside and watch the maestro at his art. Nobody else has any business on a tennis court when the Swissman is at his best. Except, perhaps a certain Pete Sampras who knows something about hitting a ball with a tennis racket.

Little wonder that Carrillo’s statement was the third mention of the 14-time grand slam champion through the duration of the match, John McEnroe and Ted Robinson echoing her yearning for the great man’s presence as well. If Roger Federer’s amazingly shot-enriched and smoothly artistic brand of tennis is pleasing to the eye, the one thing that could make it better would be an equally beautiful artist on the other side of the court, countering the Swissman's flair with the one thing Federer doesn’t do enough on a grass court – serve and volley. And who better to take that spot on the other side of the net – a little too close to it, perhaps – than the sportsman who ruled tennis’ biggest stage, when Federer was only dreaming of it?

We often look to sport to celebrate the victories we cannot ourselves achieve, to be one with the kind of infallibility we could not otherwise experience and to savor the taste of the unstoppable adrenalin rush that amateur battles rarely provide. And thank God there are these paranormal beings that fill those lofty shoes and furnish us with that kind of magic time after time, year after year, undaunted, relentless and almost always victorious in their pursuits.

If Sampras and Federer had indeed met in the same era, it could quite possibly have been the most amazing saga in tennis history.

But maybe destiny punctuates each period with such finality so we could write the stories ourselves. So we could decide if Sampras’ mental toughness would overcome Federer’s exotic shot making. So we could wonder if Roger’s excellent returns would surmount the indomitable Pete forearm. Maybe she stopped short after rendering us these sublime personalities, so lesser mortals could feud over their heroes and partake in true tennis divinity.

But at times like this, when the aftertaste of a Federer classic still lingers in my mouth and the many Sampras memories come flooding back between my ears, I can’t help(lessly) but wonder why time would taunt us so....

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

A little Rafa 'round the edges

What is it about Nadal that sets off such ambitious expectations from the rest of humankind? He beats Roger in the least important of majors and has people talking about a rivalry. He puts away an ageing and injury-plagued Agassi on the brink of retirement and sets off a story about the “passing of the baton”.

Are tennis fans merely hungry for a good contest or do human beings revel in the success story of a relentless youngster from a small island-town, who plays with little regard for established norms of the sport? Or are they thirsting to see the toppling of possibly the game’s greatest ever?

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I dislike Nadal, mainly because his game is not unlike the proverbial monkey that would end up with the collected works of William Shakespeare by randomly hitting keys on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite period of time. Similarly, while Rafa might doggedly go after every ball and end up with a chance winner every so often, his game-plan is non-existent, his finesse is wanting and his style is little more than a grinding relentlessness. Such lack of acumen defies appreciation at any time, but seems especially inadequate in the era of Federeresque artisanship.

But since I often call myself an objective Federer fan (which could just as easily mean that I have one objective – seeing Roger lift the trophy at every major), I decided to give Rafael Nadal his due.

Let’s face it, I didn’t in my wildest dreams, think that Rafael would get to the round of 16 at a Wimbledon championship, ever, and here he is, already. He must be doing something right. (Actually he doesn’t do it right, he just does it, and therein lies my problem).

I’ve been watching him play the last couple of matches, and here’s a few good things I have to say about him: his movement on court is phenomenal, and he doesn't slide to get around. There is no questioning Rafa’s fitness of course, so once he gets there, he will hit the ball - hard - and power never hurt anyone on a grass court (except the occasional unfortunate ball-boy). His serve has improved admirably so I can’t pick on him for that anymore. Needless to say, his reputation is helping him de-settle players – who wouldn’t worry about the number two player in the world “that can beat Federer”?

And what is more -- considering Center Court is a nascent green at the net and a solid brown at the baseline (it plays a lot like clay; what did you think was beneath the magic grass anyway?), I have to give Nadal his chances should he face Federer in the finals. Not to ignore the fact that Rafa is in Rog’s head more than on the other side of the net.

Do I want him to be Roger’s big rival (he’s not there yet)? Ideally, I’d like a player that’s a little less rough around the edges, but Rafa’s all we have. Moreover, who better to show off the Swissman’s flawless artistry than a grinding, grunting, scrambling Nadal? After all, individual sport is all about contrasts. Besides, the emergence of Nadal along with Federer’s continued domination would leave no questions about the Federer game, which only seems to leave us mortals more bewildered with time. “What was that – a squash shot?” fumbled Brad Gilbert a couple days ago, “A baseline half-volley?” And I can safely say that it wasn’t so much because of Gilbert’s lack of eloquence, as Roger’s innumerable angles of contact with a tennis ball.

So, Agassi is handing his baton to Nadal? By all means, Andre, hand it over. Because Roger is still holding his from the most indomitable player in recent memory. Your wand may give you that edge on dirt, this wand works magic everywhere else that matters, including the hallowed grounds of a place called Wimbledon. Rafa could stand around the edges all he wants. The center belongs to the World number one.

Now, to the rest of the Championships:

The women’s draw is looking pretty good. The top four seeds are in and I’m rooting for a repeat of the Australian Open final – not entirely of course, cos I want Amelie and Justine to actually play this time. A beautiful serve-volleyer vs. a player that can do anything possible with a tennis racket – that could likely be the women’s equivalent of a Sampras-Federer exhibition on grass. I’m forced to resort to such a gross analogy, considering the men’s draw has nothing to write home about.

It won't stop me writing though -- whoever thought Bjorkman or Stepanek would meet Federer in the semi-finals (even my way off course predictions steered clear of them!)? And then there’s Hewitt, predictably looking at another straight-sets defeat at the hands of the maestro, unless Baghdatis pulls off his second miraculous journey of the year, which is an outcome I’d look forward to. The other possibility, of course, which I am trying hard not to think of and understandably have mixed feelings about, would be a Federer-Nadal final, which, while delicious for the sport of tennis, would send my heart cart-wheeling every few minutes. But then what is sport without a few cartwheels? Vamos Rafa, bring it on. Our man can take you.

Sunday, July 02, 2006

Big W Part III – Pleasures and Peeves

What not to like at the rest of the championships:

The remaining draw
Something weird happened in that hat - that’s for sure. First, Federer gets a tough draw which is always good, and what is more, the other bracket harbors such names as Nadal, Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Ljubicic and Safin. So, just when you’re beginning to anticipate a delicious final, you realize that only two of those top contenders are left standing. Straight-sets demolition? I think so!
End of the Rod?
However little Roddick may have brought to the sport of tennis (amazing first serve excepted), you gotta admit he’s one of the most endearing players on the tour – the quick wit, that easy compliment, the self-deprecatory humor, stopping to applaud an artful shot on the court, that shrug of resignation to Federer domination and over-ruling line judges in opponents’ favors. But it looks like we’re not going to have him around as much. Even his serve failed him today. The good news, however, is that his wit didn’t in the press conference after. So, whatever happens in between, Andy, we’ll see you in the ESPN box a decade from now!
More of Rafa
I was almost certain that we won’t have to see more than a week of Nadal, but Andre didn’t do his job and here we are. As much as Federer is making the dirt watchable (employing as he is, his amazing array of shots while rushing to the net whenever possible), Nadal is making the so far unadulterated game of grass court tennis unwatchable. His only plan seems to be to get to the ball and hit it, hard – no strategy, no artistry, not to mention, no sense of time.

There’s still a lot left to like - it’s tennis, after all:
Marathon Monday
What better way to spend the July fourth weekend than to sit glued to the television on a day featuring all the men and women in the draw? Among others, Federer will take on the Czech youngster who also happens to sport an ominous forehand and all-court game; Berdych can take pleasure in the fact that he beat Roger at the Olympics and gave him a hard time at the warm-up in Halle. It’s looking like too much of a good thing though, so don’t be surprised at a bunch of straight set demolitions.
Andy Murray – could he be the one?
Now that the English have lost at the World Cup and Henman is unambiguously out (yeah, they have to actually witness it to believe it, even if all of history and common sense dictate otherwise; relentless people, the Brits), the task of keeping the English sport above water falls to a 19-year old Scot. And if his win against Andy Roddick is anything to go by, he seems like a natural on grass (and he doesn’t moo!). He hits amazingly well on the run and his passing shots almost have a Federer-esque quality (and I use that adjective sparingly).
Andremania I can do without
Don’t get me wrong – for once, I was actualy rooting for Agassi – so he could get rid of Nadal before he had a chance to get into Roger’s head, and so he’d get rid of Nadal, period. Also, felt a tad compassionate for him considering his retirement and all – since that’s all I heard the entire first week. I get it. Everyone loves Andre and everyone is sad that he’s leaving. But does that mean you show every wheezing breath he takes? The ESPN2 American bias is bad enough when you are forced to watch a hard-hitting Sharapova when Justine is outclassing her opponent on another court, or put up with a powering Roddick when Nalbandian is giving someone grief elsewhere. Eulogies, quotes, clips – the Agassi saga went on and on. Jeezuz! The guy aint dead! He’s just retiring, something he probably should have done a while ago, also known as post US Open final against the game’s current best, considering he might not have a shot at that kind of glory this year. And I don’t recall this brand of weighted farewell during the departure of the greatest this country has ever produced – one that gave the sport of tennis the kind of meaning Agassi never could. Maybe they’d have given him his due if he had lost the championship and limped out of court?
Bill Maher is online!
Ok, this has nothing to do with tennis, but if Roger Federer weren’t around, Amazon Fishbowl would single-handedly be responsible for my home entertainment this summer. For those of you who have been living under a rock (aka not on my mailing list) Bill Maher is online live every Thursday night (many thanks to my Maher-loathing pal for bringing this to my attention). Archives of all shows are available and what is more, you can pause and play and see it on your own terms (Gippers, you don’t get to delete the Bush-whacking tho’). Now, what could be a better thing to do during lackluster portions of a tennis match? Doesn’t that beat flipping channels and missing that all-important shot? Now, there’s your tennis connection. And what is more -- you get to mute the annoying Dick Enberg! Like Maher himself says, television is so 20th century. I wish I would get over grabbing the remote to crank up the volume though.
Roger Federer
You knew he’d always be the last word in any tennis piece I wrote, didn’t you? If you thought Federer’s tennis couldn’t get any more beautiful, check out the new Rolex commercial – the smart people from his home country captured everything Roger does on a tennis court, added some music in synchrony and slowed it down a tad (so the rest of the world could catch up). His impending championship win won’t need doctoring though – that’ll be all Roger.