Monthly Archives: July 2007

ATP Fantasy Tennis: Do You Pick Nadal or Not?

ATP Fantasy Tennis Season is under way and I’ve posted a Fantasy Tennis Guide with fast facts, strategies, and statistics to help you play the game.

Sign up and join our subleague! It’s called tennisdiary.com. We send weekly email updates to all subleague members before the submission deadline.

Rear View Mirror – a look at last week’s picks

Despite losing five of my eight players before the quarterfinals last week, I still managed to improve my team standing. That’s how crazy it was.

I knew Mardy Fish was in trouble at Newport because he had three qualifiers in his quarter but I thought it would be Antony Dupuis, not Aisam Qureshi, who’d take him out. I told you Nicolas Mahut would get to the final.

Tommy Robredo has become undependable, he lost in the first round at Bastad, and Mikhail Youzhny continued his pattern of either losing in the first round – as he did in Gstaad – or getting deep into a tournament.

It’s all good, though, because those were small tournaments. This week there’s some real money on the table.

Stuttgart (clay, $133,250)

That’s a lotta money. The losing finalist gets almost as much as the winner in Los Angeles. Luckily, there are a few players with easy paths to the semifinals. Remember, when there are two or three tournaments in one week, look for the players with the easiest path to the semis and ignore the matches that look like tossups.

Rafael Nadal is the obvious favorite and that brings up a tough decision. Unless you missed the first week of the ATP Fantasy Tennis Season – understandable considering the confusion over its start date – you’ve already used Nadal once so you can only choose him four more times. You can only pick a player five times in one season. There’s one grand slam left – the U.S. Open – and four Masters Series events: Montreal, Cincinnati, Madrid, and Paris.

You have to pick Nadal for the U.S. Open because the purse is so high. You have to pick him for Cincinnati and Montreal because he could win either tournament. For sure he’ll play Madrid because it’s in Spain and he’s won it before, but he’s less likely to win it now that Tomas Berdych and other young players are so much better. Nadal has never played the Paris Masters event and he won’t play it this year because he’ll have already qualified for Shanghai and, in any case, his foot hurts if he plays too much on hard courts.

Here’s the gamble: if he only gets to the quarterfinals of the Madrid event – as he did last year – he’ll win $42,000. So you can get a sure $133,250 here or take a chance on missing out on $340,000 if he wins Madrid.

Nadal’s record on indoor courts is the only part of his game that has not improved over his career so I’m taking the $133,250 and holding my breath for the rest of the year.

Tomas Berdych is in Nadal’s half of the draw and I expect him to get to the semifinals. I think Robredo will go out to Guillermo Canas and David Ferrer will continue his hot streak.

By the way, the Stuttgart prize money is 133,250 in Euros which is worth a lot more than $133,250 in U.S. dollars. As far as I can tell, the ATP fantasy game is quoting the prize money in US dollars and equating one U.S. dollar to one euro to avoid any confusion.

Stuttgart draw

Los Angeles (hard court, $73,000)

Fernando Gonzalez is the only sure thing in the top half of the draw because Tommy Haas, the defending champion, dropped out at the last minute.

Here’s my favorite statistic this week: Fabrice Santoro with his two handers off both sides and a dizzying array of slices and unexpected tactics, has beaten Marat Safin seven out of the nine times they’ve played. That’s pure testament to the value of annoying an opponent who is as easily annoyed as Safin. Recreational players take note, that stuff works on the professional level too.

James Blake does not get annoyed by Santoro but he has lost to Gonzalez the last five times they’ve met. No matter, Blake and Gonzalez should make it to the final so choose both of them. Blake has never gone far at Cincinnati or Montreal and he’s never done well at Madrid or Paris either so don’t worry about saving him.

Los Angeles draw

Amersfoort (clay, first prize: $55,820)

Nicolas Massu beat Carlos Moya and got to the final here last year but this year he has Nikolay Davydenko in the first round. Still, Davyndenko is too up and down to be a dependable fantasy pick.

Carlos Moya and Nicolas Almagro could meet in the quarterfinals. Almagro beat Moya today to reach the Bastad final and I think he can do it twice in a row. I also have Almagro over Nikolay Davydenko

If Youzhny doesn’t lose in the first round he should meet Igor Andreev in the semifinals. That match is a tossup but my subleague savior Shaun pointed out that we can’t pick Andreev because he was ranked below 100 when the fantasy season started. Oy, when are they going to change the available players to reflect the top 100 each week?????

Amersfoort draw

Picks

I’m picking Nadal, Berdych, David Ferrer and Canas at Stuttgart. I’d like to pick three players at Los Angeles but there isn’t a sure third player. Tursunov was a finalist last year but he’s not done anything this year so I’m going with Blake and Gonzalez. At Amersfoort I have Almagro and Youzhny.

My team: Nadal, Berdych, Ferrer, Canas, Blake, Gonzalez, Almagro, Youzhny.

Happy fantasies!

Check out our new myspace page and add us to your friends network!

Interview with a Modest James Blake

The big blue U.S. Open Series bus rolled up to the hotel and one person stepped out through the door and onto the curb: James Blake. Jeez, the guy is gorgeous and that was part of the attraction. He’s also the only recognizable U.S. star in the draw at the Countrywide Classic which starts on Monday in Los Angeles.

Sam Querrey is also playing but he doesn’t draw excitement quite yet. Sam isn’t in the top ten and, more importantly, he didn’t play a classic U.S. Open quarterfinal match against tennis hero Andre Agassi that lasted till 1:30 in the morning and left everyone in the U.S. talking about tennis. James was the one who did that.

There was one more reason James was on the bus. He just published a book called Breaking Back with Andrew Friedman and the U.S. Open Series is doubling as a book tour. James really did break his back, actually he fractured vertebrae in his neck after running into a net post during a practice session in Rome; one more reason for U.S. players to skip the European clay court season if they needed another reason.

James flew back to the U.S. and while he was recuperating from his injury, his father, Thomas, died of stomach cancer. The book covers James’ recuperation and his father’s death.

Here are a few things to know about James Blake.

He answers media questions in great detail. In fact, he gives the longest answers on the professional tennis tour because he feels privileged that you’d ever want to talk to him.

He feels lucky to be on the pro tour. Never in his wildest dreams did he think he would make it to the top ten and now he’s been there for sixteen months. Unlike Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, who turned pro when they were 16 years old, James didn’t even know what the tour was when he was 16.

He doesn’t lose his temper. I did see him call out Fernando Gonzalez for taking dubious time outs in a five set Davis Cup match that James lost after winning the first two sets. On the same day he got annoyed at a journalist who excoriated him for losing all seven of his five set matches up to that point. But he didn’t raise his voice. Reading his book, you can see why:

My father was Mister Serious. Road tripping with him was all business. We’d sit in the car, hands in our laps, facing forward, talking at a respectable level and not even considering getting out of line.

Losing a match is not the end of the world for him:

It hurts me when I lose, it’s difficult but I am also then the day after realistic about the fact that the worst thing that happens to me at the end of the day is that I lost a tennis match. [That’s] probably a pretty good day compared to most people.

He doesn’t set goals.

I don’t set goals like I want to win this tournament or I want to be in the finals of a tournament … or I want to be ranked this. The only thing I set at the beginning of every year and the beginning of every tournament is to get better. Every match, every practice, figure out a way to improve from it whether it’s a win or a loss. That’s how I judge whether or not I’m happy with my game.

Okay, so he’s a well-behaved young man with a good perspective on life who doesn’t take his good fortune for granted. I can appreciate that but I still want him to win a five set match one of these days and I’d be very happy for him if he won a slam and I can’t help thinking he’d be more likely to do both of those things if he wasn’t quite as modest.

After the interview, I was sitting around a table with a group of journalists and we were going down the list of players and deciding who has, ahem, balls and who doesn’t. Venus and Serena Williams do, of course. Nadal does. Roger Federer didn’t need them until Nadal took him to five sets last Sunday but now we can say that he does.

James Blake did not pass the test. He’s an exceptional guy and he’s gone a lot farther in his tennis career than he thought he ever would, but now that he has, he’s left us wanting more.

We want him to feel a little less fortunate and a little more entitled. No, we don’t want him to turn into a selfish athlete who throws cash around at strip bars and takes advantage of women. We just want him to realize that anyone who reaches a ranking of number four in the world is a damned good tennis player. Few players are better. Because that’s the kind of attitude it’ll take to carry him from two sets down to a five set victory and that’s what it’ll take to get through two weeks of a slam and come out with the title.

I asked him if he’d learned anything about himself while writing the book:

I’ve always tried to be a very strong person, to follow in the footsteps of my father, keeping things to myself and not burdening people with my problems. It made me realize that it makes it much easier to be a strong person if you have friends that understand you, friends that are there for you.

Go ahead and burden us, baby. We’re here for you even if you get mad and stomp around a bit. We might even welcome it.

Check out our new myspace page and add us to your friends network!

What happens when I’m as old as Bud Collins?

On Monday I celebrated my 58th birthday. I passed my eye test at the DMV without needing glasses, a miracle in itself, and went to Staples where they finally found a self-inking rubber stamp I’d ordered in January. That was good news because I was beginning to wonder if I was growing old and losing my mind. No I’m not, I really did order a rubber stamp with my address on it.

All day long I couldn’t help thinking about Bud Collins. This year’s Wimbledon was Bud’s last appearance on NBC’s coverage of the event, he’s been let go after 35 years of interviews and features on tennis broadcasts. Evidently he received the news in a voice message from his boss at NBC, Ken Schanzer.

Bud is 78 years old. That means I have 20 years more to dig my way into the world of tennis before I’m sent out to pasture and shipped off to the professional version of a rest home.

I worked next to Bud at Indian Wells and Davis Cup. He was a friendly, helpful guy and he probably doesn’t remember me that well because he was friendly and helpful to everyone. I remember him, though, because most tennis journalists are too busy figuring out how they can possibly extract anything other than platitudes and clichés from today’s players to worry about a new person in the media center. Not Bud, though, that’s just the way he is.

Bud not only helped new journalists, he also helped tennis players. In 1988, he interviewed eighteen-year-old Natasha Zvereva after she lost the 1988 French Open final to Steffi Graf. Zvereva held her prize money and said that she wished the Russian Tennis Federation would change something, “you know what I mean,” she said. Collins knew what she meant and helped her out by filling in the blanks: “You would like them to pay you the money you’ve just won.” At the time, players had to turn all of their prize money over to the Russian Tennis Federation.

Zvereva held the check up and said: “This $24,000, it’s not money, just the paper.” One of her handlers squirmed uncomfortably in the stands and shook his finger in protest. He wasn’t quite as brave as Zvereva. Shortly after her comments, the Russian Tennis Federation changed its policy to allow players to keep their prize money.

I have no idea how far I’ll go before I’m finished with tennis, but if I manage to make it into the International Tennis Hall of Fame, write a few tennis books including an encyclopedia of tennis, win a Red Smith award for outstanding sports journalism, and become so popular that I can’t walk across Wimbledon without fans stopping me constantly to ask for my autograph and have their pictures taken with me, all of which applies to Bud Collins, I hope my employer will at least show me the respect of delivering my retirement papers in person.

In return for my years of exemplary service, I also hope my boss will give me enough notice of my dismissal that I can make one more round of my favorite haunts and collect some of the praise and admiration I’ve earned. I’ll still be out to pasture but the appreciation might ease the pain and separation of becoming obsolete.

Check out our new myspace page and add us to your friends network!

B**tch and Sing Dept: Wimbledon Afterglow

Roger Federer discovers the rearview mirror, and guess who’s coming?

Usually after I tape a tennis final I don’t like to see it right away. Mostly I am just tennised out and loathe to see anything further that even slightly resembles an orb-like object, particularly when colored yellow. Yesterday though I couldn’t resist dipping my hand back into that cookie jar that was Roger Federer – Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon ‘07 again. Talk about your instant classic. It’s so classic already that ESPN’s classic channel showed it last night. Like seeing a great movie, reading a fine novel, enjoying a good wine, this match left us with a feeling of keen satisfaction.

First off, let’s simply congratulate the lads for showing up, in one piece, fully prepared to play. No whining about my aching this or that. They are performers. That’s been a problem at Wimbledon this year, particularly late in the second week, when the rain delays put an undue burden on the capabilities of the players to get through matches. Nadal had already played all seven days, even though it was five matches. It didn’t seem to faze him though; at times he seemed fresher than Federer. From the mental standpoint, Federer may have faced the greater burden: he simply doesn’t play that many five-setters, so just getting his mind around that prospect may have been taxing. He couldn’t finish his man off in three sets this year or even four. That sent a message Federer didn’t want to hear. He displayed more crankiness during this match than we have ever seen from him before.

Isn’t it great to know that even the mighty Fed can suffer from bugs up his alimentary canal? I tell ya, that restored my faith in tennis humanity. When he uttered the “s” word about Hawkeye I felt like standing up and applauding.

What made the difference in this match on Sunday? It came down to the serving. Nadal served well enough, but it was Federer serving well at the crucial points which made the difference. Nadal was asked this in his presser. For him there was no doubt where the difference in the match resided.

Maybe if we have to find any difference, maybe the difference is the serve. He serve better than me, and that’s important in every surface, but in this surface more, no?

Federer echoed this in his comments:

From the baseline he was not outplaying me, but I always thought he had the upper hand for some reason and I couldn’t really play that aggressive like I wanted to, maybe like last year. But my serve kept me in, and I definitely won the big points today, which was most important.

Federer was only playing the Pete Sampras style of winning sets: you go through a set making sure you take care of YOUR serve. Of course you try to break HIS serve too, but you’re not obsessed about it. Then you get to the tiebreak and you turn on the afterburners. You serve lasers at the proper moments, grab those ever so few key points and your opponent’s ass is grass.

Nadal has learned a lot of new skills for grass court tennis. He’s shortened his windup on his ground strokes, he was coming into net more than Federer, and he’s learned how to angle volleys sharply off to the sides. You’d almost think he thinks he’s Patrick Rafter or Stefan Edberg the way he volleys.

But he needs to make one more change, and that’s to his serve. I want to see him hit through the serve more, rather than roll his racquet over and around the ball, creating a ton of spin. Spin is good, but sometimes you need the laser beam, right up the “T”. I said this about Richard Gasquet’s game last week after he dusted Andy Roddick in what I think is still the most brilliant match of Wimbledon. It occurs to me now that this can be said of Nadal’s game too.

Nadal and Gasquet both need that silver bullet. If Nadal adds that shot to his repertoire, he will win Wimbledon next year. He needs to feel confident that he can whip out an ace when he really needs it. But what about his high serving percentage, you’re saying. Doesn’t that count? Yes, it does. But you don’t want to give your opponent a way into the point by rolling in a serve that he can still get a racquet on. And Roger managed to at least get most of those serves back into play. You need to blow a couple right by him. End it fast. You can see what Federer does with that serve, and the enormous confidence that comes to him from hitting that shot when he needs it. That made the difference on Sunday.

Luck also entered into the equation. When it was over I immediately felt that Federer caught more than a little of it on this day. Nadal outplayed him overall. But Federer won the crucial points at the crucial moments. It was so nice to hear that Federer said that to Nadal during the handshake.

Da Man is definitely looking over his shoulder now, and if Nadal makes those few changes to his game by next year, he’s going to be the one watching his opponent recede in that rearview mirror.

Check out our new myspace page and add us to your friends network.

At Wimbledon: Favorite Images

If you could pick two images that stand out from this year’s Wimbledon, what would you pick from the men and women?

Whoa, you’re saying, what about Mssrs. Federer and Nadal in tomorrow’s final? Won’t that provide us the visual treats we’re always on the lookout for? Especially since my co-writer Nina Rota and I are dragging our sorry asses up at six in the morning tomorrow to cover the final live. They’d better show me the money. ALL the money, ok guys?

Frankly though I have my favorite tournament images firmly secured in my brain already. Whatever Batman and Robin whip up for us tomorrow, my favorite moments involve Venus Williams, stretched out probably ten feet wide at the net, and Richard Gasquet’s wonderful backhand disappearing up the line in another breathtaking shot.

There must be a reason Venus Williams wore that big chunk of green stone on a chain around her neck; green is definitely her color. She emerged as the dominant female player on grass, with emphasis on the word dominant. After being tested early on, Venus just kept on rolling as she beat up the draw. Her father Richard Williams predicted his elder daughter would win this event, and he was proven correct once again. Serena’s earlier demise at the hands of Justine Henin paved the way for her sister Venus to take up the slack and carry on the family banner. Not having to face her sister in the final may have been that little bit of extra motivation Venus needed to win her fourth Wimbledon title. The sisters don’t like to play each other, but everyone else? Cannon fodder, baby!

Venus Williams will never show the grace of Roger Federer on the court. But on the other hand Venus shows us something that I don’t think Roger would ever let us see: the naked desire with which she wants to win this tournament. She doesn’t move so much as she pounces, lunges, stretches, and sometimes overruns the balls. Pretty? Well, maybe if you like seeing a praying mantis pounce on its victim.

Is there any way to get a ball by her when she’s on her game? Probably not. At least not wide to the sides. Maybe you could whip a quick little lob over her head, like Marion Bartoli did today in the women’s final. But it had better be a good one. I’m surprised more players don’t try and go directly at her when Venus is blanketing the net. Handcuffing her with a fierce dipping shot may be the only way to go. Her ferocity grew, along with her appetite for winning matches, until by the final you wouldn’t be surprised if nobody showed up on the other side of the net. It wouldn’t have mattered if Henin was there, or God herself, Venus was going to take this title.

As for Richard Gasquet, well. And well again! I love this guy’s game. Maybe his quarterfinal win over Andy Roddick will be the asterisk in his career where we say, “This is where Gasquet started to deliver the goods.” God knows we have been waiting. And waiting. He showed us qualities we always wondered if he had. Like mental toughness, for one. In the past, the words “grit” and “Gasquet” did not go together in anyone’s mind. Yet he showed surprising fortitude, mentally and physically, coming back from two sets and 4-2 down against the game’s biggest server.

Gasquet himself also served a lot better than he has before. He was generating more pace to go with the good placement he already has. But he could use even more pace. If I could make one change to his serve, I would like to see him work on just hitting a simple, flat, hard ball right up the T. His serve has too much spin and he could use more pace in the big moments. It should be more of a weapon, in other words.

The Gasquet backhand was the most stellar shot of this year’s Wimbledon. Even Federer’s comes in second. And if I wanted ever to see Roger Federer lose to anyone, let him lose to Gasquet, the man who probably in his overall game most closely resembles Federer’s.

Unfortunately the guy left it all on the court on Friday. Today he had no game left against Federer. What else is new. Grand Slams are always wars of attrition, after all. But how does Gasquet proceed from here? WILL he power his way into the Top Ten and stay there? I am hopeful. But then I’ve been down this road before with his compatriot, Amelie Mauresmo. Another fragile soul with every inch of class and stylishness to her game that “Reeshard” has in his. She won her first two Grand Slams last year but then slipped away.

So I for one am holding my breath still with Gasquet. He may not win any Slams soon (nobody is really going to be winning any Slams unless it’s the two guys at the head of the pack, and that is just a fact of tennis life right now). Being in the Top 5 though is a goal I think he can reach.

In the meantime, as the people of France like to say, formidable!

Check out our new myspace page and add us to your friends network!