Author Archives: pat davis

Bitch And Sing Dept: Dear Roger,

What gives, guy? Your loyal fans are wondering. Two days later and your rather swift and decisive loss to Nadal in Monte Carlo is still going down hard. Maybe you need less time off in that fancy new penthouse in Dubai before you end up in the doghouse. (Check out the Annie Liebowitz pix here. Of the penthouse, that is).

Watching you is normally such a joy, Roger. One of the great joys of my life, actually, because your matches are so pleasurable to watch. For the most part. Monte Carlo was very annoying. All the things we thought you had taken away from previous encounters with Rafael Nadal seemed to go right out the window. “I feel like this match gave me some information,” you were quoted as saying afterwards. “I’m absolutely in the mix with him on clay. I feel like I’m in good shape for the rest of the clay-court season, and it’s going to come down to the French Open to see who wins.”

Keep whistling, baby. What more information could you possibly digest? You probably dream about it you know it so well. You serve Nadal like gangbusters, you return his serve well, you make major use of your forehand to open up the angles, and then you charge the net like you were born to live there. And you offer signs of some heat like you really want to rip this bouncing baby Spaniard a new one and win the bloody match already. Think semi-finals, Shanghai. What are you, Swiss or Swedish? Sometimes we wonder. But I understand that the reason you didn’t was that you didn’t feel it in your bones, you did not have confidence yourself, so we wouldn’t expect you to show it in your demeanor.

The good news is – and you hinted at this in your presser afterwards – that you were still able to keep it somewhat close even with all the misfiring going on. But guy, where is your learning curve that you were supposedly going to show us this spring on clay? Maybe I should clean my contact lenses once in a while, but I did not see it on Sunday.

After your losses to Canas, you defined your own problem by saying that you had forgotten how to play the big points. That could be said of Monte Carlo as well. In the first set, Nadal held the door open wide for you to break him in the 8th game. But your forehand suddenly committed three bad errors, in one game alone. You had two break points, gifts from on high, but you could not turn them your way, and this cost you the match.

When was the last time we saw your forehand break down to the point where you lose three points in a game? It’s hard to stay pumped up when your numero uno shot takes its leave of you. By this point in the match, you had already run up ten errors on the forehand side alone, compared to only one winner. One of the Tennis Channel guys commented how he felt you were hitting the forehand too flat; it needed more spin. What it probably really needed was a better sense of timing. I heard a lot of shanking sounds for a final match.

At the start of the second set, you saw you were getting your butt kicked and you tried to make some changes. Time to break out that kitchen sink. You rushed the net five times in your opening service game. Too little too late, we say. In the third game your serve really added to your woes and you quickly got down 0-30. At 15-40 you missed another first serve then tried to come in behind the second. Desperation time. Nadal knows where to park that one and it‘s where you‘re not. He had the only break in the second he would need. 6-4, 6-4 was the final score and it probably doesn’t convey how thoroughly Nadal held you in his grip Sunday.

Other parts of your game crashed too. Your backhand let you down a bit. Not like the forehand side. But still. The backhand went for topspin nearly the entire way, a bit of slicing here and there might have helped. Were you afraid it would sit up on the clay, unlike the grass where it stays lower, and you’d get it knocked back down your throat by Nadal? Something to worry about, but this is the kitchen sink time, guy, you have to try it. On the return of serve you couldn’t find the groove either. You talked about this earlier in the week, saying how the return game gave you trouble early in the clay season. It’s a timing thing. It wasn’t that Nadal kept you OUT of the points, guy, it’s that your own game’s deficiencies sunk you on Sunday. Your serve didn’t really let you into the points, nor did the forehand, or your baseline play in general. You will never beat this guy from the back of the court. At least not this court.

But knowing these things, Roger, should you not have been better prepared for them? What happened to that get up and go you felt for the clay season? You supposedly were going to mount a big campaign to do well on the red stuff this year. Maybe you hoped to play your way here into contention, and for a moment there – against Ferrer and Ferrero – you nearly had me convinced you could do it. But that was Ferrer and Ferrero, “F” as in flyweights, not Nadal. You have to come prepared, and I did not sense you were ready. And you have to be, when you are facing an opponent who looked in great form throughout the week.

So back to the drawing board, Roger. It’s clear to us that you have hit the first real snag in your otherwise rather spotless, and fortunate, career. Fortunate because you have paced your body well and suffered no major injuries, and that is important if you want to not only reach the top but stay there a while. But you are having a hiccup. Don’t obsess about it, just do your homework better next time. Put down your fine Gucci threads and take up the hair shirt, my son. I want to see you in better form in Rome.

It worries me though when you say things like this: that you expected to see better results against Nadal in Rome, Hamburg and then (curiously) Monte Carlo NEXT year. Roger, aren’t you forgetting something? Was that a Freudian shank, or what?

The good news though is that Mats Wilander has already said you would win the French this year. As long as Nadal doesn’t make it to the final. So work harder on your game, but line up a hit man. Just in case.

Bitch and Sing Dept: Post Miami

A Failure of Serve, A Failure of Nerve

The early demise of the world number one woman, Maria Sharapova, and the number one man, Roger Federer, in Miami recently has fueled speculation as to what this portends, if anything. Could it be that a minor upheaval may be taking place that could render the game of tennis very interesting? If they can’t be dominant, who can step up in their place?

We are wondering. For Sharapova, Miami was the tournament where her serve really went south. Suddenly, the best serve in women’s tennis (Serena is a very close second) had degenerated into something resembling her countrywoman’s, Elena Dementieva. She had some injury concerns, shoulder and hamstring, and that may have been just enough of a problem to throw her off. Her toss and approach to the ball look normal, although not having a fully healthy leg to plant and push off from was troublesome.

After watching the tape of her loss to Serena Williams, Maria appeared to be having more problems with the finish of her serve, how her wrist pronated at the end of the shot, or failed to. She was alternately spraying balls long, or dumping them into the net. Whether this derived from the hamstring problem or is symptomatic of mental yips we can’t tell yet. I am leaning toward the former.

While Maria was suffering from a failure of serve, Roger Federer was coping with another failure of nerve. He should have won his match with Canas. It was there on his racquet just as it was last spring against Nadal in Rome and again at Roland Garros.

His comments afterwards are revealing, both for what they disclose, and what they don’t.

I was really expecting myself to win tonight, but it’s one of those matches I should have never lost.”

Well, Roger, why did you lose? I kept waiting for some intrepid soul in that presser to step up to the plate and wrestle him to the ground with a question like, “What happens to your nerves at those points?”

Or this: The big points didn’t go my way in today’s match, but that happens.

Well, Roger, why didn’t they go your way? You speak as if something untoward came down the pike and had its way with you. Like there was nothing you could do. Nobody ever wants to admit that they choked the victory away. But that’s all it was.

Or this: I guess he played well against me both times, and I couldn’t put him away unfortunately.

These comments raise the questions: is Roger Federer too much of a nice guy? Can he stick the knife into an opponent? Normally we say yes, we’ve seen him beat players week after week for what seems an eternity. But every once in a while, the nerves beset even Roger, he grows tentative at a crucial moment or two.

In tennis these days, a blink of a moment is all you need to lose a match. What I liked about Roger Federer from the get-go was that he belied the old saw that nice guys can’t win big and win steadily. He showed us otherwise. I would hate to see anything in his make-up as a person change drastically to adapt to new circumstances but I would love to see him return to his winning ways. Even if he has to get up a little crankier in the mornings.

It bothers me that he speaks of the disaster as if it happened to someone else, in a galaxy far far away. Partly that is a protective device people develop to distance themselves from the catastrophe. Look at Djokovic after losing last year at Roland Garros to Nadal. To hear him talk, he was in total control of the match even though he lost. You store the evil stuff until a later time when you are more ready to process it.

Clearly, there should be some processing going on here. For starters, Roger should say what the problem is. Don’t talk around it, guy, smack it on the head. Maybe Roger does this alone with Tony Roche, his coach. I hope so, because he hides himself in his public comments.

In another television interview I saw recently, Roger Federer was quoted as saying that what he needed to do now was to remember “how to play the big points again.” Sometimes, the big points come and the player is not ready, the nerves close in. Even though Federer felt he played a high quality match against Canas in Miami, I have never seen Roger look so tight on a tennis court before. It was the most nerve-wracking match I’ve ever sat through with him, and believe me, I have sat through many. I think the nerves really got to him at key moments; enough that anyone would forget how to play the “big points.“

After it was over and Federer was packing up his bags, I thought, “My God, Roger Federer was frail today.” Suddenly his body even looked frail. He is not exactly a physical specimen with that rather bony frame and those pointy elbows. For a moment I even thought I detected a tear or two rolling down his cheek. Because we know Federer doesn’t sweat, right?

But does anyone really think he won’t find his way back on track? He has to. Now he’s on a Swiss stamp, it was revealed today, holding his Wimbledon trophy in that lovely white jacket. No backing down off the mountain now, Roger. Onward!

As for Maria Sharapova, she’ll be back too. Hopefully when she is physically ready this time. Then we can really see more clearly if her service hiccups are injury-related, or signs of other, deeper troubles.

They will both regroup because they have high standards and they know there is a level of competence that they, as leading tennis players, cannot slip below. If anything, their losses will be a wake-up call of rather major proportions. I think they will still be the number one players by year’s end. Anyone want to be bet otherwise?

After Miami: The Federer Effect

For a while now we have been saying that men’s tennis needs more rivalries. We need to see more people in finals besides Roger Federer all the time. Last Sunday we got our wish. If someone had told me that the Miami final would be contested between Djokovic and Canas, I would have said you need another drink. But Djokovic and Canas was what we got, and now that we’ve got it, was it all it cracked up to be? No, probably not. At least judging by some of the comments heard during the match. I sense a hankering going on.

ESPN commentator Mary Carillo was gushing over Novak Djokovic as being “a young Federer.” Now Mary, you are one of my favorite people in all the sport. But there is no way in hell that Novak, lovely lad that he is, can rate yet as a young Federer. His game at this point bears little resemblance to Roger’s. This kid is firmly planted on the baseline with his game. He ventures forward on occasion and can volley crisply but it is not his first choice. His shot selection isn’t on the same level as Roger‘s. Besides, I don’t see him being in line to capture a Grand Slam anytime soon. If you are making a serious comparison, Mary, you have to talk Grand Slams. My co-writer Nina Rota finds Djokovic rather “generic“. That sounds just about right to me. Not to say the kid won’t evolve his game, but right now it is not even close to being a roadshow version of Federer’s.

Novak caught a lucky draw this week and so did Canas. What Mary’s comments suggest to me is that she, like a lot of us, is reacting to the absence of Federer from the tennis equation. When he’s not here, we say we’re sort of glad but then we continue to talk as if he were here. As if we want him to be here, which of course we do. We project his qualities onto the guys who survived.

Novak dominated Canas pretty well in the match but that’s not to suggest his game is really similar to Federer‘s. What we are experiencing is how Roger’s presence has upped the ante for the other players. They still want to hug the baseline until hell freezes over, but the arrival of Federer requires all of them to mix it up a bit if they hope to have any success against him at all. So we may get more guys capable of playing all-court games. Unless you are like a Canas or a Nadal and you can retrieve everything. But that gets kind of boring, unless you have a player on the other side who is attacking you a lot. Then it becomes interesting. But when Canas gets up against another baseliner, it’s a bit of a snooze. So calm down, Mary. I know in your heart of hearts you feel like I do, and my co-writer Nina Rota also. We miss Roger, and the game needs him.

Sadly, the real finals took place the evening Federer lost to Canas, or Djokovic busted Nadal. If you think anyone will remember this match in about three weeks, well you’ve got a better memory than I do by far. What we saw on Sunday was a “B” match. A good match at times, but a B match overall. Not the Federer-Nadal battle we had hoped for going into Miami.

Serena and Justine: Like Old Times

Well, it wasn’t exactly a pretty match that Serena Williams won today against Justine Henin. In fact it was a rather lugubrious match. I love using that word. And today it fit. It was not a match featuring lots of snappy play and crispness. More like the two women were heaving balls at each other. As the score would indicate (0-6, 7-5, 6-3), these women wandered all over God’s creation before they got on track. Serena must have set her alarm and then forgotten to get up anyway. Much like Andy Murray did yesterday. She had a cup of coffee and then munched on the bagel Justine served her up in the first set. (Question: When did Serena Williams last get bageled by Henin? ) Whew, I was so tempted to turn off the telly at that point. I was still rankled over how poorly the men’s semis turned out yesterday, so when Serena didn’t bother to show up in the first set, my teeth were on edge.

Justine broke in the opening game. She looked sharper, fitter, swifter. Serena had all sorts of problems, mostly due to her poor movement. She seemed rooted in cement and her shots, as a consequence, went flying. She had no rhythm on her serve. Serena had a break point on Justine’s first service game but Henin beat her off. At 3-0, Serena had already made eight unforced errors. Her backhand was in sorry shape. It seemed like only fifteen minutes had passed and the match was already at 4-0. Serena made a stand at the end of the set, forcing Justine into four set points before the Belgian closed the deal. Serena had a total of 18 errors to Justine’s 8. I concluded at this point that it was just going to be one of those days for Serena.

Apparently Richard Williams was all set to come down on court during the between set break and coach her, but Serena declined the offer. She probably didn’t want to hear it because she knew already what she needed to do. But her problems continued as she lost her opening service game at love in the second set. Ouch, we thought, but then Serena dug in and started making Henin uncomfortable in her game. She had Henin down 0-40 on her own serve but Justine fought back. This second game defined the second set as Justine took Serena to four break points before Serena finally capitalized. Mary

Carillo was grumbling that this was not a pretty match. Hang on, Mary, we’re getting there! A moment later Justine had the chance at 5-4 to serve the match out but troubles ensued. Justine rolled her ankle and took a tumble, scraping her knee. A minor booby but just enough to throw her off stride. She double faulted then knocked a backhand feebly into the net and Serena was back even at 5-5.

Now Serena is getting herself in gear, now she starts serving well. She opens her game with an ace, then follows with a great backhand pick up volley crosscourt for 40-0, and holds a moment later at love for 6-5. Justine gets an early lead but Serena starts nailing her shots, keeping the ball deeper and forcing errors from the Belgian. Justine was setting the points up wonderfully, she just couldn’t take care of the kill shot up the line. Serena breaks her for the second set, 7-5.

You’d think Serena would blitz her now in the final set, just for the sake of punishment. Serena held the opening game at love. She has now won four straight games, and Justine is getting rattled and impatient. At 30-40, the Belgian double faults giving Serena a 2-0 lead. Justine fought to break her in the third game but Serena holds for a 3-0 lead. As if Henin didn’t have enough problems, she took another fall in Game 4. Her feet just went out from under her. Twice in one match is pretty astonishing when you think about it, because Justine Henin is one of the best movers in all of women’s tennis. But again she seems OK, the trainer visits briefly but there are going to be no excuses out here today. Justine fights off one break point before holding at a key point for 3-1.

Are we having fun now? Not really. It feels like Chinese water torture. Serena is definitely playing better, but we’re still kind of holding our breath. Henin isn’t done yet. Serena seems a bit deflated she couldn’t beat up on Henin for a 4-0 lead, and now you can sense another momentum shift back to the Belgian. Suddenly Serena’s movement does not look that good and her serve is going off again. Another long game, wherein both players hit good shots followed by awful looking ones. At the fourth deuce, Serena double faults, and Henin breaks with a great inside out forehand up the line. We are back on serve at 3-2. To accentuate her return, Henin closes the score at 3-3 with an ace.

Undaunted, Serena fights back and holds serve at love for 4-3. Then Serena puts pressure on Henin’s service game, getting her down 0-30, then Justine double faults for 15-40. Serena puts in a good service return and Justine’s backhand sprays wide for the break, 5-3. Is Henin ready for the glue factory yet? Well, not quite.

Serving for the championship, Serena knocks a backhand long for 0-15, then hits a nervous looking forehand into the net for 0-30. Justine uncorks a beautiful backhand up the line for 0-40. No sign of the Fat Lady yet. Then Serena squiggles in a little backhand up the line for 15-40. A good first service winner takes her to 30-40. Then she gets down under the concrete it seems to scoop a backhand up the line for a winner and a deuce point. A great serve out wide gives her the first match point. She misses her first serve in the ad court, but then nails a second serve ace out wide. It looked close enough for a challenge, but Henin doesn’t bother, she’s already heading to the net. The replay shows why she did not challenge: smack on the line, said she.

Nice handshake, women. A moment spent there talking, smiling. I hope Henin said, “So where have you been, woman?” Three and a half years since their last meeting. Definitely this is a rivalry we’d like to see more of. This may be our only consistent rivalry for a while given that Mauresmo is experiencing miasma once again, Clijsters is nearly gone from the game, and Maria is wondering where she parked that serve of hers.

Go Serena!
(Answer: Serena has never been bageled before by Henin. In fact, she bageled Henin in their very first meeting back in ‘01 at the U.S.Open).

In Miami: It’s Canas And Djokovic

Whew, hang on, folks, the end is in sight! We know that because the level of play has started to fall off after ten days of hectic upheaval and upsets galore. It was probably bound to happen simply because so much outrageous stuff has occurred already. Like the decimation of the seeded players, especially on the men’s side of the draw. The number one male and female player bit the dust in rather shocking fashion. We had to be brought back to earth. Today we crawled our way into the semifinals hoping for something normal we could sink our teeth into. Surely we could count on at least one of the matches being half-way decent. But today, no cigar, babies.

The first match between Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray promised a really good semi-final. Same age guys, they know each other well and their games well too. They have been two of the hotter, most interesting players this year. But like many a match-up that looks great on paper, the actual event can often be lacking in drama. Such was the case today. Unless one considers it “dramatic” to watch one of the more dismal performances I have seen on the men’s side in quite a while. Let’s be plain: it was a disgraceful performance from Andy Murray.

If I were Brad Gilbert, I’d want to reach for my spanking rod at this point. 6-0, 6-1. Guy, next time just phone it in, don’t bother waking us up, puleese! I hope some intrepid reporter at his presser piped up with, “Do you think you played like a real woman today, Andy?” For those of you who may not know the story, Andy Murray made a faux pas in describing one match he played with an opponent as one where “we both played like women.” He was flamed on all sides for that one. Wouldn’t you love to be the fly on the wall and overhear the first crack out of Gilbert’s mouth to his star pupil? Maybe the thought even crossed Gilbert’s mind, “What did I sign up for?”

Well, certainly not this. Murray came out like he had just tumbled out of bed. The energy wasn’t there, the shots weren’t there. Instead, Djokovic played like he was the guy with the all-around game, which I still don’t believe he has much of. His natural inclination is to stay on the baseline; he comes forward only when he must. He served big, he came to net and he ran Murray ragged with his expert drop shots. These two guys have only one guy between them in the rankings here in Miami, but today that gap looked like a chasm.

The evening match featured Ivan Ljubicic and Guillermo Canas, a match that also promised lots of goodies. Ljubicic probably felt like this was his golden moment. Federer was gone and Ivan must have liked his chances. After all, he pushed Roger in all three sets in last year’s final, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6. If he felt like he was entitled, he should think again.

Canas again came out and outplayed his opponent. Ljubicic had three break points early in the first set and he could not convert any of them. That experience must have been so debilitating that the big Croat never recovered. Even though he did not lose a point on his serve until well into the first set, it did not matter. He played too cautiously when he should have been expanding on his already pretty big game. His brain just didn’t seem to be working out there. He could not play the big points well.

Sound familiar? Federer had the same problem against Canas. Here I was thinking Ljubicic had the game to stand up to Canas, more so than Federer. His strokes seemed longer and deeper, he’s taller, his backhand up the line was working well, and he was serving well – at least through the first set. Canas on the other hand struggled to hold and fought off numerous break points. Eventually, that gave him confidence. Canas turned the corner after breaking Ljubicic late in the first set then served out to win the set. Ljubicic waved his racquet a bit in the second, but you never felt like he was going anywhere. It wasn’t the dismal performance of Murray, but certainly a letdown in terms of how well Ivan has played before in big matches. The final score was 7-5, 6-4.

Canas? Wow! I am over the loss Federer took on the chin because Canas has convinced me he belongs back on the big stage. This man has the heart of a lion. But on Sunday he will be playing a man ten years his junior. He’s not yet a full blown lion himself but look out for Djoko, he has some claws. Patrick McEnroe picked him to beat Canas and I am inclined to agree. But Canas may end up having a supreme week wherein he can accomplish everything.

If he wins, let’s take him out into the bay, surely he can walk on water too?

As for the women, well, thank God for Serena. She has certainly redeemed the women’s side, what with the loss of Sharapova and Kuznetsova. Clijsters and Hingis went too, along with one of my favorites, Jelena Jankovic. She went out rather early to make it two early exits in successive events. Henin and Williams are playing the best tennis right now so we should be able to hope for a decent match in the final.

Djokovic versus Canas should be excellent too. These guys are at the peak of their competitive abilities; they have ferocious, and voracious appetites out there on court. They know how to grapple with an opponent. Djokovic has more finesse in the end, more natural ability, and better court sense than Canas. But it could likely be a very close duel to the end. We need a few more three setters here. At least give us one in the final. Let’s hope all the manly parts hold up physically so we can get through it successfully.