Since our website was down over the weekend and things got backed up here, and because it is now early Sunday and what I was going to write about is ancient history, I may as well talk about those feisty Americans down under. You remember the Americans, they were the ones many people wrote off before the tournament even started. We were injured, we were aging, we were just a mess, the sport was dying in America, blah blah blah.

Well, lo and behold, as the Australian Open reached its first weekend of play there were a handful of Americans left alive. Mardy Fish started the proceedings on opening day with his upset of Number Four seed Ivan Ljubicic and he’s just kept on going. I thought Fish could face Roddick in the quarterfinals. Now they will, because Fish took out another higher-ranked player yesterday, Spain’s David Ferrer. Fish jumped out to a two set lead only to see it melt away. Like the other David here, namely Nalbandian, Ferrer likes to do things the tough way. He had to come back from five sets in his prior match against Stepanek and now he was threatening to do the same thing against Fish. But Fish hung in and won in four sets, 6-1, 7-6(4),2-6, 7-5. Good work guy, I don’t think you stand much chance against your buddy Andy Roddick but it is great to see you here. It will be Fish’s first grand slam quarterfinal match.

Robby Ginepri played well early and made it into the first weekend before succumbing to fellow American James Blake. Ginepri is kind of the B version of Blake, he can do a lot of the same things shot-wise but Blake does it bigger and more consistently. Blake has been stellar, I am picking him to be in the final next Saturday against Federer.

After his match Blake said, “Going for my shots on set points, it shows just how close tennis is, how quickly it can change, how close all the guys are on tour. ‘Cause if you change literally two points in that whole match, it’s a completely different match. If he wins the set points in the first set, four set points in the second, any one of those goes a different way, that’s a whole new match.”

That observation certainly applied to Andy Roddick in his ferocious matches against Marat Safin and Mario Ancic. They were two of the best matches of his career. The key for Roddick’s matches has not been his serve so much as his return of serve and his ability to make his backhand more of a weapon, especially going up the line. Funny how these two things have become keys for all the other players here. The court is playing faster this year so the servers have an advantage again, and that means their opponents have to find ingenious new ways to return the firepower. Taking care of your serve and going after the returns were the marching orders of the day.

There was really not much between Ancic and Roddick. Both had their chances. Roddick had a bit more gas late in the match, he got an early break in the fifth set and preserved it with serving that got more powerful as the match went along. The key stat was this: Andy guarded his serve better. Ancic broke his serve only 5 of 14 chances while Roddick broke him 3 of 4 times. Roddick had an astonishing 60 winners to only 33 errors, but Ancic was not far behind with 52 winners to 19 errors. Incredibly good-looking power tennis from two of the biggest servers in the game. How nice to see guys actually rushing the net again!

On the women’s side, we could talk about the blood-letting that went on yesterday with Mauresmo, Kuznetsova and Dementieva following Petrova out of the tournament. In case you are wondering, that’s our 2, 3, 5 and 7 seeds. Somehow I don’t think we were expecting the names of Ashley Harkleroad and Serena Williams to be under discussion this weekend. Harkleroad got divorced and took time off but is now resurrecting her career; she had an excellent run here and was on the brink of snatching a win yesterday from Daniela Hantuchova. But not quite. The American let it slip away in heart-breaking fashion, having gotten the lead in both the second and third sets. The final score was 6-7(8), 7-5, 6-3.

Serena Williams has gone from being a lime-green eyesore to something like a revelation from on high. I will gladly eat my dollop of crow here, since we felt Serena needed a bit more seasoning before she was back in good form. The news is she’s nearly there already. Petrova slapped her around for a set and a half and that was all. Then Nadia pulled out her usual I-am-still-not-ready-for-the-big-occasion choke at the critical moments and the match went to Williams in three sets.

After Williams got blitzed in the first set 6-1, I hoped that Petrova would really rub it in, maybe even bake her a bagel and get Serena fired up so she would go home and train like a fiend and get herself fitter. That would be the best thing for her, I thought. Serena had other ideas. Like why don’t I just beat her right here right now? 6-1, 5-7, 3-6 was the final score. Petrova is certainly fitter, but there is nothing wrong with the competitive zeal of Serena Williams. And that was a major weapon, the deciding weapon in this match. For a woman supposedly fat and a bit out of shape, she produced some beautiful tennis. My mouth kept dropping open. How did she cover that much court? What a great thing it would be for tennis if we got at leat one of the Williams’ sisters back!

Serena pushed Jelena Jankovic aside too. Jankovic is the rising Number 11 seed who was expected to give Williams her comeuppance. It was not a pretty match though. Errors flowed. Jankovic was not on her game yesterday, she could not get into a grove, she seemed distracted and never fully into the match. The really juicy news for Serena now is, she has a road chartered from heaven through the draw. What’s not to like about facing either Shahar Peer, Nicole Vaidisova, or Lucie Safarova? Serena Williams could very well be another American player who will make the final next weekend, probably against Maria Sharapova.

ESPN2 must have thought that they had died and gone to some equivalent of tennis heaven: they had on their TV schedule not one, but TWO marquee matches. Andy and Serena. Prime time Saturday night.

Seems like old times, doesn’t it?

Submit this story to TennisVote!

My co-writer Nina Rota and I were wondering last week if the Australian Open was going to be up to snuff this year as a number of players were threatening to pull out before the event started. But as of today, Tuesday, the draw held together, with Nadal, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Tursunov and Gonzalez getting through their opening rounds. Their physical ailments are being held at bay, at least for now.

Recently I proclaimed that Andy Roddick would beat Federer at least once this year. He already did that this past weekend. Alright, it was only an exhibition match. I like to think it was a good omen for Roddick on the year. Roddick treated viewers on the opening Sunday to a nice little catfight with Frenchman Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. It ended with a Roddick victory in four sets, but first he had to nose his way out of a 20-18 tiebreak loss in the opening set and hang on through another tiebreak in the second.

The Roddick match illustrates why people have argued that the Australian Open should be set back a ways in the calendar. A lot of hiccups take place in the early rounds here. When I lived in a girls’ dorm once I remember the stream of sleepy faces filing into the cafeteria in the mornings. They hadn’t had their jolts yet. Players often look like that here. The Aussie Open is way too big too early. Roger Federer suggested recently that it be set back to early March. The weather would be heading into fall then down under, much like it is when the US Open takes place in late August. Players would not feel like they are leaping out of the gate into the middle of a major tournament. We could have a few run-up events to a March date for the Open, and maybe a mid-sized event in between. The Aussie could start the calendar in March, with a decent break between that and the French. Of course it would probably rework the schedule a lot, and other events would need to shift, but too many players are showing up here this week looking rusty and not quite ready for prime time. Neither are the writers. We need our foreplay too.

So everyone seems to hold their breath here for the opening rounds. Roddick especially. Even Roger Federer looked cranky and not quite on his game yet. After his first match against Bjorn Phau, Roger pronounced himself relieved to be through it. Now he felt he was “officially” into the tournament.

David Nalbandian probably hopes he is officially into the tournament too. He earned it the hard way, as is often the case with Nalbandian. Serbian player Janko Tipsarevic was set to serve out the match in the third set when Nalbandian decided he had better play after all. He clawed his way back until his opponent succumbed to the blistering heat and retired in the fifth set trailing 2-1. Last year I was making a bit of fun about Nalbandian and his paunch, which we can see protruding beneath his shirt. Now I am thinking it functions like the pouch on a kangaroo, it stores up energy for the lad for those frequent times when he’s coming back from two sets down. Nalbandian is not exactly a training monster, so I wonder how he does it. He looked like he was just getting started by the time Tipsarevic wilted into retirement. I want a paunch now too!

Speaking of paunches, we should say something about the return of Serena Williams. It amazes me still that she moves as well as she does on the court. But we won’t know that until she runs into Nadia Petrova in her draw, the likely woman who will give her a real contest. Everything about Serena is big right now, including her earrings. The outfit is a screeching limey thing, it has me longing for a mojito. Maria Santangelo was expected to give her more of a battle as the Number 27 seed but didn’, so Serena crafted an easy win aided in large part by a service game that has not deserted her. I want to see her back on top, but it is annoying to see how out of shape she still is. And yet her desire seems to be there. And yet she’s out of shape. Another year of back and forth with our hopes for at least one of the Williams’ sisters. I am going to try and ignore her for the next week or so and hope she can maneuver her way along into something good.

Maria Sharapova had her own rollercoaster going on against France’s Camille Pin. Sharapova was up 5-0 in the third set before Pin started making a dent in the Russian’s game. Pin pulled back into the match aided in great part by a skillful, consistent ground game that unfortunately does not extend to her serve. Camille, meet Elena Dementieva. The land of cupcake services. Sharapova got a hypoglycemic attack from all that munching on Pin’s serves, both first and second. She treated them with the impunity they deserved.

The Russian took several long time-outs for trainer visits due to the heat and, for a moment there, we wondered if being born in Siberia means you can’t do well in 100 plus degree heat after all. She looked ready to cave. But when you see a serve coming at you with the speed of Pin’s serves, a staggering 60 something mph, Maria probably told herself there was no way she was ever going to lose to a player like this. She took care of business with a 3-6, 6-4, 9-7 win. The woman has nerves of steel. Maybe the time-outs were a bit of a fake job, but she seemed to be clearly fatigued. I hope she hurt like hell, because maybe then she will remember and condition herself better.

A couple of stealth bombers flew into town in the form of Mssrs. Djokovic, Murray and Berdych. They sprinted through their openers like there was no one on the other side of the net. Marat Safin got a major work-out against Benjamin Becker, winning his opener in a tough five sets. And our recent Aussie hero Guccione, the tallest man on tour, succumbed to the smallest, Olivier Rochus (co-shared with Christophe), in another brutal five-setter.

Also of note were the wins of a number of Yanks in the opening round, notably Robby Ginepri, who battled another big hitting guy – up and coming Spanish player Nicholas Almagro – for five sets. Big server Sam Querrey also overcame another big guy – Jose Acasuso – in four sets. But the big prize so far goes to Mardy Fish, who came forward to upset Number 4 seed Ivan Ljubicic. Last year Fish was on his way to becoming another lost American cause, but after wrist surgery he has bounced back well. He’s already had a win over Ancic in the Auckland event earlier this year, so Fish seems determined to get a good spot back in the fray. Mardy could get by David Ferrer in the Round of 16 although he would probably lose to Roddick in the quarters. If Roddick can survive a few early hiccups, he will be very strong.

A yummy dark house candidate: The Bagh Man. Marcos Baghdatis put on an entertaining show opening night against former Top 10 player Rainer Schuettler of Germany. I saw things that say Marcos is ready for this one. Mary Carillo cooed endlessly about how effectively he can play from any part of the court, and he went out to prove that. His forehand was not this crushing a year ago, but it is now. He unleashed brutal shots cross court all night against the German, and his backhand was equally adept and powerful. Then he pulls out a slew of forehand drop shots which neatly clear the net and die properly, like good little drop shots should.

But just when you think Baghdatis has it all, he can turn around and flub an easy-looking shot, and you wonder what goes on inside that head. Alright, so he needs therapy like most of us do because, in spite of his often brilliant play, or perhaps because of it, who knows, he seems to relax a bit, to let his mind wander. Perhaps he’s rewarding himself. Unlike my partner, I am picking Baghdatis to get by Robredo in the Round of 16 and face Federer in the quarters. And if Baghdatis gets that far, it could be an interesting match-up. He will feed on his confidence.

Here are my picks for the boys:

Federer will beat Djokovic, Baghdatis will take out Robredo.

Federer-Baghdatis in the quarters

Fish can upset Ferrer, Roddick will take out Safin then Robredo

Fish-Roddick make a nice American quarter

Haas will beat Nalbandian, Berdych will beat Tursunov (Malisse is already gone from that corner of the draw, and Davydenko will go too)

Haas-Berdych in a quarterfinal battle of the Pretty Boys

Blake over Fernando Gonzalez and Andy Murray over Rafael Nadal. This is the most interesting corner of the draw as it has guys who have never met, like Blake and Murray, and Murray and Nadal.

Blake-Murray should be an arresting quarterfinal

So hang on to your hats, we are under way down under.

Submit this story to TennisVote!

The new season got under way last week and already we have a good sampling of what is likely to be the year in tennis: some really good-looking play, some rather surprising upsets, some lowly guys making good for a change, some stars taking it on the chin. And we didn’t even have the Number One male and female players present. Because they weren’t. Roger Federer won’t show up until next week in Melbourne for the start of the Aussie Open, although he is playing an exhibition this week in Kooyong with a lot of money involved. A bit of chastisement maybe in order here but then we would also need to extend it to Andy Roddick, David Nalbandian, Tommy Haas and a handful of other name players who chose to play Kooyong and ignore the scheduled tournaments.

Justine Henin-Hardenne has pulled out of the Aussie Open due to personal reasons. Rumors are flying that her marriage is heading even further south than Australia so she stayed home to work on things. Seems like Pierre-Yves may have wanted a wife instead of a tennis player. Someone should have told him. In film school I wrote scripts with a Swedish woman director who married a Frenchman. After several years it dawned on him that he didn’t have a wife, he had a film director. Someone should have told him too. They ended up divorcing amicably.

Lleyton Hewitt talked some big talk over the holiday but he couldn’t walk the walk. His coach Roger Rasheed could, though, and after Hewitt lost in surprising fashion to Igor Kunitsyn in Adelaide last week, Rasheed took a hike.

My personal great pleasure of this week was the arrival, finally, after much prodding, of The Tennis Channel in my neighborhood, in my house, dare I say, at long last. This disproves my theory that Martians would land before Comcast signed onto TTC. Comcast finally added it to their programming but it’s listed incorrectly as being in their two most popular packages. It is not. I had to sign up for a sports package but that was fine, it was seven dollars less. TTC repeats a lot of stuff rather endlessly, but the commentary of the matches is pleasantly restrained, even minimal. Patrick and Cliff, we love you guys at ESPN2, but sometimes silence is golden.

So, what did the Tennis Channel cough up this past week? Only half of the stuff I wanted to see: Adelaide (with Hewitt, Djokovic, Gasquet) and the women’s final from the Gold Coast event. Hewitt could not even get out of the round robin at Adelaide and Gasquet exited in the quarters at the hands of Australian lefty Chris Guccione. They call him “Penthouse,” we hope, because he’s a giraffe of a guy at 6’7″ and not for pulling wild late nighters. He’s actually a mellow appearing guy with a rather easy, deceptively simple wind-up on his serve. Gasquet saw 22 aces fly off that racquet and, although Gasquet won the first set 6-1, Guccione came back and stunned the Frenchman by winning the next two. Suddenly the Aussie fans have a new hero to root for, given that their aging star Mark Philippoussis went out with more knee trouble and will be gone for a while.

We all hoped for a Hewitt-Gasquet final but we got Novak Djokovic against Guccione instead. At least the Serbian teenager was the number one seed. But you know what, this match was pretty entertaining and pretty good quality for what it was. Guccione got the crowd behind him and made it a close match with Djokovic who finally pulled it out in three sets, 6-3, 6-7(6),6-4. He is now the youngest player in the Top 20.

The best match of the week was offered up by the women. Dinara Safina played the best match I have ever seen her play against Martina Hingis. Safina’s serve was so strong and consistent throughout that Hingis had some trouble just getting into the rallies. When she did, Safina showed good touch at the net and unleashed a flurry of backhand winners up the line. If Hingis hoped the big Russian would go away in the third set and crumble under the pressure of having lost their two previous meetings, it was not to be on this day. Safina battled her for three sets before pulling out a 6-3, 3-6, 7-5 win.

But go figure: this week in Sydney, Safina is already gone at the hands of Australia’s Nicole Pratt who actually lost the first set, 4-6, but came back strong to win at 3 and 2 in the next two.

For Hingis this was a foreshadowing of what she will face during the rest of the year: big girls who can push her around and she without the power in her game to respond well enough. Look for the usual pattern to emerge with Hingis: she’ll get her fifteen seconds of fame whipping through the lower ends of draws then she’ll run aground on the bigger girls waiting in the later rounds.

This week was no improvement. After losing in the final to Safina, Hingis headed to the WTA event in Sydney only to lose in three sets in the first round to Jelena Jankovic. Jankovic is not a huge physical type like Safina, she is about 5’9″, but she wails on the ball like she thinks she’s 6 feet tall. She won her first tournament of the year beating Vera Zvonareva in the three grueling sets.

“I came, I saw, I conquered,” smiles Jankovic after her win. Cheeky little thing, isn’t she? And she can probably say that in the original Latin since she’s taking college classes in her off hours. We sung her praises a lot last year so it is nice to see her come charging out of the gate. She sounds confident of her chances and has no problem saying she can beat some bigger names. I love her fearlessness.

The event in Chennai, India, with Rafael Nadal as the top seed, was not televised by TTC. Neither was the event in Doha (Mssrs. Ljubicic, Murray, Davydenko). A bit of strangeness went on in those tournaments as well. Nadal lost in the semis in straight sets to Xavier Malisse, another chronic underachiever on the men’s side. Nadal professed in his post-match presser that he was still confident about his chances for the year. But you have to wonder when he loses to a guy like Malisse, whom I termed “Baby Safin” because he has an enormous wealth of talent and shotmaking skills when he chooses to show them to us. Malisse may have had a hot week of play and that’s what undid Nadal, but then Rafa ran into a lot of guys in the second half of last year who treated him in the same fashion. I am already holding my breath over his chances for this year, even during the clay court season.

Tuesday morning the bad news continued for Nadal: while trailing 5-6 to Mr. Penthouse Guccione in Sydney, Nadal strained a groin muscle and had to withdraw. Now he won’t get to meet Tomas Berdych, who would have been his likely quarterfinal opponent, and we’re left hoping that Rafa can be ready for next week’s start in the Open.

A hop and a skip from Chennai over in Doha last week, Andy Murray pulled an upset out of his hat against number one seed Nikolay Davydenko in the semis, but lost rather meekly in the final to Ivan Ljubicic in straight sets.

This week the men are playing in Sydney and Auckland, the women in Sydney and Hobart. Of note was the return of Serena Williams, unseeded, into the Sydney event. So far so good: in her opener she mutilated Sweden’s most accomplished female player, Sofia Arvidsson, 6-4, 6-0. After Borg, Wilander, Edberg and Enqvist, why haven’t the Swedes produced a great female player? They have the head for the game, they certainly have the temperament, and they have a system in place to bring tennis kids along. So what’s the deal, Swedes? Give us your tired, your poor, and especially your babes(!)

Ho-hum, looks like another boring year in tennis, doesn’t it?

Next year is bringing some new changes to the women’s tour and while change in sport is normally a good thing, some of the proposed changes are already setting teeth on edge. My teeth have been in a roil since the WTA announced plans to experiment further with on-court coaching during matches.

For much of the season we have heard from the top female players (for the most part they are against it). Several of the commentators have spoken out against it too, notably Mary Carillo, who was quoted as saying:

“I don’t like this one bit. It goes against everything I truly respect about my sport. I was raised as a tennis player by the late, great Harry Hopman, the Aussie coach who taught us that if you walk out on the court, you are declaring yourself ready to play, no injuries, no excuses.”

Yesterday in a telephone interview, Larry Scott, the WTA head, said, “We didn’t start out with a goal of legalizing coaching, but as we got into it, and after what happened at the U.S. Open, we had to ask, if there’s a benefit to it why wouldn’t you?”

I love that one, don’t you? Let’s do it because…because it’s – there. And now that we’ve established that, let’s give ourselves a well-deserved pat on the back, shall we? “We realize we’re pushing the envelope in terms of the culture and tradition of the sport,” Scott said. Groundbreakers for sure, those WTA board members.

They plan to lay out clear rules for when and how the coaching takes place. “Nothing about this do we want to be disruptive,” said Scott.

But I would argue that the whole idea is already disruptive enough. For one thing it is based on the rather spurious notion that something is not quite right with the state of tennis these days; we need to goose it up somehow, in the interests of making it more “fan friendly.”

The fact I oppose on court coaching for the women’s tour may mean I support tennis as an elitist kind of sport. We should not be ashamed of this aspect. Nor should we want to see the powers that be turn it into a Walmart in the sporting world. Tennis is unique and interesting because it is so idiosyncratic, starting with the players. They get wrapped up in their own styles of playing, some of them handle pressure, many of them don’t. Each one is on a personal journey and that is why we love to follow them. Where will they go?

It has been argued that other individual sports allow coaching and everything is hunky dory there, so why not tennis? Golfers strategize endlessly with their caddies, boxers get counsel in between rounds of pummeling, why not tennis players? But why does tennis need to be like those sports? Can’t we be different? Is it not ok to be different anymore?

What really offends me about this proposal is the idea lurking in back of it which seems to be that we’re dealing with very young and un-worldly girls who can’t figure things out on their own, they need guidance every step of the way. Well excuse me, I thought that’s why people went into tennis, because it is an individual sport and you have to bring a unique mentality to it.

If you have a problem during a match – for example, you’re getting your butt kicked – you have to figure out the response by yourself. You go from an extreme state of being inundated with people around you – your trainer, your coach, your nutritionist, your psychologist, your dog, your dog handler (have we left anyone out, yes, the most important element, THE PARENT(S) – to being totally alone once you are on the court.

Does the WTA think this shift is too much for the 16-year-olds on tour to manage? They must, although it’s not really phrased that way. The WTA people are bringing this to us as something that will be “good for the game.” That is an argument I for one just don’t get. How on earth is this good for the long-term health of the game? Do they really think they can sell one more seat just because Sharapova’s dad could come on court and coach her? (A misnomer in his case, as it will be a lecture). And if we don’t want to go along with it, does this make us bad for the game? Are we the ones being the curmudgeons and anti-progress?”

What exactly do they mean by implying that tennis is not a perfect institution, that it may in fact be a little, well, a LOT, elitist, God forbid. Somehow they are tiptoeing around like there is something evil and wicked about this. People might not like us. We can’t have that. We need to be more down to earth, just folks, if we can humble ourselves abjectly enough, we can draw more fans.

It won’t be the silly gimmicks that draw new fans, it will be the usual standard stuff, like showing the “good” match-ups on TV rather than the ones the network schedules because: a) it’s got a highly ranked American in it, b) it’s got an American in it. Instead, you get interesting match-ups that the networks don’t acknowledge, or if they do it is briefly, more in passing.

The networks have to get over the fact that most matches worthy of televising these days are going to be played by European or South American players. I’d rather watch two foreigners well-matched than a rout where Andy Roddick disembowels some lowly ranked player from Pachooch. If you want to attract fans by selling them on how good tennis can be, then showing them good tennis would be a good idea for starters. Show the good match-ups, no matter what their nationalities. Otherwise you won’t attract new fans. And you will never attract fans by selling tennis thru gimmicks, like on court coaching.

The WTA wants to make me feel guilty that tennis is the way it is and I resent that. We snotty types, we don’t want the game tinkered with, keep yo mama off that court! Whereas the official pov for want of a better name, is to indulge in a policy of appeasement. And there is more appeasement on the way, just step right up and hold your plate out. Now the WTA is thinking of allowing coaching from the stands as well as on-court coaching.

They will come up with new and devastating ways to undermine the basic integrity of the game, all to attract some of those beerswilling NASCAR guys, as if they are going to stay longer than it takes to check out Sharapova’s legs.

Because the WTA no longer seems really committed to the welfare of the sport, they may indeed attract new fans, but those fans really won’t have the interest to stick with it over time. The WTA crowd wants to be liked(!) But will tennis be liked at the end of all this nonsense? On court coaching will give those NASCAR boys a good block of time to run and buy some snacks. It extends the coffee break. If this is what they think will save tennis, then let’s just let it sink instead, shall we?

See also:
The WTA Gets A Grip

Lindsay Davenport’s retirement announcement came about a day after the news that she was pregnant. It seemed a little odd to me that she chose to do it that way. Why not just announce them both at the same time? Why break it up like that? Because after all, when the one thing happens, the other is definitely going to happen too.

There’s no way a woman player could be pregnant and play on the tour as it exists today. Maybe in any era for that matter. In a way, this is a lucky thing for Lindsay, or for any woman player in this position. Because being pregnant will entirely negate any latent desires you may harbor about wanting to play on. Your body is completely indisposed to the game because now it’s preparing for a greater game, the game of giving life to something new and all that will entail.

This is a good moment for Lindsay to retire on. It felt like it had been in the cards most of this year. Home life had plainly been calling to her since her marriage and the WTA did not ease her dilemma by making it difficult for her to gain entry into tournaments. Injuries took her out for longer periods of time. She and Andre Agassi were both likely to be gone from the game before this year was out. And such has been the case. A clean cut and she’s gone. No prolonged farewells, no victory tours. Lindsay always was a very efficient striker of the ball.

– – – – –

Bjorn Borg’s name found its way on two occasions into the news recently, the first time with the announcement of a new line of signature sporting apparel, the second with his endorsement of Andy Murray as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Or should we say, scones?

Now Bjorn, you know I love you, and I really love your hair the most, but when it comes to wagering, or picking picks in general, I will probably take your advice with generous helpings of the salty stuff. After all, Borg tempted fate by trying to come back with a wooden racquet and his earlier forays into business ventures and predictions have also headed south. He had an earlier line of clothing that fared disastrously and, as far as picking players, he praised Robin Soderling several years ago in terms that Soderling had not quite lived up to at that point in time.

Fortunately now for Borg, both those situations seem to have turned themselves around. The new clothing line seems positioned to get off the ground and Robin Soderling has started to make a dent now in draws.

But Andy Murray was an odd choice. I am still out on Murray. He did beat Federer after all, but he caught Roger on an off-week when he was pretty burned out with fatigue. By late in the year Murray had slipped back to playing erratically and his on-court attitude sounded terrible. Brad Gilbert is going to have to not only put some muscle on this boy, but lay down some new stem cells in his spinal region. He needs more mental backbone.

Borg had more mental backbone than anybody who ever played the game. So maybe he picks up something about Murray that will make him “stick” as a champion over time. He has the physical skills on a court to do that but I am questioning how his mental outlook jells, and on that he is shaky. Borg was quoted as saying he feels Murray has a complete game with which to dominate the game, perhaps in a few more years, and take the crown away from Federer.

I am also wondering how Borg feels about Murray’s fitness level. That was another area in which Borg was an absolute master. Those thirty four beats per minute of his resting pulse still turn me green with envy. Ultra marathoners hit those low marks, not tennis players. And certainly not Murray. Somehow I don’t see Murray going out and running ten miles or so, as Borg often did after winning matches.

Said Sweden’s elder tennis statesman, “Murray has done brilliantly. He has the motivation so I think he can get to the top and become the world number one.” It’s a good thing to want to encourage the younger players coming up; I am just uncertain if such unstinting praise should go out to Murray at this time.

Why not shoot some praise to two other guys waiting in the wings, namely Berdych and Gasquet? Berdych especially seems situated to deliver the goods this coming year. I think he will be better faster than Murray. He’s bigger, stronger, faster, and his body seems to have come together sooner. Sorry Brad. At least Murray has Gilbert on his team now. If he’s ever to reach the level that Borg considers he can reach, then having a Brad Gilbert is an essential thing.

– – – – –

Gustavo “Guga” Kuerten played in his first tournament in nine months in November, and even though it was a challenger and he lost in straight sets in the opening round, he claims it gave him enough confidence that he can play on without the hip bothering him. That’s the good news. The not-so-good news about Guga is that he probably won’t be granted a wild card into the Australian Open in January. The officials are saving them for their own guys, as they probably should.

Is there any point to that, I wonder? Or is retirement close at hand? If he is going to re-emerge as a shadow of his former self, better not to push it and retire sooner rather than later.

Kuerten sounded off recently on the GOAT question (greatest of all time), namely Federer vs. Sampras. Guga went 1 and 2 against Sampras, and he was 2 and 1 in his meetings with Federer. So he has a bit of a say in how this rivalry works. But Kuerten sounded almost disparaging of Federer, and Carlos Moya echoed his sentiments when he said recently that Sampras had much stiffer competition than does Roger Federer today.

Now Guga, we love you dearly, and we all want to see you come back, and I really really love your hair too, but it’s a bit much for you to suggest that Federer is merely number one in the world because Sampras retired. If you had shown up at Wimbledon between 2000 and 2003, instead of staying at home for whatever reason, you might have caught Federer beating Sampras in the only match they ever played (in 2001). On that day he beat Sampras with a larger, more elegant repertoire than what Sampras had.

Maybe you should have asked Sampras his opinion after that match. I kind of got the impression he thought Roger had a future in the game. I believe he still holds that opinion.