On Sunday afternoon, Rafael Nadal defeated Milos Raonic 6-2, 6-2 in the final of the ATP Rogers Cup tournament in Montreal.
At first glance, the scoreline is not that surprising or all that noteworthy. The win gave Nadal his 25th Masters 1000 Series title and while Raonic is a talented, young big-hitter, Nadal is clearly the better, more well-rounded player at this point.
If you dig a bit deeper, though, I think this match was much bigger than it would seem, particularly for Raonic.
The hard-serving Canadian is a perfectly good player. After what was overall a great tournament in Montreal, he finds himself ranked tenth. He does a good job of beating the players that he should beat and thanks to his serve, he can strike fear in any of the top players.
But expectations that come from early success make things more complicated.
After bursting into the big time with a fourth round performance at the 2011 Australian Open (his first Grand Slam event, no less), Raonic was crowned one of the "next big things" in tennis.
He quickly lived up to those early expectations, as he was ranked in the top 40 within two months of that initial performance at the Australian Open. He took a step about 18 months later when he moved into the top 20, but since then, it doesn't feel like much has changed.
Even as his ranking has gradually moved up, I can't help but feel like Raonic hasn't quite fulfilled his potential yet.
Look, I'm no technical tennis expert. I'm not going to be able to break down his mechanics or crunch advanced numbers to determine if he has actually stagnated in his development.
I just think the next step for him will be taking down a big-name player on a big stage like this Masters 1000 tournament in his home country provided.
Sure, few players outside of Nadal, Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray have done much winning at big tournaments lately, but it has to happen sometime and I think Raonic is one of the top candidates to do so at some point.
I'm bullish on Raonic's future and I'm sure he will breakthrough at some point, but I'd be lying if I said that I'm not getting a little bit anxious to see him get there.
Showing posts with label Australian Open. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australian Open. Show all posts
Monday, August 12, 2013
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Andy Murray Gives Great Britain Grand Slam Win. Who's Next?
Thanks to Andy Murray, the national nightmare of British tennis fans and journalists alike is over.
For years, the British did all they could to will Greg Rusedski and Tim Henman to Wimbledon wins.
Those two were nice players, both were ranked as high as fourth at one point in their careers, but it always seemed unlikely that either of those two were going to raise their level of play and win the whole enchilada at Wimbledon.
Because it was all Great Britain had, though, an unreasonable level of expectation and hope was thrown on them. I don't have to tell you how that ended. Both retired having never reached the final at any major, Wimbledon included.
Then came Murray. There was buzz early on that he would be the one to end the curse of Fred Perry at Wimbledon, but that success didn't come nearly as fast as the British would have liked.
Murray was blown off the court in his first three major finals and then at his first Wimbledon final in 2012, he won the first set against Roger Federer only to have Federer come back and win the next three. It was hard to blame anyone for wondering if Murray was really any closer to winning Wimbledon, or any other major for that matter.
Murray put those concerns to rest with a win at the US Open later that year and now, he has achieved what I can only assume was the biggest goal on his list, winning Wimbledon.
So now the question is which of the other countries with a Grand Slam to their name will have a home country winner next?
The longest drought now belongs to Australia.
Even though Lleyton Hewitt reached number one in the world and won two major titles (2001 US Open and 2002 Wimbledon) in his career and Pat Rafter won the US Open twice, Mark Edmondson (1976) is the last Australian man to win the Australian Open.
All it takes to change a country's outlook on the future is one super-talented youngster (Jerzy Janowicz for Poland, anyone?), so things can change quickly, but barring that, I think the wait for the Aussies is likely to be the longest of the three.
Currently, they only have three players in the top 100 of the ATP rankings and one of them is Hewitt. I love Rusty as much as the next guy, but he's not going to win another major at this stage of his career.
That leaves Bernard Tomic (59, but rising after a good showing at Wimbledon) and Marinko Matosevic (72).
At 27, Matosevic is no longer a prospect and I was honestly surprised to see that he is ranked as high as he is. He has never reached the second round of a major, so it's tough to imagine him making a real run.
Tomic is a little different case. He has the talent to challenge for a Grand Slam title, but there are always distractions around him, whether it's a run-in with the law, a spat with Tennis Australia, or drama surrounding his father, who is also his primary coach.
I think he has a real chance to be Australia's Henman, although his temperament is more like Rusedski.
There are a handful of promising players coming up through the system, including players with Grand Slam experience like James Duckworth and Nick Kyrgios, but those guys haven't made a big move yet.
In a nation that should be counted among the biggest historical powers in tennis history, the wait for a player capable of winning a major championship must be excruciating.
France has had the next-longest wait. Yannick Noah, with a win in 1983, is the last French man to win the French Open.
If you're handicapping which of the nations will have a player break through first, the safe bet is with France.
There are 12 Frenchmen ranked in the top 100 and with the way their federation has been pumping out young players of late, it's hard to imagine that well drying up any time soon.
Heck, you could see them breaking their drought here in the next couple of years if Jo-Wilfried Tsonga can put together two weeks of good tennis at Roland Garros. His results there have improved over the last several years and despite his claim that no French man will ever win the French Open, he has a real shot.
That leaves, of course, the USA. You wouldn't believe it thanks to all the hand-wringing over the lack of an American Grand Slam champion, but the Americans have had the shortest wait of the three.
It is so often described as having been ten long years since Andy Roddick won the US Open, but in the grand scheme of things, it has just been ten years.
In terms of the wait for their next home-grown winner of their domestic Open, I would put them ahead of the Australians but behind the French.
Unlike the Aussies, the Americans do have a couple of highly-ranked players in John Isner and Sam Querrey that are still in the prime of their careers, but unlike the French, they don't have a player of Tsonga's caliber that you would describe as a threat to win a major as it stands right now.
The bigger problem for the Yanks is that there is a level of uncertainty about the group of players coming up behind Isner and Querrey. That group ranges from elite junior players that have flamed out at the top level (Donald Young) to decorated NCAA champions (Steve Johnson) to solid pros that haven't yet taken the next step in their development (Ryan Harrison).
In short, there is no Benoit Paire, a 24-year-old Frenchman ranked in the Top-25, in this group.
For my money, the most promising of the kids is Jack Sock. The big hitter from Nebraska (sound familiar?) won the Junior US Open championship in 2010 and in 2011, he won the US Open mixed doubles championship with Melanie Oudin.
I'm not sure about you, but even in this day and age when players are peaking later in their careers, I'm not sold that any of those guys, even Sock, are going to be the next American US Open champ.
Even though the droughts vary in length, they surely feel like eternities for fans in each of the respective countries. Let's just hope for their sake that their streaks don't extend as long as Great Britain's did.
For years, the British did all they could to will Greg Rusedski and Tim Henman to Wimbledon wins.
Those two were nice players, both were ranked as high as fourth at one point in their careers, but it always seemed unlikely that either of those two were going to raise their level of play and win the whole enchilada at Wimbledon.
Because it was all Great Britain had, though, an unreasonable level of expectation and hope was thrown on them. I don't have to tell you how that ended. Both retired having never reached the final at any major, Wimbledon included.
Then came Murray. There was buzz early on that he would be the one to end the curse of Fred Perry at Wimbledon, but that success didn't come nearly as fast as the British would have liked.
Murray was blown off the court in his first three major finals and then at his first Wimbledon final in 2012, he won the first set against Roger Federer only to have Federer come back and win the next three. It was hard to blame anyone for wondering if Murray was really any closer to winning Wimbledon, or any other major for that matter.
Murray put those concerns to rest with a win at the US Open later that year and now, he has achieved what I can only assume was the biggest goal on his list, winning Wimbledon.
So now the question is which of the other countries with a Grand Slam to their name will have a home country winner next?
The longest drought now belongs to Australia.
Even though Lleyton Hewitt reached number one in the world and won two major titles (2001 US Open and 2002 Wimbledon) in his career and Pat Rafter won the US Open twice, Mark Edmondson (1976) is the last Australian man to win the Australian Open.
All it takes to change a country's outlook on the future is one super-talented youngster (Jerzy Janowicz for Poland, anyone?), so things can change quickly, but barring that, I think the wait for the Aussies is likely to be the longest of the three.
Currently, they only have three players in the top 100 of the ATP rankings and one of them is Hewitt. I love Rusty as much as the next guy, but he's not going to win another major at this stage of his career.
That leaves Bernard Tomic (59, but rising after a good showing at Wimbledon) and Marinko Matosevic (72).
At 27, Matosevic is no longer a prospect and I was honestly surprised to see that he is ranked as high as he is. He has never reached the second round of a major, so it's tough to imagine him making a real run.
Tomic is a little different case. He has the talent to challenge for a Grand Slam title, but there are always distractions around him, whether it's a run-in with the law, a spat with Tennis Australia, or drama surrounding his father, who is also his primary coach.
I think he has a real chance to be Australia's Henman, although his temperament is more like Rusedski.
There are a handful of promising players coming up through the system, including players with Grand Slam experience like James Duckworth and Nick Kyrgios, but those guys haven't made a big move yet.
In a nation that should be counted among the biggest historical powers in tennis history, the wait for a player capable of winning a major championship must be excruciating.
France has had the next-longest wait. Yannick Noah, with a win in 1983, is the last French man to win the French Open.
If you're handicapping which of the nations will have a player break through first, the safe bet is with France.
There are 12 Frenchmen ranked in the top 100 and with the way their federation has been pumping out young players of late, it's hard to imagine that well drying up any time soon.
Heck, you could see them breaking their drought here in the next couple of years if Jo-Wilfried Tsonga can put together two weeks of good tennis at Roland Garros. His results there have improved over the last several years and despite his claim that no French man will ever win the French Open, he has a real shot.
That leaves, of course, the USA. You wouldn't believe it thanks to all the hand-wringing over the lack of an American Grand Slam champion, but the Americans have had the shortest wait of the three.
It is so often described as having been ten long years since Andy Roddick won the US Open, but in the grand scheme of things, it has just been ten years.
In terms of the wait for their next home-grown winner of their domestic Open, I would put them ahead of the Australians but behind the French.
Unlike the Aussies, the Americans do have a couple of highly-ranked players in John Isner and Sam Querrey that are still in the prime of their careers, but unlike the French, they don't have a player of Tsonga's caliber that you would describe as a threat to win a major as it stands right now.
The bigger problem for the Yanks is that there is a level of uncertainty about the group of players coming up behind Isner and Querrey. That group ranges from elite junior players that have flamed out at the top level (Donald Young) to decorated NCAA champions (Steve Johnson) to solid pros that haven't yet taken the next step in their development (Ryan Harrison).
In short, there is no Benoit Paire, a 24-year-old Frenchman ranked in the Top-25, in this group.
For my money, the most promising of the kids is Jack Sock. The big hitter from Nebraska (sound familiar?) won the Junior US Open championship in 2010 and in 2011, he won the US Open mixed doubles championship with Melanie Oudin.
I'm not sure about you, but even in this day and age when players are peaking later in their careers, I'm not sold that any of those guys, even Sock, are going to be the next American US Open champ.
Even though the droughts vary in length, they surely feel like eternities for fans in each of the respective countries. Let's just hope for their sake that their streaks don't extend as long as Great Britain's did.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
An Open Letter to the French Open
Dearest French Open,
I hope you don't take anything I write in this letter personally. I don't want any hurt feelings and I want you to know that there are lots of people all over the world that love you very much and can accept you for who you are.
It's just that for me, when stacked up against all of the other Grand Slam tournaments, I don't like you all that much.
I know that might not be easy to hear, but I want you to know that it's not you, it's me.
The hardest thing for me to come to terms with is just how much your surface changes the game. Sure, I realize that there are also players whose performance fluctuates on hard courts and grass, but it's nothing compared to what you see on clay.
There are some players who are legitimate championship contenders in the three other majors that are complete non-factors at Roland Garros. On the flip side of that, there are also players that stand a chance of making a deep run only at the French.
Historically, I have been a fan of players that have fallen on the side of those that don't play particularly well on clay, so that probably doesn't help either. My favorite player of all-time, Andy Roddick, struggled famously at Roland Garros, so you can maybe understand my distaste.
The fans, generally thought of as the worst of the four majors, don't help much either. They just have the feel of a group that takes everything too seriously and they are notoriously hostile towards anyone who does anything that they feel is outside of their accepted etiquette. And who can forget when Roger Federer had to yell at them to shut up because someone had yelled out during a rally? When you see an outburst from Roger, you know someone has really done something.
I'd also like to see some night tennis. One of the fun things about the Australian and US Opens is that on occasion you will have a really, really late night session where the crowd is kind of delirious and into the match because they have just been sitting there for hours and want to see something amazing. You don't get that at Roland Garros.
Again, I realize that none of this is your fault, French Open, and that a lack of night tennis doesn't make you any different than Wimbledon, but that's just my preference.
It's not all bad, though. I know you may not want to hear it after I have just gotten done telling you about all the things I don't like about you, but there are a few things I do like.
For starters, I like that you come along at just the right time of year. In terms of really compelling tennis, the months between the Aussie Open and your tournament don't bring a lot to the table outside of a couple of Masters 1000 events and Davis Cup quarterfinals. It will be nice to see big-time, five-set tennis matches on TV again.
I may not be a fan of how your surface allows some players to become instant contenders and others to become also-rans, but I have to admit that I like that your tournament is among the most likely to give us early-round upsets of favorites. The ATP Tour has been largely devoid of those lately, so maybe a shakeup is needed.
It's probably best that we just define our relationship better, French Open. It's not that I don't want to ever see you again. You're a big part of the season and it wouldn't feel right without you. It's just that I don't want you to be disappointed or angry when I don't spent as much time or energy watching you or keeping up with you as I do the Australian Open, Wimbledon or the US Open.
The type of attention I pay to those other three is the type of attention you need and deserve and I'm not the one to give that to you. I hope you understand.
Sincerely,
Joseph Healy
I hope you don't take anything I write in this letter personally. I don't want any hurt feelings and I want you to know that there are lots of people all over the world that love you very much and can accept you for who you are.
It's just that for me, when stacked up against all of the other Grand Slam tournaments, I don't like you all that much.
I know that might not be easy to hear, but I want you to know that it's not you, it's me.
The hardest thing for me to come to terms with is just how much your surface changes the game. Sure, I realize that there are also players whose performance fluctuates on hard courts and grass, but it's nothing compared to what you see on clay.
There are some players who are legitimate championship contenders in the three other majors that are complete non-factors at Roland Garros. On the flip side of that, there are also players that stand a chance of making a deep run only at the French.
Historically, I have been a fan of players that have fallen on the side of those that don't play particularly well on clay, so that probably doesn't help either. My favorite player of all-time, Andy Roddick, struggled famously at Roland Garros, so you can maybe understand my distaste.
The fans, generally thought of as the worst of the four majors, don't help much either. They just have the feel of a group that takes everything too seriously and they are notoriously hostile towards anyone who does anything that they feel is outside of their accepted etiquette. And who can forget when Roger Federer had to yell at them to shut up because someone had yelled out during a rally? When you see an outburst from Roger, you know someone has really done something.
I'd also like to see some night tennis. One of the fun things about the Australian and US Opens is that on occasion you will have a really, really late night session where the crowd is kind of delirious and into the match because they have just been sitting there for hours and want to see something amazing. You don't get that at Roland Garros.
Again, I realize that none of this is your fault, French Open, and that a lack of night tennis doesn't make you any different than Wimbledon, but that's just my preference.
It's not all bad, though. I know you may not want to hear it after I have just gotten done telling you about all the things I don't like about you, but there are a few things I do like.
For starters, I like that you come along at just the right time of year. In terms of really compelling tennis, the months between the Aussie Open and your tournament don't bring a lot to the table outside of a couple of Masters 1000 events and Davis Cup quarterfinals. It will be nice to see big-time, five-set tennis matches on TV again.
I may not be a fan of how your surface allows some players to become instant contenders and others to become also-rans, but I have to admit that I like that your tournament is among the most likely to give us early-round upsets of favorites. The ATP Tour has been largely devoid of those lately, so maybe a shakeup is needed.
It's probably best that we just define our relationship better, French Open. It's not that I don't want to ever see you again. You're a big part of the season and it wouldn't feel right without you. It's just that I don't want you to be disappointed or angry when I don't spent as much time or energy watching you or keeping up with you as I do the Australian Open, Wimbledon or the US Open.
The type of attention I pay to those other three is the type of attention you need and deserve and I'm not the one to give that to you. I hope you understand.
Sincerely,
Joseph Healy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)