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.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Monday, July 1, 2013
Okay Wimbledon. I Get It. I Was Wrong.
At some point in our lives, we all get to a point where we realize that our parents were right about everything all along.
We learn some of these lessons quickly, but other times, it takes much longer.
One of those lessons hit home hard this past week as I watched the action unfold at Wimbledon.
As we see now, just over halfway through the tournament, the men's singles draw has been completely ravaged. Rafael Nadal lost on the first day of play to Belgian Steve Darcis and the carnage has not stopped since.
Stanislas Wawrinka was blown off the court by Lleyton Hewitt, then Hewitt turned around and lost to qualifier Dustin Brown, Roger Federer was eliminated by Sergiy Stakhovsky, John Isner retired from his match five minutes after it began, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga retired after going down two sets to none against Ernests Gulbis, Fernando Verdasco partied like it's 2010 and beat Julien Benneteau, Kenny DeSchepper got a walkover against Marin Cilic, then beat Juan Monaco in the third round and Bernard Tomic beat Richard Gasquet.
Got all that?
This tournament has been almost nothing but walkovers, retirements and upsets. As a result, we have the most random quarterfinal round that I can remember.
Full disclosure: this is exactly what I have always wanted. I've written before that men's tennis was in serious need of a shakeup. To me, Andy Murray breaking through to make it a true Big Four didn't constitute a shakeup.
I have long yearned for tournaments littered with upsets and now that we have one on our hands, I have been left with an empty feeling.
It's not that the draw was completely devoid of players I like, although most of those (Andreas Seppi, Jurgen Melzer come to mind) were eliminated Monday in the round of 16.
But the biggest thing was that, suddenly, my daily ritual of watching Wimbledon DVR recordings from the early morning wasn't as fun anymore.
That was precisely the moment when I realized that my folks were right.
I really should be careful what I wish for because I just might get it.
I wanted so badly for unseeded players to advance deep into Grand Slams and give the big names a run for their money. But now that wish has come true and I'm not all that enthused by the end result.
It turns out that rooting for my favorite underdogs against the big names later in the tournament is a lot more fun than some of my favorite underdogs playing against each other later in the tournament.
I've been wrong all along. Maybe I don't want the big names to monopolize the championships the way they have over the last couple of years, but I certainly want them involved deep into the second week of the tournament.
I need help remembering this from here on out. Sometime next year, when Djokovic, Murray and Nadal are three of the four semifinalists at all four majors, I'm going to start talking about how I want upsets galore.
Please, please, for my own selfish enjoyment of these tournaments, talk me out of it. I don't want this again.
We learn some of these lessons quickly, but other times, it takes much longer.
One of those lessons hit home hard this past week as I watched the action unfold at Wimbledon.
As we see now, just over halfway through the tournament, the men's singles draw has been completely ravaged. Rafael Nadal lost on the first day of play to Belgian Steve Darcis and the carnage has not stopped since.
Stanislas Wawrinka was blown off the court by Lleyton Hewitt, then Hewitt turned around and lost to qualifier Dustin Brown, Roger Federer was eliminated by Sergiy Stakhovsky, John Isner retired from his match five minutes after it began, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga retired after going down two sets to none against Ernests Gulbis, Fernando Verdasco partied like it's 2010 and beat Julien Benneteau, Kenny DeSchepper got a walkover against Marin Cilic, then beat Juan Monaco in the third round and Bernard Tomic beat Richard Gasquet.
Got all that?
This tournament has been almost nothing but walkovers, retirements and upsets. As a result, we have the most random quarterfinal round that I can remember.
Full disclosure: this is exactly what I have always wanted. I've written before that men's tennis was in serious need of a shakeup. To me, Andy Murray breaking through to make it a true Big Four didn't constitute a shakeup.
I have long yearned for tournaments littered with upsets and now that we have one on our hands, I have been left with an empty feeling.
It's not that the draw was completely devoid of players I like, although most of those (Andreas Seppi, Jurgen Melzer come to mind) were eliminated Monday in the round of 16.
But the biggest thing was that, suddenly, my daily ritual of watching Wimbledon DVR recordings from the early morning wasn't as fun anymore.
That was precisely the moment when I realized that my folks were right.
I really should be careful what I wish for because I just might get it.
I wanted so badly for unseeded players to advance deep into Grand Slams and give the big names a run for their money. But now that wish has come true and I'm not all that enthused by the end result.
It turns out that rooting for my favorite underdogs against the big names later in the tournament is a lot more fun than some of my favorite underdogs playing against each other later in the tournament.
I've been wrong all along. Maybe I don't want the big names to monopolize the championships the way they have over the last couple of years, but I certainly want them involved deep into the second week of the tournament.
I need help remembering this from here on out. Sometime next year, when Djokovic, Murray and Nadal are three of the four semifinalists at all four majors, I'm going to start talking about how I want upsets galore.
Please, please, for my own selfish enjoyment of these tournaments, talk me out of it. I don't want this again.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Lleyton Hewitt Takes Fans Back to the Old Days
It's no secret that I'm an unapologetic Lleyton Hewitt fan. I've written more about him than almost anyone else in this space and that's odd considering that he has been ranked over or near 100 since I started this blog.
The thing about it is that I used to truly dislike him. I didn't like how he yelled and ranted and I really didn't like how he antagonized so many of his opponents, seemingly just for the sake of antagonizing them.
But over the last couple of years, my feelings about Hewitt have changed completely. For starters, he seems to have cooled down as he has gotten older. That has made being a fan of his easier, to be sure, but I have also learned to appreciate him for what he is in his older age.
The scrappy, fiery demeanor that used to get under my skin when he was at the top of the sport is now what I like most about him. I also love that on occasion, for much shorter periods of time now, Hewitt will show you a flash of the brilliance that took him to number one in the world.
In his opening round match at Wimbledon, against 11th-ranked Stan Wawrinka, Hewitt was at his gutsiest and gave us more than just a flash of brilliance.
The Aussie didn't just hang with Wawrinka. For that matter, he didn't just beat him either. Hewitt routed him 6-4, 7-5, 6-3.
Against players the caliber of Wawrinka, Hewitt is nearly always going to be the underdog these days, but you have to love his attitude about it.
After his win, Hewitt said "He's a quality player, but going out there I didn't feel like a total underdog."
Shortly after, Hewitt answered critics that may have been calling for his retirement after all of his injuries and his drop in the rankings over the last few years.
"People ask when you're retiring but why would you retire with an atmosphere like that?" he said.
Those two quotes so perfectly encompass what I love about Hewitt. He never goes on court expecting to lose and he is going to continue to play the game until he physically can't anymore.
Until that day comes, I'll be firmly behind him.
The thing about it is that I used to truly dislike him. I didn't like how he yelled and ranted and I really didn't like how he antagonized so many of his opponents, seemingly just for the sake of antagonizing them.
But over the last couple of years, my feelings about Hewitt have changed completely. For starters, he seems to have cooled down as he has gotten older. That has made being a fan of his easier, to be sure, but I have also learned to appreciate him for what he is in his older age.
The scrappy, fiery demeanor that used to get under my skin when he was at the top of the sport is now what I like most about him. I also love that on occasion, for much shorter periods of time now, Hewitt will show you a flash of the brilliance that took him to number one in the world.
In his opening round match at Wimbledon, against 11th-ranked Stan Wawrinka, Hewitt was at his gutsiest and gave us more than just a flash of brilliance.
The Aussie didn't just hang with Wawrinka. For that matter, he didn't just beat him either. Hewitt routed him 6-4, 7-5, 6-3.
Against players the caliber of Wawrinka, Hewitt is nearly always going to be the underdog these days, but you have to love his attitude about it.
After his win, Hewitt said "He's a quality player, but going out there I didn't feel like a total underdog."
Shortly after, Hewitt answered critics that may have been calling for his retirement after all of his injuries and his drop in the rankings over the last few years.
"People ask when you're retiring but why would you retire with an atmosphere like that?" he said.
Those two quotes so perfectly encompass what I love about Hewitt. He never goes on court expecting to lose and he is going to continue to play the game until he physically can't anymore.
Until that day comes, I'll be firmly behind him.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Who is Cursing the Wimbledon Draw?
Winning in tennis, particularly in a Grand Slam tournament where you are really only dealing with the best of the best, is mostly about talent.
If you look at the players that make the quarterfinals in these tournaments, you will see the same names over and over again and there are generally all players ranked in the top 10 or 15. That's no accident.
But we can't pretend like luck doesn't play into it.
The draw, one of the few things the players can't prepare for or control, can greatly affect a player's run through the field. A tough draw, even if it doesn't knock him out, can greatly tax a player before he gets to the late stages. A soft draw can keep a player fresh before he gets into the late rounds against the tougher players.
Heading into the 2013 edition of the Wimbledon Championships, let's take a look at the players that were saddled with a tough draw.
Roger Federer
Fed's early-round matches won't strike anyone as particularly daunting. The ranked players in his 1/8th of the draw include players that aren't all that comfortable on grass in Nicolas Almagro and Fabio Fognini and a relatively unproven player in Jerzy Janowicz. The only real dangerous floater in the section is Lukas Rosol, the Czech player who upset Rafael Nadal last year.
The part that has to stick in Federer's craw is that Nadal, who is seeded fifth, ended up in his quarter. In the past, Federer has probably felt pretty confident in his ability to beat Nadal on this surface, but the rivalry between the two has been trending away from Roger for quite some time now.
At this stage of their respective careers, and with Nadal playing so well at the moment, it's just hard to imagine Federer being able to beat Nadal.
Sam Querrey
After bottoming out a couple of years ago due to nagging injuries and ailments, Sam has done a nice job of rebounding to get himself back around the top 20.
But now that he has gotten back to playing consistent tennis, he's more than due for a breakout performance in a Grand Slam. He hasn't advanced to the fourth round of a major since the 2010 US Open.
If he's going to do that here, he's going to have to escape a pretty difficult first round match against Bernard Tomic. The young Australian has had a draining few months what with the drama surrounding his father, but if he can focus and play the way he is capable of, he has the talent to make a deep run. He did make the quarterfinals at Wimbledon in 2011.
Making things tougher, if he is able to get past Tomic and the winner of Blake/DeBakker in the second round, he will likely end up opposite Richard Gasquet, who has been playing arguably the best tennis of his career over the last year or so.
Stanislas Wawrinka
Stan has become something of a tragic character. He has done a fantastic job of turning himself into a consistent top-15 player. He has even gone on to play some of the best tennis of his career over the last year or so, but he is often undone by an unfortunate draw or by a marathon where the opponent matches him shot for shot.
Looking at what he has ahead of him at Wimbledon, it could be setting up to be more of the same.
In the first round, he drew the scrappy Lleyton Hewitt. Even if Hewitt doesn't have what it takes to rise to the occasion and win this match, he's going to make Stan work. In a way, you could also look at this as a really tough draw for Hewitt, as Rusty has played well enough in some of these recent majors to advance into the second or third round, but he has also found himself up against stout opposition more often than not.
If Stan gets past Hewitt and his second round opponent, he could very well have a date with big John Isner. It remains to be seen how much Isner is going to have coming off of his tough match at the French Open with Tommy Haas, but even if he's not at his very best, that serve will still make things tough.
Fabio Fognini
Even though he's "just" seeded 30th, I think it's pretty neat that Fognini has worked his way into consistently being seeded at Grand Slam events.
It would be even better if he could turn this run of good form into a nice, extended run at a major where he has advanced past the second round just once, but that may not be in the cards.
He gets his tournament underway against a tricky player in Jurgen Melzer. The Austrian is a solid top-40 player that was ranked as high as eighth in the relatively recent past. Above all else, though, Melzer is a lefty with some real pop in his racket and those guys are few and far between on tour.
If Fognini is able to advance past Melzer, he could match up with Lukas Rosol. He is a big hitter that, as I mentioned earlier, knocked Nadal out last year.
And if Fabio is able to fight his way past those two, he will, in all likelihood, have a date with none other than Roger Federer.
Tommy Robredo
Robredo has given us one of the better comeback stories in recent memory. After falling way down the rankings in 2011 and early 2012, Robredo rebounded nicely and capped off his run back up the rankings with a quarterfinal appearance at the French Open this year. It was the first time he had made the quarters of a major since the 2009 French Open.
As a reward, Robredo has been stuck with a particularly tough path if he wants to make a run at Wimbledon, a tournament where he has had little success anyway.
He should be fine in the first round when he faces off against Alex Bogomolov, Jr., but from there, it gets difficult. His second round opponent will likely be Nicolas Mahut, a player who prefers the grass and will be coming off of his first ATP singles title after he beat Stan Wawrinka 6-3, 6-4 in The Netherlands this past week.
If he can get past Mahut, he will likely go head-to-head with Andy Murray. That's not exactly a formula for success for Tommy.
Ryan Harrison
It has become a running joke that you can take it to the bank that Ryan Harrison will end up opposite a seeded player in the first round of a major. American tennis fans are getting antsy for Harrison to make his big move up the rankings, but that's difficult to do with the type of draws he has gotten.
This time around, he finds himself paired with Jeremy Chardy. Seeded 28th, Chardy is a player that Harrison can beat, but it's not going to easy. The Frenchman has had a fantastic 2013 and he very well may be playing the best tennis of his career.
If Harrison were to pull the upset and beat Chardy, his second round match should be significantly easier, but waiting for him in the third round will probably be Novak Djokovic.
If you look at the players that make the quarterfinals in these tournaments, you will see the same names over and over again and there are generally all players ranked in the top 10 or 15. That's no accident.
But we can't pretend like luck doesn't play into it.
The draw, one of the few things the players can't prepare for or control, can greatly affect a player's run through the field. A tough draw, even if it doesn't knock him out, can greatly tax a player before he gets to the late stages. A soft draw can keep a player fresh before he gets into the late rounds against the tougher players.
Heading into the 2013 edition of the Wimbledon Championships, let's take a look at the players that were saddled with a tough draw.
Roger Federer
Fed's early-round matches won't strike anyone as particularly daunting. The ranked players in his 1/8th of the draw include players that aren't all that comfortable on grass in Nicolas Almagro and Fabio Fognini and a relatively unproven player in Jerzy Janowicz. The only real dangerous floater in the section is Lukas Rosol, the Czech player who upset Rafael Nadal last year.
The part that has to stick in Federer's craw is that Nadal, who is seeded fifth, ended up in his quarter. In the past, Federer has probably felt pretty confident in his ability to beat Nadal on this surface, but the rivalry between the two has been trending away from Roger for quite some time now.
At this stage of their respective careers, and with Nadal playing so well at the moment, it's just hard to imagine Federer being able to beat Nadal.
Sam Querrey
After bottoming out a couple of years ago due to nagging injuries and ailments, Sam has done a nice job of rebounding to get himself back around the top 20.
But now that he has gotten back to playing consistent tennis, he's more than due for a breakout performance in a Grand Slam. He hasn't advanced to the fourth round of a major since the 2010 US Open.
If he's going to do that here, he's going to have to escape a pretty difficult first round match against Bernard Tomic. The young Australian has had a draining few months what with the drama surrounding his father, but if he can focus and play the way he is capable of, he has the talent to make a deep run. He did make the quarterfinals at Wimbledon in 2011.
Making things tougher, if he is able to get past Tomic and the winner of Blake/DeBakker in the second round, he will likely end up opposite Richard Gasquet, who has been playing arguably the best tennis of his career over the last year or so.
Stanislas Wawrinka
Stan has become something of a tragic character. He has done a fantastic job of turning himself into a consistent top-15 player. He has even gone on to play some of the best tennis of his career over the last year or so, but he is often undone by an unfortunate draw or by a marathon where the opponent matches him shot for shot.
Looking at what he has ahead of him at Wimbledon, it could be setting up to be more of the same.
In the first round, he drew the scrappy Lleyton Hewitt. Even if Hewitt doesn't have what it takes to rise to the occasion and win this match, he's going to make Stan work. In a way, you could also look at this as a really tough draw for Hewitt, as Rusty has played well enough in some of these recent majors to advance into the second or third round, but he has also found himself up against stout opposition more often than not.
If Stan gets past Hewitt and his second round opponent, he could very well have a date with big John Isner. It remains to be seen how much Isner is going to have coming off of his tough match at the French Open with Tommy Haas, but even if he's not at his very best, that serve will still make things tough.
Fabio Fognini
Even though he's "just" seeded 30th, I think it's pretty neat that Fognini has worked his way into consistently being seeded at Grand Slam events.
It would be even better if he could turn this run of good form into a nice, extended run at a major where he has advanced past the second round just once, but that may not be in the cards.
He gets his tournament underway against a tricky player in Jurgen Melzer. The Austrian is a solid top-40 player that was ranked as high as eighth in the relatively recent past. Above all else, though, Melzer is a lefty with some real pop in his racket and those guys are few and far between on tour.
If Fognini is able to advance past Melzer, he could match up with Lukas Rosol. He is a big hitter that, as I mentioned earlier, knocked Nadal out last year.
And if Fabio is able to fight his way past those two, he will, in all likelihood, have a date with none other than Roger Federer.
Tommy Robredo
Robredo has given us one of the better comeback stories in recent memory. After falling way down the rankings in 2011 and early 2012, Robredo rebounded nicely and capped off his run back up the rankings with a quarterfinal appearance at the French Open this year. It was the first time he had made the quarters of a major since the 2009 French Open.
As a reward, Robredo has been stuck with a particularly tough path if he wants to make a run at Wimbledon, a tournament where he has had little success anyway.
He should be fine in the first round when he faces off against Alex Bogomolov, Jr., but from there, it gets difficult. His second round opponent will likely be Nicolas Mahut, a player who prefers the grass and will be coming off of his first ATP singles title after he beat Stan Wawrinka 6-3, 6-4 in The Netherlands this past week.
If he can get past Mahut, he will likely go head-to-head with Andy Murray. That's not exactly a formula for success for Tommy.
Ryan Harrison
It has become a running joke that you can take it to the bank that Ryan Harrison will end up opposite a seeded player in the first round of a major. American tennis fans are getting antsy for Harrison to make his big move up the rankings, but that's difficult to do with the type of draws he has gotten.
This time around, he finds himself paired with Jeremy Chardy. Seeded 28th, Chardy is a player that Harrison can beat, but it's not going to easy. The Frenchman has had a fantastic 2013 and he very well may be playing the best tennis of his career.
If Harrison were to pull the upset and beat Chardy, his second round match should be significantly easier, but waiting for him in the third round will probably be Novak Djokovic.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Missing Andy Roddick
Shortly after Andy Roddick announced his retirement at last year's US Open, I wrote a piece for TheFanManifesto.com urging tennis fans to remember Andy fondly and truly be thankful for all that he gave us during his long career.
With the grass court season in full swing and Wimbledon just around the corner, I know that's exactly how I'm remembering him.
Andy had so many fantastic moments on the grass at the All England Club in his career that sometimes I almost forget that his one Grand Slam victory was at the US Open and not Wimbledon.
He made the finals there three times, each time losing to Roger Federer.
The most notable of those losses was the legendary 7-5, 6-7 (6), 6-7 (5), 6-3, 14-16 match in 2009. It was in that match that we saw Andy at what was likely his very best. And, as was the case all too often during his matches against Federer, it just wasn't enough.
For those of us that were fans of Roddick right down to the very end, Wimbledon also gave us hope. As the sun began to set on his career, it became more and more apparent that it was the only tournament where he was going to be able to win that elusive second major. His ability to serve on grass masked his deficiencies and gave him a puncher's chance every time out.
With him gone, the tournament will just be different.
For starters, my annual tradition of looking at the Wimbledon draw, finding Andy and trying to dream up a scenario where he could win it all is no longer something I can do.
More than anything, though, I just feel like I no longer have a dog in the fight. I root for John Isner, Sam Querrey and the rest of the Yanks, sure, but it's not the same. Andy was the player that got me into tennis and that fandom just can't be recreated with another player.
I have every intention of watching as much of the tournament as I can, but something will certainly be missing.
Despite his frustrating losses and even more frustrating outbursts, rooting for Andy was what I loved most about tennis and it won't be the same without him.
With the grass court season in full swing and Wimbledon just around the corner, I know that's exactly how I'm remembering him.
Andy had so many fantastic moments on the grass at the All England Club in his career that sometimes I almost forget that his one Grand Slam victory was at the US Open and not Wimbledon.
He made the finals there three times, each time losing to Roger Federer.
The most notable of those losses was the legendary 7-5, 6-7 (6), 6-7 (5), 6-3, 14-16 match in 2009. It was in that match that we saw Andy at what was likely his very best. And, as was the case all too often during his matches against Federer, it just wasn't enough.
For those of us that were fans of Roddick right down to the very end, Wimbledon also gave us hope. As the sun began to set on his career, it became more and more apparent that it was the only tournament where he was going to be able to win that elusive second major. His ability to serve on grass masked his deficiencies and gave him a puncher's chance every time out.
With him gone, the tournament will just be different.
For starters, my annual tradition of looking at the Wimbledon draw, finding Andy and trying to dream up a scenario where he could win it all is no longer something I can do.
More than anything, though, I just feel like I no longer have a dog in the fight. I root for John Isner, Sam Querrey and the rest of the Yanks, sure, but it's not the same. Andy was the player that got me into tennis and that fandom just can't be recreated with another player.
I have every intention of watching as much of the tournament as I can, but something will certainly be missing.
Despite his frustrating losses and even more frustrating outbursts, rooting for Andy was what I loved most about tennis and it won't be the same without him.
Monday, June 10, 2013
The Best and Worst of Times
What do we make of the 2013 French Open?
You would be hard-pressed to argue that the tournament didn't give us the types of upsets that make Grand Slam events fun and unpredictable.
After all, we saw both Tommy Haas and Tommy Robredo make appearances in the quarterfinals. Haas' success is somewhat expected as he has made a slow climb in the rankings ever since bottoming out a couple of years ago. Robredo, though, was a big surprise. He had put together a nice 2013 to date, but I don't know that anyone expected this type of run out of him.
We also saw David Ferrer make a Grand Slam final for the first time in his career. After several years of being a lock to advance to and lose in the quarters or semis, it was nice to see all of his hard work pay off.
But on the other hand, the event ended the way we always expected it to.
We knew that, barring something unforeseen, no one was going to be able to touch Rafael Nadal and that's exactly how it played out.
It's that part that makes me unsure of how to feel about this edition of the French Open.
I fully realize that the opportunity I have been given to watch the greatest clay court player of all-time ply his trade is a gift. No one has dominated clay courts like he has and I get the feeling that the French Open records that he has set will never be touched. I'm one of the lucky few that will get to say that I saw him play at the height of his powers.
I should have been excited to see him dominate. I should have been looking to set everything else aside to really immerse myself in his matches.
But I wasn't and I didn't.
It's just that his dominance was so routine. I will grant you that his semifinal against Novak Djokovic was an instant classic. But for the most part, his run through the field, including his win over Ferrer in the final, was dull, methodical and quick.
It's not fair to either competitor, but even the marathon match between Nadal and Djokovic was predictable in its own way. I think we knew going in that it was going to go five sets and I'm guessing if we were all injected with truth serum, we would have admitted that we knew there was no way Nadal was losing that match.
Maybe I'm alone, and based on a lot of the fantastic journalism I have read over the last couple of days waxing poetic about Nadal's victory it appears that I am, but I was left underwhelmed by what I saw at the French Open.
I know that's wrong of me and it bothers me to no end, but I can't lie. Hopefully you can forgive me.
You would be hard-pressed to argue that the tournament didn't give us the types of upsets that make Grand Slam events fun and unpredictable.
After all, we saw both Tommy Haas and Tommy Robredo make appearances in the quarterfinals. Haas' success is somewhat expected as he has made a slow climb in the rankings ever since bottoming out a couple of years ago. Robredo, though, was a big surprise. He had put together a nice 2013 to date, but I don't know that anyone expected this type of run out of him.
We also saw David Ferrer make a Grand Slam final for the first time in his career. After several years of being a lock to advance to and lose in the quarters or semis, it was nice to see all of his hard work pay off.
But on the other hand, the event ended the way we always expected it to.
We knew that, barring something unforeseen, no one was going to be able to touch Rafael Nadal and that's exactly how it played out.
It's that part that makes me unsure of how to feel about this edition of the French Open.
I fully realize that the opportunity I have been given to watch the greatest clay court player of all-time ply his trade is a gift. No one has dominated clay courts like he has and I get the feeling that the French Open records that he has set will never be touched. I'm one of the lucky few that will get to say that I saw him play at the height of his powers.
I should have been excited to see him dominate. I should have been looking to set everything else aside to really immerse myself in his matches.
But I wasn't and I didn't.
It's just that his dominance was so routine. I will grant you that his semifinal against Novak Djokovic was an instant classic. But for the most part, his run through the field, including his win over Ferrer in the final, was dull, methodical and quick.
It's not fair to either competitor, but even the marathon match between Nadal and Djokovic was predictable in its own way. I think we knew going in that it was going to go five sets and I'm guessing if we were all injected with truth serum, we would have admitted that we knew there was no way Nadal was losing that match.
Maybe I'm alone, and based on a lot of the fantastic journalism I have read over the last couple of days waxing poetic about Nadal's victory it appears that I am, but I was left underwhelmed by what I saw at the French Open.
I know that's wrong of me and it bothers me to no end, but I can't lie. Hopefully you can forgive me.
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)