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 Novak Djokovic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Novak Djokovic. Show all posts
Monday, August 12, 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.
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.
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
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Buy/Sell - April 27th, 2013
When I first started this blog a few months back, I had the idea that Buy/Sell would be one of my recurring features. Of course, that hasn't happened. You know what they say about the best laid plans.
It's here now, though, so I guess there's that. Without further ado, here we go.
BUY:
- I might be alone on this because I'm a sports cards and collectibles nerd, but I'm buying that the Leaf Trading Cards purchase of Ace Authentic's stock is a positive for tennis trading cards.
I appreciate what Ace Authentic did for tennis cards and memorabilia, but their releases seemed sporadic and lacking in uniformity and consistency. Maybe their tennis product falls into the trading card rank and file, but with Leaf at the helm, you are likely going to at least get some consistency in the product.
I have already pre-ordered my first hobby box and you should too. I guess you could say I'm buying this in both a figurative and literal sense.
- I'm buying that John Isner might be working his way out of the funk he has been in since the 2013 season started. Isner played really well in wining the US Men's Clay Court Championship in Houston and I think it will be good for him to play a lighter schedule leading up to the French Open.
At this point, it's clear that he has a good game for clay, but for a number of reasons, he just hasn't been able to put it all together at Roland Garros. It remains to be seen whether or not this is the year he makes a deep run there, but don't be surprised if it is.
- I think we just might be witnessing Nicolas Almagro's career year. For so long, Almagro has been a nice, consistent top-15 or 20 player, but nothing more. He was overshadowed by countrymen Rafael Nadal and David Ferrer. He also had a habit of never really losing early in majors, but also never really exceeding expectations, either. Injuries played a part as well.
But now, he's in the middle of one of the best stretches of his career. He had a great run to the quarters of the Australian Open. Once there, he put the fear of God in David Ferrer before losing. He made the semis in Buenos Aires, the semis in Acapulco and the finals of Houston. More than the results themselves, though, you have to like the way he is playing.
Almagro is serving as well as anyone on tour right now and when you are getting all those free points, everything else kind of comes easy.
- I'm buying the fact that I can't wait for the French Open to get here. Independently, the French is fourth on my list of favorite Grand Slam tournaments.
But because of how long it has been since we've had a major, I always end up waiting breathlessly for it to begin. I know it's not going to change because it has been this way forever, but I've always disliked the fact that we have a four month break from majors followed by two weeks between majors.
Sell:
- Speaking of the French Open, I'm selling Rafael Nadal as an overwhelming favorite to win the tournament. Sure, he can win it and he has looked pretty darn good since returning from his knee injury, but playing at run of the mill ATP World Tour stops and playing in the French Open are two completely different things.
Specifically, playing two or three sets and playing five sets are two completely different things. He has been pushed physically to a certain extent since returning, but nothing will come close to the way he will be pushed if he ends up in a marathon four or five-setter against a tough opponent. It will be at that moment that we see just how healthy Nadal's knee is.
-I'm selling anyone in the ATP rankings behind the top four players. It's not that there aren't really good players behind those top four. There certainly are. It's just that the top 25 or 30 spots have been so fluid of late. I can't help but feel like that fluidity in the rankings has more to do with mediocrity and not parity.
Take a look at the current rankings. Is Richard Gasquet a top ten player? He is because he is ranked ninth in ATP points, but I just don't see him as that type of player. Outside the top ten, we have players like Marin Cilic, Tommy Haas, Gilles Simon, Andreas Seppi and Juan Monaco. Those guys have obviously had some success to get where they are now, but would you trust any of them in a big match?
It's here now, though, so I guess there's that. Without further ado, here we go.
BUY:
- I might be alone on this because I'm a sports cards and collectibles nerd, but I'm buying that the Leaf Trading Cards purchase of Ace Authentic's stock is a positive for tennis trading cards.
I appreciate what Ace Authentic did for tennis cards and memorabilia, but their releases seemed sporadic and lacking in uniformity and consistency. Maybe their tennis product falls into the trading card rank and file, but with Leaf at the helm, you are likely going to at least get some consistency in the product.
I have already pre-ordered my first hobby box and you should too. I guess you could say I'm buying this in both a figurative and literal sense.
- I'm buying that John Isner might be working his way out of the funk he has been in since the 2013 season started. Isner played really well in wining the US Men's Clay Court Championship in Houston and I think it will be good for him to play a lighter schedule leading up to the French Open.
At this point, it's clear that he has a good game for clay, but for a number of reasons, he just hasn't been able to put it all together at Roland Garros. It remains to be seen whether or not this is the year he makes a deep run there, but don't be surprised if it is.
- I think we just might be witnessing Nicolas Almagro's career year. For so long, Almagro has been a nice, consistent top-15 or 20 player, but nothing more. He was overshadowed by countrymen Rafael Nadal and David Ferrer. He also had a habit of never really losing early in majors, but also never really exceeding expectations, either. Injuries played a part as well.
But now, he's in the middle of one of the best stretches of his career. He had a great run to the quarters of the Australian Open. Once there, he put the fear of God in David Ferrer before losing. He made the semis in Buenos Aires, the semis in Acapulco and the finals of Houston. More than the results themselves, though, you have to like the way he is playing.
Almagro is serving as well as anyone on tour right now and when you are getting all those free points, everything else kind of comes easy.
- I'm buying the fact that I can't wait for the French Open to get here. Independently, the French is fourth on my list of favorite Grand Slam tournaments.
But because of how long it has been since we've had a major, I always end up waiting breathlessly for it to begin. I know it's not going to change because it has been this way forever, but I've always disliked the fact that we have a four month break from majors followed by two weeks between majors.
Sell:
- Speaking of the French Open, I'm selling Rafael Nadal as an overwhelming favorite to win the tournament. Sure, he can win it and he has looked pretty darn good since returning from his knee injury, but playing at run of the mill ATP World Tour stops and playing in the French Open are two completely different things.
Specifically, playing two or three sets and playing five sets are two completely different things. He has been pushed physically to a certain extent since returning, but nothing will come close to the way he will be pushed if he ends up in a marathon four or five-setter against a tough opponent. It will be at that moment that we see just how healthy Nadal's knee is.
-I'm selling anyone in the ATP rankings behind the top four players. It's not that there aren't really good players behind those top four. There certainly are. It's just that the top 25 or 30 spots have been so fluid of late. I can't help but feel like that fluidity in the rankings has more to do with mediocrity and not parity.
Take a look at the current rankings. Is Richard Gasquet a top ten player? He is because he is ranked ninth in ATP points, but I just don't see him as that type of player. Outside the top ten, we have players like Marin Cilic, Tommy Haas, Gilles Simon, Andreas Seppi and Juan Monaco. Those guys have obviously had some success to get where they are now, but would you trust any of them in a big match?
Monday, April 8, 2013
Loss to Serbia Highlights Issue in US Davis Cup Lineup
I have gone on the record as saying that I'm bullish on the current US Davis Cup lineup moving forward.
The Bryan brothers have said they aren't looking at retirement until after the 2016 Olympic games and given the longevity that most doubles players enjoy, there is no reason to expect them to slow down before then.
John Isner and Sam Querrey may not give you the ceiling of an Andy Roddick in his prime, but you certainly could do at lot worse. Players with their serves are always going to be competitive.
I also think it helps that these four, barring injuries and things of that nature, are the obvious four players to select. Over the last several years, the parts had been shuffled quite a bit as Roddick began to take some Davis Cup ties off, James Blake was forced to take more time off due to injuries and Mardy Fish had a late-career resurgence.
I think there is something to be said for continuity, even in a sport there the "team" doesn't compete together.
The downside of this lineup is that is has its limitations.
Isner and Querrey are nice players. They both feature a dangerous weapon in their respective serves. Against most players they will face in early-round Davis Cup matches, that will be enough.
They run into problems, though, when they come up against teams that feature an elite player, like they did this past weekend against Novak Djokovic and Serbia. Neither guy is known for digging deep and coming up with awe-inspiring performances when faced with a top-flight player. Isner's win against Federer in Davis Cup last year comes to mind, but that's about it.
On top of that, the Davis Cup format rewards teams that have one transcendent player. Anything can happen in a Davis Cup weekend, to be sure, but when you have a near-sure thing in a player like Djokovic, you are basically coming into the weekend up 2-0.
And that's exactly the type of player the US is lacking.
They don't feature a player that gives the team an automatic win. They have nice players, sure, but you can't bank on them the way Serbia banks on Djokovic and the way Spain banks on Nadal or even Ferrer.
I guess I need to change my tune about the current version of the US Davis Cup team. I like their depth. There is no real weak spot in the lineup and against teams with no real elite player, that will almost always be enough to get the job done. But when they do come up against a team with that type of player, they are woefully unable to fight fire with fire.
The Bryan brothers have said they aren't looking at retirement until after the 2016 Olympic games and given the longevity that most doubles players enjoy, there is no reason to expect them to slow down before then.
John Isner and Sam Querrey may not give you the ceiling of an Andy Roddick in his prime, but you certainly could do at lot worse. Players with their serves are always going to be competitive.
I also think it helps that these four, barring injuries and things of that nature, are the obvious four players to select. Over the last several years, the parts had been shuffled quite a bit as Roddick began to take some Davis Cup ties off, James Blake was forced to take more time off due to injuries and Mardy Fish had a late-career resurgence.
I think there is something to be said for continuity, even in a sport there the "team" doesn't compete together.
The downside of this lineup is that is has its limitations.
Isner and Querrey are nice players. They both feature a dangerous weapon in their respective serves. Against most players they will face in early-round Davis Cup matches, that will be enough.
They run into problems, though, when they come up against teams that feature an elite player, like they did this past weekend against Novak Djokovic and Serbia. Neither guy is known for digging deep and coming up with awe-inspiring performances when faced with a top-flight player. Isner's win against Federer in Davis Cup last year comes to mind, but that's about it.
On top of that, the Davis Cup format rewards teams that have one transcendent player. Anything can happen in a Davis Cup weekend, to be sure, but when you have a near-sure thing in a player like Djokovic, you are basically coming into the weekend up 2-0.
And that's exactly the type of player the US is lacking.
They don't feature a player that gives the team an automatic win. They have nice players, sure, but you can't bank on them the way Serbia banks on Djokovic and the way Spain banks on Nadal or even Ferrer.
I guess I need to change my tune about the current version of the US Davis Cup team. I like their depth. There is no real weak spot in the lineup and against teams with no real elite player, that will almost always be enough to get the job done. But when they do come up against a team with that type of player, they are woefully unable to fight fire with fire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)