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 Rafael Nadal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rafael Nadal. 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.
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
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)