go to list of threads
tennis commentators posted by: publius 23:57 9.1.10 on usopen.org are tough. tim ryan (who i once caddied for, in case anyone case) is a classic..he's been at it for ages. but luke jensen is terrible...an utter disaster. distractingly bad... andy roddick posted by: publius 23:05 9.1.10 glad to see he's still a petulant, whiny little punk... he is playing some bag-o-donuts and being beten badly...he really looks he should retire from the match, because clearly he's not 100% (mono is what the commentator keep talking about). so right now roddick is down 2 sets to 1 and hopefully will lose. anyway, toward the end of the last set, down 5-2, roddick was called for a foot fault. and he DID foot fault. but the lineswoman made a mistake and said it was his right foot instead of his left. ok...she's at the us open and she should have gotten it right. but two games later roddick is still storming around the court loudly complaining about what a terrible mistake it was and how unforgivable it was etc. etc. etc. shut it roddick. first shut it. then lose. then go home. then have brooklyn decker leave you. that's what i hope will happen here. i knew this would be noted here ... posted by: squisshy 16:15 6.23.10 just saw the headline in the NYTimes -- play was suspended due to darkness, for the second consecutive day, with the score tied at 59 games apiece in the 5th set. longest tennis match EVER. really, it is. don't see that every day.... posted by: publius 15:11 6.23.10 scoreline in the isner / mahut match at wimbledon right now? 6-4, 3-6, 6-7, 7-6, 51-51 yes, you read that correctly. as of now these two guys have played 102 (!!!!) games in the fifth set.... truly unreal.... grand slam season is here again... posted by: publius 18:25 5.24.10 and the french open is under way. no (real) surprises so far (though any murray had to come back from two sets down to my favorite cocaine-addled frenchman, richard gasquet). i'm just glad 'tis the season once again... federer-nadal again in the finals? recent history would makes it seem unlikely, but who knows... http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/index.html i didn't see the whole match... posted by: publius 09:34 3.18.10 thank god...but i did catch a segment they ran on espn which was entertaining. see link below. i hate both agassi and sampras, so to seem them both being so painfully unfunny trying to dig at each other was amusing... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9LqCiIgAak all they needed out on that court was peyton manning to make it the singlest highest concentration of humorless people in one place in all of recorded history... is there any way to properly reference DFW?* posted by: simplicissimus 00:01 3.18.10 ------- * that doesn't include a footnote? i think not. did anyone see the fundraiser for Haiti? posted by: isidorus 09:08 3.17.10 It was a doubles match pitting Federer and Sampras against Agassi and Nadal, and all the players were mic'd so the stadium and tv audiences could hear their witty banter. And of course this will come as a surprise to no one* but the most compelling part of the exhibition was how un-funny these guys are. The worst is Federer - it's tough to describe just how cringe inducing his commentary was - though I suspect that old bovine Pete Sampras is even less funny but he seems to have the good judgment to recognize his unfunniness and therefore doesn't talk much. In that crowd, Nadal was a relatively amusing slapstick performer (and in his defense it is hard to be witty in a foreign language) and Agassi comes off as a regular Don Rickles. But then again I only watched two games, after which the novelty had completely worn off. ------------- * Least of all anyone who's read DFW's "Tennis Player Michael Joyce's Professional Artistry as a Paradigm of Certain Stuff about Choice, Freedom, Discipline, Joy, Grotesquerie, and Human Completeness" included in A Supposedly Fun Thing... did anyone see the fundraiser for Haiti? posted by: isidorus 09:08 3.17.10 It was a doubles match pitting Federer and Sampras against Agassi and Nadal, and all the players were mic'd so the stadium and tv audiences could hear their witty banter. And of course this will come as a surprise to no one* but the most compelling part of the exhibition was how un-funny these guys are. The worst is Federer - it's tough to describe just how cringe inducing his commentary was - though I suspect that old bovine Pete Sampras is even less funny but he seems to have the good judgment to recognize his unfunniness and therefore doesn't talk much. In that crowd, Nadal was a relatively amusing slapstick performer (and in his defense it is hard to be witty in a foreign language) and Agassi comes off as a regular Don Rickles. But then again I only watched two games, after which the novelty had completely worn off. ------------- * Least of all anyone who's read DFW's "Tennis Player Michael Joyce's Professional Artistry as a Paradigm of Certain Stuff about Choice, Freedom, Discipline, Joy, Grotesquerie, and Human Completeness" included in A Supposedly Fun Thing... did anyone see the fundraiser for Haiti? posted by: isidorus 09:08 3.17.10 It was a doubles match pitting Federer and Sampras against Agassi and Nadal, and all the players were mic'd so the stadium and tv audiences could hear their witty banter. And of course this will come as a surprise to no one* but the most compelling part of the exhibition was how un-funny these guys are. The worst is Federer - it's tough to describe just how cringe inducing his commentary was - though I suspect that old bovine Pete Sampras is even less funny but he seems to have the good judgment to recognize his unfunniness and therefore doesn't talk much. In that crowd, Nadal was a relatively amusing slapstick performer (and in his defense it is hard to be witty in a foreign language) and Agassi comes off as a regular Don Rickles. But then again I only watched two games, after which the novelty had completely worn off. ------------- * Least of all anyone who's read DFW's "Tennis Player Michael Joyce's Professional Artistry as a Paradigm of Certain Stuff about Choice, Freedom, Discipline, Joy, Grotesquerie, and Human Completeness" included in A Supposedly Fun Thing... surprise surprise posted by: publius 10:57 2.1.10 federer takes down murray (continuing his tim henman on steroids routine) in what was by all accounts a thoroughly anti-climactic aussie final. #16 for those of you counting... australia posted by: publius 09:26 1.29.10 always the sneakiest of the grand slams...it's early in the season, it's played on the other side of the world, it's televised at 3am here, they use kangaroos as ball boys... anyway, federer is through to the final against andy murray. federer's amusing summation of this situation? "I know he’d like to win the first for British tennis since what is it, 150,000 years?”"Federer joked to the crowd amid much laughter. "The poor guy who has to go through those moments over and over again …" actually it's 74 years..but still... murray went through a clearly ailing nadal (he retired with what has now become something of a chronic knee problem) while federer took out hewitt (for whatever that's worth), davydenko and tsonga. granted, murray is playing well and has a fire (and perhaps a haggis) in his scottish belly...but i'm still betting on federer here... that foot fault call posted by: isidorus 21:23 9.16.09 was atrocious. what would possess you to do such a thing, least of all so late in the match? The memorable nugget from Serena's tirade about shoving the ball down the judge's throat reminded me of mcenroe of course, and this priceless bit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQ_Ja02gTY Thanks to mcenroe (who I think it's fair to say was correct about the line calls a a lot of the time, as in that bit) we now have the computerized line calls and challenge system which seems like its done a great deal to eliminate the player outbursts about line calls. My question is why don't they have such a system for footfaults? The footfault is such a relatively minor transgression, and the fact that it's not decided by some sort of computerized automated eyeball makes the call against serena -- and its timing -- highly dubious. I'd like to think I wouldn't have gotten all nasty like she did, but I sympathize with her reaction. granted... posted by: publius 22:11 9.14.09 i still wish federer had won, but any guy who goes through nadal and federer on his way to winning a grand slam earns high praise from me. i like this del potro kid... posted by: publius 20:24 9.14.09 he's a wild man.... weirdest end to a match.... posted by: publius 22:59 9.12.09 ever. so kim clijsters was giving serena a run for her money and was on the verge of winning the match. serena was serving down a set and down 5-6, 30-15. she faulted on her first serve. and then the lineswoman on the service baseline called a FOOT FAULT which gave clijsters match point. serena understandably went ballistic and started yelling at the lineswoman. after a minute or two of that, the linesman went over the to the umpire chair and apparently told the supervisor who had come out onto the court that serena said she would kill her. serena is there too protesting saying "i didn't say that. i did not say that". serena then put down her raquet, walked to the other side of the court and shook clijsters hand, as she had lost a point for a rules violation and that point happened to be match point. clearly the first time i have ever seen a match played with no match point played, never mind at the end of a great match in a the us open semifinals. fair play to clijsters...she took it to serena and with consistent depth and great play looked very likely to win in any case...granted serena wasn't playing at the top of her game, but she wasn't playing poorly either.... but man that ending was ugly. worst commentators ever... posted by: publius 20:31 9.8.09 i'm watching the tsonga/gonzalez match on usopen.org right now, and i must say that doug adler and virginia wade are hands down the worst tennis commentators i have ever heard. wade just comes off as a scolding, know-it-all school marm, and adler is for all he shows a dumb jock with a limited repertoire of tennis knowledge... all that said, gonzalez just upset tsonga. after the surprise exit of murray (aka tim henman ii), my guess is that rafa gets his comeuppance once the williams/pennetta match is over... too good to be true... posted by: publius 23:59 9.4.09 at exactly midnight my original feed cut out. at first i thought it was some "heidi game" sort of thing where there could be no coverage after 12 for some reason. but no...i went back to usopen.org and started over and the feed is now back up...but now there's commentary...oh well....can't win 'em all... aside from that, it looks like nadal is going to pull this one out. he's up a break at 4-3 in the fourth and kiefer isn't looking like a giant killer anymore... oh well...such an anticlimactic night of tennis... nadal now leads... posted by: publius 23:23 9.4.09 a set apiece, 5-3 in the third...but i can tell you this... if nadal wins, you can trace this match back to one point. this has been a generally boring match (its sole point of interest is how mediocre nadal looks), but down 4-3 (on serve) in the third, kiefer made one of the few beatiful shots of the match, a half vollet directly cross court that stopped nadal cold. so he's got ad-in for the game and....he double faults and nadal goes on to win the game (and subsequently the 3rd set as i type). but in the big picture none of that matters. even if he wins, if this is the rafa we're going to see at the us open this year, you can crown federer (or as a long shot andy murray) right now... intriguing... posted by: publius 22:34 9.4.09 so what looked to be a walkover for nadal at the beginning has turned into a match. kiefer (who?) just won the second set 6-3 and nadal was never in it. it's hard to believe this is the same guy who gives federer fits. this is what i expected to see when i predicted gasquet beating in the first round, but nadal looks...mediocre. boring. not ready. like a lost australian.... this match is worth watching for that alone, but i guarantee you this...even if nadal makes it to the next round, there is no way, no way in hell, that he wins the us open.... and... posted by: publius 21:29 9.4.09 you can watch in "picture in picture" mode, so i can check out the dent/navarro match, which is one of those exciting lower-tier matches, out of the corner of my eye as i watch nadal punish whoever it is he's playing... errrr.... posted by: publius 21:24 9.4.09 obviously that last post should have read "there's no commentary"... your editor apologizes for the error. being one of those non-tv owners... posted by: publius 21:16 9.4.09 i take my sports viewing when and where i can find it. and i just noticed that i can watch nadal's match live at usopen.org. and the best part? there's commentary. it's just like being there (sort of)...you watch the match, you form your own opinions...this is the best thing i have found tennis-wise in a long time... or maybe not... posted by: publius 16:54 9.2.09 i guess the moral of the story is that you can't trust a frenchman who fails a drug test and claims he "accidentally" got cocaine in his system by making out with someone at a night club... nadal 6-2, 6-2, 6-3 calling the upset.... posted by: publius 23:44 8.31.09 richard gasquet (my favorite tennis player who just never manages to do much) knocks rafa nadal out of the us open in the first round. book it. i'd say he just about nails it.... posted by: publius 18:11 7.9.09 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/opinion/09iht-edcohen.html this coming from one of those who "develop Federer obsessions the way teenagers have crushes. They can’t get the guy out of their heads." and in the battle... posted by: publius 13:58 7.1.09 of the world's most annoying tennis has-beens, andy roddick is currently up a set on lleyton hewitt... is there some way it can be set up so that both of those guys lose this match...it would only be fitting... blargh posted by: publius 11:42 6.28.09 i guess there are no matches today...federer plays soderling tomorrow... wimbledon lite posted by: publius 09:43 6.28.09 wimbledon certainly became much less interesting this year when nadal pulled out because of tendonitis in his knee. the oft-stated assumption is that federer will all but walk through to the championship (unless of course you're british and suffer from rabid andy murray supporting, known around the tennis world as "henman flu" and pretty much confined to the england and scotland). and i tend to think that is the case. for all of the talk of federer's decline, the guy just completed a career slam and the only person who's reliably had his number (and that only for the last year, with the obvious excpetion of the french open) is nadal. today's match is, for my money, the most interesting match in this year's draw. federer is playing robin soderling, you just a few short weeks handed nadal his first loss ever at the french open (how crazy is that) and went on to lose to federer in the final. there are lots of possible story lines here, most of which i'm sure will be beaten to death by the tv commentators...if soderling could pull this off he has officially arrived, whether manages to win the tournament or not. i think it's a long shot, but it is intriguing... tennis specialist first class federer.... posted by: publius 13:07 6.22.09 reporting for duty! http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/jun/22/wimbledon-roger-federer-fashion and the final is... posted by: publius 14:41 6.5.09 federer managed to squeak by del potro in a five set match which i suppose was as thrilling as a match can be when you're reading an update every game or so while at work. soderling the giant killer continued his surprising run and makes it to the final. so our champion will either be the guy who has won everything but the french, or a guy who came out of nowhere and managed to beat #1 and #2 in the world on the way to his first major title (hell, his first title on clay). could be a good one. i suspect it will be a decisive victory for federer, but you just never can tell....let's just say that i'm not giving 1-5 odds on a federer victory. about those odds.... posted by: publius 12:45 6.2.09 well, in one of the more shocking developments in the tennis world, nadal was beaten at the french by relative unknown robin soderling (leave it to a swede to protect borg's record five straight french open victories). so if federer has ever had a chance to win at roland garros, it would certainly seem to be this year (though he had to survive a 5 set marathon in which he dropped the first two sets to advance yesterday). granted, everyone wanted to see another nadal/federer final at the french, and perhaps a victory over nadal is the only thing that would truly put federer's demons to rest and re-establish him as the world's best player...but in the end you can only play who makes it, so let's hope federer can kepp it together and take home the only slam title which has to this pointed eluded him....though if you were to go on who's hot at the moment, andy murray may actually be the current favorite... Nadal posted by: camdolphin 15:56 5.26.09 was a 1-5 favorite to win the tournament. I'm not sure I've seen those kind of odds to win in any sporting tournament ever. Doubles? posted by: ludwig 15:24 5.26.09 So I'm looking at the scoreboard for the French Open noting some upsets but nothing too interesting. Then i check the doubles scoreboard. Most interesting: Why is andy murray playing doubles? No other player ranked remotely close to his #3 ranking is playing doubles. From a quick eyeball of the scores the other highly ranked male players entering the doubles competition were Tsonga at #9 and Ferrer at #13. Is Murrary setting himself up for defeat on the singles front? forgot a link.... posted by: publius 09:43 2.1.09 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/tennis/02/01/aussie.mens.final.ap/index.html twilight of the god(?) posted by: publius 09:42 2.1.09 i think it's a forgone conclusion that at some point federer will break sampras's grand slam title record. he's only 27 and rafa can't be there to stop him in 5 sets in every final. but i think what i, and many other who follow tennis, expected to be years of domination by federer is not goig to come to pass. rafa is too good, too young (it's crazy that he's only 22 - he's won the french open 4 times!) and too dedicated. what's new in what i'm reading about the aussie final (i didn't get a chance to see any of the matches) is the seeds of self-doubt that are creeping into federer's mind. according to the ap: _______ "The 27-year-old Swiss star couldn't hold back tears at the presentation. 'Maybe I'll try later. God, it's killing me,' Federer said, sobbing. He returned to congratulate Nadal within minutes, saying: 'You deserved it. You played a fantastic final.'" _________ that is exactly what you would expect to hear from someone who had an off-year last year, cruised through to the australian finals (with one long match where he found his form late), watched nadal get in with a squeaker of a win in the semis - and he still can't win it. i think even he had started to believe the "roger's back" storyline, and when it didn't shake out that way a a small piece of him broke. it will be an interesting year in tennis. for federer this year is letdown if he doesn't win a grand slam final by beating nadal. for nadal he's now looking at a realistic, though unlikely, shot at winning the grand slam. for everyone else, it's back to proving they can hang with the two guys at the top. here we go again... posted by: publius 14:45 1.30.09 nadal wins in an extremely tight 5 sets over verdasco to set up yet another final matchup with federer... let's hope for a good one... http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/jan/30/rafaelnadal-federer federer to the finals... posted by: publius 15:58 1.29.09 with a win over a solid but outclassed andy roddick. looks like we're setting up for another federer/nadal final...lord knows i'd much rather watch that than the super bowl... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/tennis/01/29/australian.thursday.ap/index.html?eref=T1 Roddick through to the semis...with an assist from the heat... posted by: rabelais 01:50 1.27.09 From the start of the third set, with Roddick and Djokovic, the defending champion, tied at one set a piece... 0-0 - Djokovic looks the more tired of the two players by far...it's understandable, because the temperature is believed to be about 40 degrees down on court... 1-0 - WHAT A SHOT! Roddick seals a break early in the third set with a fantastic forehand pass on the run, whipped down the line as Djokovic approached the net! 1-1 - Djokovic earns his first break-point of the match...AND TAKES IT - although he needs a huge slice of luck when his backhand hits the net-chord, bringing Roddick in and allowing a simple lob. 1-2 - Roddick takes Djok to deuce in the third game of the third set...the Serb holds, but looks knackered as he stumbles back to his chair...his team try to cheer him on from the sidelines...Djok calls for the trainer in betwene games... 1-2 - Djok doesn't look in a good way as a team of medics speak to him... 1-2 - Djokovic has a lot of treatment in a long medical time-out...Roddick is back on his feet and bouncing around, showing the fans he is fine... 1-2 - Djokovic is back out, trying to convince himself and his fans he feels okay... 2-2 - Djokovic tries to feel his way back into the match...the Serb isn't moving freely at all...three doubles in the game as A-Rod gets a bit sloppy...Roddick holds 3-2 - Two break-points for Roddick as Djokovic continues to struggle in the heat...and when Djok finds the net chord with an attempted pass, A-ROD HAS HIS BREAK! 4-2 - Some big serving help Roddick out of a bit of a hole at 15-30...Djokovic looks sick as A-Rod pounds down another ace down the middle to consolidate his break. 5-2 - Djokovic looks all-but gone as Roddick works him around the baseline as he moves into a 0-30 lead...and a woeful backhand that flies long hands the American three more break-points...RODDICK TAKES THE FIRST WHEN DJOK DOUBLE-FAULTS. 5-2 - The doctor is coming out again...he's taking the pulse and checking Djokovic's temperature... 6-2 - Two aces to start with as Roddick serves for the third set...a backhand pulled wide means three set-points...THIRD SET RODDICK! 0-1 - Djokovic sucks it up and toughs his way through the hold...two deuces...but the Serb shows admirable heart to hold on. 1-1 - Djokovic is going full-bore when he actually gets to the ball...but it's all a little too easy for Roddick...he holds to 15 to put the pressure back on Djokovic. 2-1 - Brilliant from Roddick! As Djokovic has wilted, the American seems to have grown in stature! He reaches 0-30 with two brilliant passes...and a dreadful forehand hands Roddick three break points...AND THERE'S THE BREAK! 2-1 - ALL OVER! Djokovic has had enough...the break was the final nail in the coffin...and the defending champion is out! He succumbs to the heat. close call for federer... posted by: publius 10:00 1.25.09 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/tennis/01/25/Federer.Australian.ap/index.html going two sets down to tomas berdych is not exactly the sort of dominant display you would hope to see from an in-form federer...let's hope that it's just a blip, and that when/if he meets nadal/murray/djokovic he's a bit more together. one of my favorite storylines... posted by: publius 09:29 1.22.09 of every major tennis tournament for the last couple of years is "andy roddick is 'back'"...he's constantly talking up how this time he's REALLY ready to win again, has his mojo back (http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/usopen05/news/story?id=2147503 ), has a new coach who changes, everything, etc... and then he flames out. i expect no different this year in australia... http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090122/sp_afp/tennisopenausroddick;_ylt=AqhAO4FGkAvQAdX7Xy.y2oJNz7QF the australian open... posted by: publius 13:24 1.18.09 by any measure the bastard child of the tennis grand slam tournaments, should actually be quite interesting this year. federer claims to have righted the ship from what, with the exception of the us open, was a tough year. nadal is now the world number 1 and sure doesn't want to give that up. andy murray, who i had assumed was going to be a perenial also-ran in the tim henman mode, is proving that he can play with federer and nadal. novak djokovic, last year's winner, hasn't been getting very much attention as of late, but i highly doubt that he has won his last grand slam tournament certainly makes for the most interesting australian open in as long as i can remember... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090118/sp_nm/us_tennis_open_1 five in a row posted by: publius 21:26 9.8.08 pretty impressive stuff from federer. i started watching about midway through the second set, and aside from a slight opening or two towards the end of that set, murray was never in it. granted, federer benefitted from not having to play yesterday, etc. but this was a pretty complete dismantling in three convincing sets. murray has a reputation as a bit of a headcase and you could see that side of him emerging in the third set. as i said above, i think this was the best course of events both for federer long term and for tennis as a whole. federer had to get a bit of his mojo back, and i think he would have had a tough time against nadal, more for psychological reasons than anything else. going forward i hope we will see both of them at the top of their game in the finals of next year's slams. and federer now sits one major win behind mr. congeniality, pete sampras. i will be very happy when that guy doesn't have the record anymore. what a stiff that guy was. fair play to andy murray posted by: publius 18:20 9.7.08 i really thought he was going to be the next "great" british (err...scottish) hope and that he would be a perennial middler, like tim henman before him. but when you beat nadal this year, in the semis of a tournament he desperately wanted to win, you sir, are no tim henman. as a well-chronicled federer fan, i have mixed emotions about this win by murray. clearly everyone wanted to see another epic nadal/federer final, myself included. but i think this is good for federer in the long run. rafa has clearly had his number this year, and i think it will be good for him to win a title without having to do it against nadal. i think once he does we'll see more of the old federer... this, of course, means that i'm writing off murray. i wouldn't go that far, but i'm quietly confident that federer will take this one, i say in 4 sets. of course, i have to start a new job tomorrow, otherwise i'd be at the match...these forced monday finals are always nice because you can score tickets that are otherwise close to impossible to get (at least for a reasonable sum of money). so happy that roddick lost posted by: publius 23:02 9.4.08 he's a punk, whether he's getting married to brooklyn decker or not. roddick is marrying brooklyn decker? posted by: publius 23:05 9.2.08 she's the si swinsuit model who did that one-on-one football picks show on espn with dr. z last football season....an example... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/nfl/2007/10/31/shesays_zsays_007.SportsIllustrated i've never liked roddick, and now i suppose i like him even less... Andy Roddick lives posted by: ludwig 22:59 9.2.08 I can't believe how well that Roddick played against Gonzalez (the silver medalist at the Beijing Olympics). I thought Roddick was washed up - but he seems to have revivied. could it have been his engagement? Not sure anyone else caught the match, but Roddick's fiancee (Brookyln Decker) is, um, quite a looker. wow - he's such a schmuck. well.... posted by: publius 12:58 8.31.08 wozniacki prettuy much fell apart after the first set and lost handily, so we won't see any more of her at this year's open. but she's only 18 (...mmmmm....18....) so hopefully we'll be seeing a lot more of her. my new favorite tennis vixen posted by: publius 11:48 8.31.08 caroline wozniacki from denmark, who is currently up one set to none over the significantly less foxy no. 2 seed at the open, jelena jankovic. http://www.celebs101.com/gallery/Caroline_Wozniacki/19846/caroline_wozniacki_photo_2.jpg why, yes, yes there is: posted by: simplicissimus 22:34 7.8.08 in fact, there are three things "that the American love of bloated bombast can't ruin..." 1) Pornography 2) Monster Truck Rallies 3) Professional Wrestling. Hopefully, this makes you feel a bit better, squissh. why, yes, yes there is: posted by: simplicissimus 22:11 7.8.08 in fact, there are three things "that the American love of bloated bombast can't ruin..." 1) Pornography 2) Monster Truck Rallies 3) Professional Wrestling. Hopefully, this makes you feel a bit better, squissh. world team tennis posted by: squisshy 19:37 7.8.08 so i am sitting in my office watching the Washington Kastles, and Serena Williams just made an appearance. they've built a pretty good-sized and nice-looking single-court tennis stadium in the parking lot immediately across the street from me, where the old convention center used to be. ... the scene is quite ... unbelievable, really. i watched the player introductions, all done in classic NFL style: the players running through a jet of faux steam in one corner of the court, through a corridor of cheerleaders, into the waiting high-fives of not one but TWO mascots (one a knight of some kind, Sir Asshat, perhaps, and another a giant anthropomorphic tennis ball. i shit you not). then everyone was urged, to a thumping beat, to MAAAAAKE SOME NOOOOOIIIIIISEEE!!!! now it's just a doubles match between four dudes i don't know. anyway, the entire ridiculous spectacle, including the singing of the national anthem, kind of ruined it for me. i mean, is there anything that the American love of bloated bombast can't ruin? I once met a contrymen engaged in conpiracy. posted by: rahoohl_dewk 17:37 7.7.08 He once met a man from Nantucket. Spain is pumped posted by: rahoohl_dewk 15:33 7.7.08 Winning the Euro Cup and their contryman bringing in the Wimbledon crown in a short span - both after very long droughts (Euro - 44 years - Wimble - 42 years) Missed the whole thing - in the office all day Sunday. Blech. radar posted by: publius 11:34 7.7.08 what strikes me about the way they both play (but again, nadal exhibits this a bit more) is their incredible court sense. pulled way out wide, sliding after a flat our sprint, they're able to somehow keep track of exactly where they are on the court, where their opponent is, and what minute sliver is available to them to hit a winner. it happened time and again yesterday and was just mind-blowing. Just great tennis... posted by: spacehippie 19:40 7.6.08 I'm right there with Simpli, I haven't watched a tennis match in recent memory. But I did catch some of each of Nadal and Federer's semis, and was intrigued enough to hope to catch as much of the final as possible. I was just blown away by the level of play each of those guys displayed, but mostly by Nadal. Watching him play those last two matches, with the wrist speed he has and that extremely short grip, I felt like I was watching a racquetball player more so than a tennis player. I've never seen anyone hit the ball like that. have to agree ... posted by: simplicissimus 19:07 7.6.08 i haven't watched much tennis these last 5 or 6 years, but looks like i caught the right match. and i promise never to hate on federer again. not after what he almost did, and how well he seemed to handle losing. hell, when john mcenroe asks to give you a hug in the post-match tv interview, you must have been doing something very, very right. probably posted by: squisshy 16:37 7.6.08 the best tennis match i've ever had the pleasure of watching. particularly that fourth set tiebreak -- unbelievable shot after unbelievable shot. i missed the first two sets, but from where i was sitting i thought nadal played the match off his life, and it was more than federer could handle. nadal tightened up on his own on several championship points of his own, not to mention dropping two points on his serve up 5-2 in the fourth set tiebreak. but he never went away, continued to hit amazing shots, and just outlasted federer. i know that federer is an artiste himself, and his arsenal of shots is impressive, but what i dislike about grass-court players is that they rely on their serve quite a bit. i thought was happening more and more late in the match -- rafa had a few 'chances' to break (i.e. up love-30, or 15-40) but then federer would just casually toss out a few incredible serves and get the game back in striking distance. meanwhile just about every shot from nadal had to be damn near perfect. and in those last three sets, just about every shot was perfect. during that last tiger woods run to the U.S. Open, I was rooting for Tiger, the favorite, because every time he *had* to make an incredible shot to continue, he did it -- just kept coming and coming until he got the win. i wouldn't have begrudged yet another federer championship if he had done the same, but he didn't. nadal outplayed him, plain and simple. incredible match though, and once again federer demonstrated huge class right up to the end, somewhat rare these days ... just short... posted by: publius 16:37 7.6.08 but, as john mcenroe said about 37 times after it was over, that was the best tennis match i have ever seen. i would be happier if federer had pulled it out, but what can you do. when the tennis is that good, you just sit back and watch and be glad you got to see it. you're simply the best! posted by: isidorus 15:03 7.6.08 if federer completes this remarkable comeback (and after the way he blew the second set, this would be an epic victory) he can whistle whatever the fuck he wants. rain delay #2 posted by: publius 14:57 7.6.08 6-4,6-4,6-7,6-7, 2-2 deuce and we get another rain delay, which sucks hard. most likely they won't be able to finish the match today... it really is too bad, because as i've said above, this is one of the great wimbledon finals... and we go to the 5th... posted by: publius 14:33 7.6.08 if you're not watching this wimbledon final, you're truly missing out. federer has won the last two set 7-6, and in the course of the 4th set tiebreaker saved 2 championship points (not to mention coming back from down 5-2). both of these guys are playing tennis at the highest level it can be played. hopefully it stays that way in the last set, because this match, like last year's, is something special. rain delay posted by: publius 12:14 7.6.08 with the rain coming down, nadal leads 6-4, 6-4, 4-5 on serve in the third. overall nadal has clearly been the dominant player. federer is making more ugly unforced errors that i've ever seen him make, clearly a result of is realizing that he needs to do something to counter nadal's shotmaking, which is nothing short of incredible. in the beginning it looked like federer was doing well. he won the first game on his serve and looked strong. then he lost the next two to go down 2-1 down a break. he had a slew of break chance in the 4th game to get back on serve but couldn't capitalize. nadal went up 4-2 and on to take the set. in the second federer was up 4-2 but still dropped the set 6-4. the third set has been a bit looser and harder to predict. nadal seems to have tightened up a bit as he gets closer to unseating federer at wimbledon, but federer, despite a fair number of break chances (he's something like 1-13 on break chances so far) can't seem to turn it around. that said, in the last game before the delay federer was serving and went down 0-40 but managed to storm back and take the next five points to stay on serve. i suppose it's possible that after they return to play federer could stage an incredible comeback, but a fair number of stars would have to align for that to happen, and i certainly wouldn't be on it... tap posted by: publius 14:31 7.5.08 almost forgot about my favorite moment from this morning's women's final...mary carillo said that venus williams named her clothing line "eleven" because eleven is one more than ten. what's wrong with being sexy? a scripted year posted by: publius 11:55 7.5.08 so we got an all-williams women's final won by venus (her 5th) and we have yet another federer-nadal matchup on the men's side. i caught most of the women's final. when i turned it on serena was up 3-1 in the first, but the match turned right there, and from then on venus was, if not dominant, well in control. serena was making way too many unforced errors and generally doing her best marat safin act...you could tell by her body language that there was no way she was going to win today. nadal and federer both cruised in their semifinal matches yesterday. safin was actually playing federer fairly well, but the guy is too much of a head case to hang with federer over the course of a match. it was an unforced error-fest by safin. let's just hope that tomorrow's match is as good as the final from last year...i'm calling it for federer in 4 close sets. safin's comments... posted by: publius 18:11 7.2.08 after winning his quarterfinal match today... "I’m playing semifinals, but that doesn’t mean that I have a chance there, because the guy has won how many times already here? To beat Federer you need to be Nadal and run around like a rabbit and hit winners from all over the place. … It’s just a little bit too difficult for me to beat him.” potentially great match looming... posted by: rabelais 15:48 7.2.08 safin vs. federer. friday. for a spot in the finals. safin - proven ability: he won the 2000 u.s. open and the 2005 australian open and was ranked no. 1 in the world for a stretch. proven head case: he's described previous matches as "brain fights", and there are multipe examples of him melting from the pressure. connection to federer: he beat federer en route to his 2005 australian open victory, and he was (and maybe still is) trained by federer's former coach. wimbledon performance this year: came in unranked but has beaten, amongst others, the no. 3 seed. and despite some shakinness, and some admitted nervousness, won today even after losing the first set. federer - lengthy winning streak on grass: 64 matches. king of wimbledon: he's going for his sixth straight title. potentially a bit vulnerable: fought off mono earlier this year, no big wins in 2008, and got destroyed by nadal in the french open final. could be good boys.... gasquet posted by: publius 20:32 6.30.08 all of those afficianados of this thread and french tennis will remember my "discovery" of richard gasquet a few years ago when he was down 2 sets and 4-2 in the third but came back to beat the more or less hapless andy roddick. i really though we were going to see a lot more of gasquet in the quarters and semis of majors...but it hasn't happened. apparently he's something of an enigma in the tennis world. pretty much everyone out there agrees that he has the skills to be a top ten player, but he's the tennis equivalent of the dutch in football...he consistently underachieves. today, it was he who was up 2 sets against andy murray and then managed to lose... i still hope that he can get it together one of these years and play like he did for a brief spell at wimbledon last year (was it really only last year? i would have sword it was 2 years ago...but it waren't...) as expected... posted by: publius 13:30 6.29.08 nadal and federer are both rolling over the competition at wimbledon. looks like we're in line for yet another final between them, especially with djokovic going out early. maybe this is nadal's year, though on grass at wimbledon you'd be brave to bet against federer. you know what's a funny word? wimbledon. wimbledon is a funny word. match over posted by: publius 11:07 6.8.08 rafa wins 6-0 in the third. that was one of the more boring tennis matches i've watched. rafa played well while federer, with the exception of the middle of set 2, never really showed up. it's too bad, because rafa is playing so well that it would have been great to see roger come out in top form. i'm not sure that even if he did that he would have been able to win, but at least it would have been a good match, which this most certainly was not. end of set 2 posted by: publius 10:40 6.8.08 federer went down 2-0 early and it looked like it was going to be a walkover. then in the heart of the set he played well and got back on serve. then he faltered again, missed a few break chances, and lost the set 6-3. it would take a minor miracle for federer to break his french open jinx this year... end of set 1 posted by: publius 09:52 6.8.08 and if it keeps going like this, it will be far and away the most lopsided and boring of the french open meetings between these two. rafa is definitely playing well, but the real story is how flat federer looks. he's making way too many unforced errors, trying lame drop shots, etc. unless he steps it up considerably he's going to get spanked. but he has shown a tendency over time to take a while to get into a groove, pick it up, and play at the top of his game. that would be nice, but sacrificing a set to nadal on clay is a dangerous business... here we go again... posted by: publius 16:44 6.7.08 another nadal-federer matchup in the finals of the french...is this roger's year? i wish i could comment intelligently, but i haven't seen any matches yet this year....all i've picked up is that nadal has been playing out of his head... in any case...9am est tmrw...be there... posted by: horsebeater 17:38 6.2.08 nadal is still out there to crush him in the finals... french open posted by: publius 20:01 5.30.08 the french open is well under way, and federer is once again trying to capture the only major title which has eluded him. it's funny, but in the last year there has already been talk of federer being past his prime and that perhaps his best days are behind him. me, i say bollocks (as my man-crush dictates). i haven't seen him play in a while, and i haven't seen any matches at roland garros to this point, but i'll take anyone's bet that before federer is done he adds the french to his list of titles. on the women's side, both the the williams sisters are out, henin is retired, as is everyone's favorite swiss-miss, martina hingis...i haven't followed the women's game closely enough to know what this means, though my guess is that some fetching young russian/eastern european will take it.... http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/index.html pretty crazy... posted by: publius 23:46 5.14.08 when the best woman in the game in the retires while number 1...at the age of 25... i never understood how, at her size, she was able to hit with and more often than not dominate the big girls...and i still don't. the sport is that much poorer for not having her around anymore... fare the well justine henin... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080514/sp_tennis_nm/tennis_henin_dc_8 Tivo, baby posted by: ludwig 11:07 1.28.08 I watched a bit of the match last night. Djokovic did not look so good in the fuirst set but settled don't after that. Best moment was when the chair called one of Djokovic's serves out and then, after waiting a bit, added "very close." I don't think he thought that the mike was on. Djokovic laughed and didn't pout. The one major issue marring the match was the role Patrick McEnroe plaed as a commentator. Awful. Insipid. He made Tim McCarver seem insightful. djokovic wins... posted by: publius 11:56 1.27.08 in four (4-6 6-4 6-3 7-6) over tsonga, a man who is without fail described in new reports as "a muhammad ali look-alike". the question now is whether djokovic can consistently challenge federer and nadal, and whether the era of federer dominating everyone all the time could be drawing to a close. should be interesting. should also be interesting to see if tsonga is the real deal , or if he just managed to put together an insane run to the finals. float like a butterfly... i would really have liked to watch this match on tv, but as i don't have cable, that wasn't possible...you would think that one of the networks could clear up some schedule time at 3:30 am to show the finals.... http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SPORT/01/27/tennis.australia/index.html it's tennis time again.... posted by: publius 10:10 1.25.08 and it's a surprise final at the aussie open. djokovic beats federer and a relative unknown from france named jo-wilfried tsonga who took out nadal, gasquet and murray. so another year with no grand slam...and the odd prospect of a final with neither federer or nadal... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/sports/tennis/25cnd-tennis.html from the NY Times posted by: squisshy 16:04 11.1.07 Hingis: ''They say that cocaine increases self-confidence and creates a type of euphoria,'' she said in a statement. ''I don't know. I only know that if I were to try to hit the ball while in any state of euphoria, it simply wouldn't work." pretty strong defense, i must say. then again, i did notice she was wild-eyed, gum-chomping, and sweating profusely in her final match ... if george washington hadn't in posted by: publius 14:11 11.1.07 none of this ever would have happened... http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/11/01/hingis.drugs/index.html 2 final points from me posted by: horsebeater 16:34 9.10.07 (1) I absolutely agree with the sentiment in the last paragraph. you really could argue that they should raise the net and make the court a little bigger to try to recapture some of the touch and finesse of the original game. that said, the comment that you made about missing serving and volleying is crazy. the serve and volley essentially made wimbledon unwatchable starting in about 1990's. i gave it up and haven't bothered since. I don't miss that being phased out one bit. (2) I too was a proud owner of a wooden racket until i bought a prince graphite in 1986... and after a long layoff, I have gone out 6-7 times over the past 2-3 years with rackets dating from the late 1990's... and i don't see a big difference between the late 1980's rackets and the late 1990's rackets. at least that damn mid-size phenomenon that was sweeping the world in the 1990's appears to be over. now, of course, (a) a large part of that is because i completely suck now, and it is difficult to judge the quality of the racket when your shots are bouncing before even hitting the net, so i'm willing to concede that i might be missing something here; (b) somewhat unbelievably, i have doubled my weight since the fall of 1987, so it is difficult to know what to ascribe to the racket, and what to ascribe to my, ahem, "additional power." well.... posted by: publius 15:49 9.10.07 yes, the jump from wood to graphite was the biggest break. but there is no question that, while it may not be as pronounced as that change, racquet technology has continued to allow for more power as pace. i played a lot of tennis right around time the wood to graphite switch happened, and i can tell you that there is no way federer could do what he does with the first generation of graphite racquets. i've played here and there over the last few years and the racquest are completely different animals to anything that was available before the early 90s, and a significant though less drastic step forward from those models. as for the physical conditioning side of it...it's not just a matter of hitting the weight room and working out a bit. elite modern athletes in every major sport are veritable cyborgs compared to guys in the 80s. the technology of fitness and nutrition has slowly evolved, and there's no way some guy in the 80s could simply have decided that he was going to get himself into the condition of the guys on the tour right now. you could pretty much wrap all of the above into the economic explosion that has taken place in tennis (and football and baseball and...). in 1968, the first year of the open era, the total prize money available was $100,000. this year is was $19M+. federer took home $2.5M for his victory ($1.4 for winning the open, and a $1M bonus for winning the us open tennis series as well). with that kind of economic incentive, of course you're going to have more and more people competing and seeing subsequent advances in the technology of equipment and training that simply wasn't available in previous eras. it's why you see so few quantum leaps in things like track and field...someone comes along who pushes the state of art a bit further, then a bit later someone else comes along, etc...but you can't make a conscious decision to jump three or four levels on the evolutionary chain any more than an amoeba could decide to be a sparrow. i admit that i say all of this with a fair bit of nostalgia. as great as federer is, and as privileged as i feel to watch him play on a regular basis (i guess this what basketball people felt watching jordan in his prime, something i never really understood until now) i miss the game from the 80s. i miss serve and volley (you still see bits and pieces of it here and there, but there will never be another becker). i miss touch tennis. i hate 130 mile an hour serves. i realize it's silly to focus on a particular era and wish the sport could have stopped evolving at that point, but when it comes to tennis i think it's less interesting to watch overall than it was back in the good ole days... the pace argument posted by: horsebeater 12:25 9.10.07 regarding tennis technology, the big jump was from wood to graphite, and that occurred in the mid-1980's for the most part. different alloys have come along since then, but it hasn't changed things all that much. so while you can't compare borg to federer, i think that you very much CAN compare becker or lendl or wilander or edberg or chang or agassi etc etc to federer. the equipment they played with and that federer plays with isn't all that different. and federer would just crush any of them. there is no doubt in my mind that the roddick of today would be #1 if put into a time machine and dropped into 1988. ****** whenever arguing about sports across eras, the whole "but there is weight training now" argument has always struck me as particularly dubious. to me, it is a form of athletic preparation. If you're saying that it's not fair that people prepare more and in different ways now, that strikes me as an invalid argument. that's like a guy from 1932 saying "well, babe ruth is good, but he actually *practices*. back in the 1880's, we didn't practice, so you really can't compare ruth to the 1880's start." if they didn't practice or didn't weight train, you don't get credit for that (unless you are judging things by the standards of the old dudes in chariots of fire). the different era debates posted by: publius 11:50 9.10.07 i don't know that i'd agree with the the statement "one thing that is clear about tennis is that the pros of today would absolutely smoke the pros from the 1980's and earlier. there is no question that the quality of tennis is getting better and better each decade." in tennis more than most other sports, the technology is a huge component of how the game is the played. the pace these guys put on the ball is owing to the never-ending "advances" in racquet design. throw in the absurdly different life of a tennis player as far as conditioning and strength training versus that era and you end up with the old sports cliché that it's truly impossible to judge across eras. roger federer would likely have been the best player in the world no matter what era he played in, but his game certainly wouldn't look anything like it does today if he was playing with a wooden racquet against borg. you can't blame borg for the fact that in his time it wasn't physically possible to generate the kind of pace you see in today's game. i agree to a certain extent on the smarminess of federer, but what exactly is the guy supposed to say? he's made the last 10 major finals and has won three majors the last three years. i don't think he's over the top arrogant in his interviews - he just doesn't fall into the american-style saccharine vacuity of sports interviews where all you can do is thank god or your teammates or you parents and praise your opponent for being a great player. he says what pretty much everyone else says, which is that if he's playing well (and not on clay) no one out there in the world of tennis has shown that they're able to beat him. federer v roddick posted by: horsebeater 11:31 9.10.07 i watched that match. wow, that was some high quality tennis for the first two sets, at least. to me, the one thing that is clear about tennis is that the pros of today would absolutely smoke the pros from the 1980's and earlier. there is no question that the quality of tennis is getting better and better each decade. the pace is just unbelievable these days. federer is slipping into a smarmy "i expect to win" mode after each match it seems to me. i realize that maybe it was just my disdain for the post-match u.s. open silliness that is apparently required, but i have started to dislike the man. **** Regarding that post-match silliness, the players have to apparently sign 3 tennis balls and hit them into the stands while a voice over the P.A. system screams "WHO WANTS A TENNIS BALL" in a WWE style voice. This struck me as unbelievable. this is like Lebron coming out in between the third and fourth quarter and shooting the t-shirt cannon or having kobe bryant participate in the halftime "make a halfcourt shot and win a truck" contest. it struck me as just bizarre. roll on man-crush, roll-on... posted by: publius 20:07 9.9.07 federer chalks up another major with his three set victory over novak djokovic at the us open. it was actually closer than the score makes it seem. federer was never really playing at top form and djokovic was solid. djokovic had 5 set points in the first set and two in the second, but he just couldn't manage to close them out. if he had played a bit better today and federer had continued to make an uncharacteristically high number of unforced errors, he definitely could have won. but he didn't, so it's all a bit academic. he's only 20 though, and has the game to join the federer/nadal mix continually in the major finals. that said, as well as djokovic played, when federer is in top form, there is still no one in the world that can touch him. i suppose it's true... posted by: publius 20:39 7.8.07 better that than dan marino, though... i must say, publius ... posted by: squisshy 20:25 7.8.07 you have quite the man-crush on roger federer. thankfully... posted by: publius 13:33 7.8.07 it wasn't anywhere near the walkover for federer that i had imagined it would be. as john mcenroe correctly (and ad nauseum) pointed out, that was one of the great wimbledon finals of all time. there's no doubt that rafa has the tools to beat federer not only on clay but on grass as well. it's only a matter of time. and as they're ranked #1 and #2 in the world and are miles ahead of everyone else in the rankings, they'll hopefully be on the opposite side of many major draws and we'll get many more finals like we saw today. i'm glad federer won. he deserved it, and by the time he's done he's going to demolish every record for major tennis victories. with 11, he's only three shy of sampras' record of 14. and he's only 25 (almost 26). that said, it was refreshing to see him crack a bit in the fourth set when he got flustered by the "hawkeye" review technology and actually asked the chair umpire if they could turn it off. but he righted the ship in the fifth. whether that was all due to him or whether rafa's knee injury played a part or whether it was combination of both, the only thing anyone will remember is that he won, and that he's now won 5 consecutive wimbledon titles. well.... posted by: publius 21:23 7.7.07 for all of the excitement yesterday, today was pretty boring. federer outclassed gasquet, but certainly didn't embarrass him. and losing to federer is nothing to hang your head about. the guy is, in my opinion, the greatest tennis player of all-time. until he starts to lose a step at some point, all anyone's really going to be able to do (with the exception of nadal on clay) is catch him on an off day. that said, after what i saw yesterday, i still think gasquet is going to be a player to contend with in the next couple of years. i didn't see the nadal match, but matches where someone retires aren't really all that interesting (even if nadal did lose the first set). little pudgy marion bartoli put up a brave fight, but she was even more outclassed than gasquet was. venus simply gets to everything and is as fit a player as there is on the women's tour. bartoli never had a chance. so now we have the men's final everyone should want to see. i haven't seen nadal play much at all this wimbledon, but based on how many difficult matches he's played, federer's relatively easy path to the final and the (almost always) high quality of federer's play today, i'd say federer takes it without too much difficulty. maybe nadal takes a set, but i think straight sets (albeit close sets) to federer is more likely. wow... posted by: publius 15:04 7.6.07 well, the fifth set wasn't quite as great tennis as the previous two. both players were starting show signs of fatigue, especially roddick. but gasquet was able to complete his dream comeback and take the final set 8-6. i have a feeling that as he has to play federer in 16 hours or so, that match won't offer the same level of excitement as we've just seen. but you can be sure i'll be tuning in to find out for sure... the great french hope(s)... posted by: publius 14:26 7.6.07 as i was eating lunch today i remembered wimbledon was on, so i turned it on expecting to spend 10 minutes watching roddick dimantle richard gasquet. gasquet had been down 2 sets and 4-2 in the third. when i tuned in he had leveled the third at 4-4, though his mini-rally had the feeling of saving a bit of face before the inevitable 3 set loss. but then something happened. gasquet started to make shots, consistently, that i haven't seen anyone except federer make. his backhand passing shots have been shocking. you truly get the feeling that you are watching an athlete have a breakthrough moment. in addition to gasquet's shot-making, the overall quality of the play has been fantastic. both players have been coming to net and there have been a much higher percentage of old skool rallies that i've seen in quite some time. so they just finished the fourth set, and gasquet definitely has the momentum (he took the fourth set tie-break 7-4). add that all to the fact that some virtual unknown french-born woman named marianne bartoli just took down top seed justine henin 1-6, 7-5, 6-1. she hits a two-handed forehand and backhand and from the limited coverage they showed of the third set in between the gasquet/roddick match, it looks like bartoli, to an even greater extent than gasquet, found her stride and just blew henin off the court. whither doubles? posted by: ludwig 09:53 7.5.07 I love doubles. When I first began watching tennis, all the big names played in both the singles and doubles portions of the tournaments. McEnroe was unstoppable and had more doubles Grand Slam titles than single titles. Navratilova won tons of doubles and mixed doubles titles. Do any of the current major players play doubles? Do they not do it because they make so much money and don't need the purse money for the doubles? Oh, the shame. posted by: isidorus 23:37 6.18.07 I just watched the season premeir of The Age of Love, a riff on The Bachelor with Mark Philippoussis choosing among the women. The twist is that half of the women (the kittens)are in their twenties and the other half are in their forties (cougars!). The show does its best to portray Philippoussis as a gentleman, despite the evidence to the contrary: his relationship with Delta Goodrem (sort of an Australian Norah Jones, it seems) was derailed by an affair with Paris Hilton. Then his engagement to Alexis Barbara (?) went sour. Who's alexis barbara? a very classy looking young lady, that's who. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1361648/photogallery So now poor lovelorn mark has put his fate in the hands of the good folks at NBC. Good luck, Mark. Things sure haven't been working out for you on the court, so maybe this is a good segue into TV for your bland good looks and even blander personality. At least the kittens are entertaining with their catty insults about their "decrepit" competitors. The women in their forties are just sad, mincing around in little miniskirts and whatnot. if he did it ... posted by: squisshy 18:37 6.14.07 definitely guilty of douchebaggery. just for the record... posted by: rabble-rouser 18:15 6.14.07 If the Tina Turner thing is true we must then consider his place in the douche pantheon. just for the record... posted by: horsebeater 17:43 6.14.07 ... publius is definitely right about this... simpli's ability to believe / create rumors about sports stars that he ultimately convinces himself are true is unparalleled. ... clay is far and away the best surface for spectators. grass is just way way too fucking fast. how many rallies go past 4-5 volleys at wimbeldon? Guys like Goran ivanosevic... who wants to watch that shit? 20 years ago hardcourt was the best, but the monsters that play tennis now hit the ball so fucking hard that its tougher to have hardcourt rallies any more as well. i beg to differ... posted by: publius 17:39 6.14.07 a cheesy piece of publicity for a tv station (is there a sports star in the world that hasn't done some ill-fated and ill-conceived promotions?) is a far sight different than walking off the court after a victory and whistling "simply the best" to yourself. but even assuming that it were true...it doesn't change the fact that he's likely the best player ever to step on a tennis court. would it make him a touch more cheesy than he already is? sure. but let's not throw the (water burn) baby out with the swiss dishwater... it isn't full proof... posted by: simplicissimus 13:37 6.14.07 ...but, man, i'd say i'm halfway home: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyX9L2g2y6c who knew? posted by: squisshy 13:14 6.14.07 the secret to nadal's success ... http://www.theonion.com/content/news/rafael_nadal_credits_french_open as for federer, he is a great player but his troubles in paris will make it all the sweeter if (and i do say if) he wins there. the different surfaces do indeed make tennis great and the *career* grand slam, much less the "real" slam of all four in one year, so rare. but if federer is as good as all of you think he is, he'll figure it out one day. if his game is only suited to the faster surfaces, he'll go down in history just like sampras, which is to say, one of the greatest of all time, but someone whose game wasn't well suited to clay. i unfortunately missed the fin posted by: publius 12:49 6.14.07 but with regards to federer v. nadal in general, i'm with isidorus. federer is so much better than anyone else out there on every surface except clay that it would be a shame for him not to win a "real" grand slam before he's done. he'll take nadal down one of these years at roland garros. i just hope that federer does win the french it's nadal that he beats in the final, and not someone else. as for the personality? i get the feeling he's pretty much the peyton manning of tennis. annoyingly well mannered, wooden as wooden can be and a true dork at heart. it seems to almost be a pre-requisite for dominating male tennis players (lendl, sampras, courier, edberg, etc.) since the era of mcenroe, connors and borg. as for the whistling thing? this sounds like the kind of apocryphal country club legend that simplicissimus believes simply so he can be a contrarian. a brief check on google doesn't turn anything up...this reminds me of simplicissimus telling me for 15 years that he didn't like the song "bad bad leroy brown" because there's a lyric referring to the "east side of chicago". this would be a silly enough reason not to like the song...it's even sillier since, as i tried in vain to tell simplicissimus during those 15 years, it's not true. then again, i'm not even sure that simplicissimus is being serious with the whole whistling thing. sometimes he's just so darned inscrutable... Had he posted by: rahoohl_dewk 09:53 6.14.07 Been whistling "I am your Garbage Man", you might have signed up to be his towel boy. what izzy *didn't* tell you: posted by: simplicissimus 08:10 6.14.07 1) he is, shall we say, biased with respect to the clamdigger. after all, he's been exhibiting man on clamdigger love since 2001. 2) one time, after winning a grand slam event (i forget which won), federer walked off the court whistling "simply the best" - the tina turner song. this story means one thing and one thing only: i will never -- indeed, i could never -- root for him to win anything, anywhere. The Jacket posted by: ludwig 08:04 6.14.07 The next thing that we need to look forward to is what Federer will wear to Wimbledon. I'm hoping he goes retro and sports a Michael Jackson "Thriller" look. I agree about men's clay court posted by: isidorus 00:14 6.14.07 in general, it's one of the most entertaining sports events to watch these days. But I was rooting for federer all the way. he strikes me as so vastly superior to every tennis player that's preceded him, and generally such a decent if boring guy, that I want him to win a slam and remove any remaining asterisk from the record books. But I guess that's the beauty of tennis' three (or four? or five?) different surfaces -- they so magnify the strengths and weaknesses of different playters and styles. I watched the last three sets, and Federer was getting beat pretty badly -- even in the set that he won, he had to struggle to hold serve every time. On a petty note, I don't mind the capri pants but I hate the way nadal falls down on his back after he wins. Seems so scripted, and so messy. All that red clay. Don't tell me you're overcome with emotion and surprise and disbelief at winning and whatnot. You know you're going to win, and subconsciously you've been thinking about how you're going to react when it happens, for several games leading up to the moment, especially when you're dictating the match like he was. Anyway. so, anyone watch posted by: squisshy 11:32 6.11.07 the battle royale at roland garros yesterday? i didn't catch it all but saw essentially the last 2 1/2 sets. some incredible tennis being played there. i really like the game on clay -- better rallies, more shotmaking i think. anyway i was marginally rooting for nadal given that i think federer needs a foil, but i almost turned against him on account of those clamdiggers and turqoise shirt he was sporting. yikes. french open... posted by: publius 15:41 5.20.07 just that much more interesting... http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/05/20/tennis.hamburg.reut/index.html one less reason to watch this posted by: publius 15:42 5.16.07 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070516/sp_nm/tennis_french_hingis_dc_1;_ylt=AvJzSe1nGF9gH07IbrJwzYgE1vAI though seeing whether federer can take down nadal on the red clay should be mighty entertaining... as long as we're picking on HB posted by: isidorus 18:49 7.11.06 Lendl, surprisingly, has developed some later-in-life, off court personality. that's according to the progfile of him and his world-class-golfer daughters, several of whom are quite the lookers, and not just because they're teenagers. which i would link to, but it's not available. but for the pervez musharaf in you, here's an article about two of the lendl golfers. pics are disappointingly small but serviceable. http://www.ajga.org/Newsletter/TheAJGALink/12-9-05/viewfromchateau.asp and also, lack of personality? must I link to the gold lame jacket again? seriously I think federer gets this because of the classy way he behasves given the antics of guys like nastase or mcenroe or connors or the young agassi. compared to them he lacks personality but I would say he's more like an ashe or wilander, who seemed like pretty likable guys. Certainly plenty of players are boring dolts though. to wit: edberg. stefan edberg. Although to be fair I don't really have any reason why I think federer is cool or nice or whatever. he's so good at tennis that he may not bring much to the table off-court. along those lines there's a great article from a young david foster wallace (included in _A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never do Again_ a book of his essays for harpers in the early 90s) where he profiles an american player ranked about 100 at the time trying to make it through the qualifying rounds at the canadian open. great tennis insights and observations about what a weird place canada is, but also interesting musings on why tennis players are generally so boring. here's a blurb about it that I found on the internets: The advantages of Wallace's style are most dramatically displayed in the essay on the Canadian Open, "Tennis Player Michael Joyce's Professional Artistry as a Paradigm for Certain Stuff about Choice, Freedom, Discipline, Joy, Grotesquerie, and Human Completeness," which, to get this out of the way, is the best piece of sports writing I have ever read. Wallace follows Michael Joyce, the 79th-ranked player in the world, through the qualifying rounds of the tournament, with forays into the evolution of tennis styles, the question of free will for child athletes, Wallace's own junior-tennis career, the inevitable snobbery when intellectuals write about athletes, and so on. I wasn't interested in tennis before I read this essay. I'm not interested now. But for an hour, tennis was gripping -- not as a metaphor for art or free will or what have you, but tennis as itself, as an array of connected details, as a technological entity. I won't presume to say a lyric poem couldn't have done the same thing, but it would have started at a serious disadvantage. An irreducibly complex system like a tennis tournament can't be suddenly, blazingly known in a single line, however inspired; it doesn't have a heart to strike at. The same is true of NAFTA, higher math, the House Ethics Committee, and so on: all subjects to which I think Wallace's prose would be uniquely suited. we kid because why? posted by: simplicissimus 17:47 7.11.06 because we love you, hb! you are the engine that makes tentfort run. ok... he's one inch shorter th posted by: horsebeater 16:19 7.11.06 and i get criticized... yikes, it really is pick on hb month. i guess the lendl comparison feels right because of the lack of personality as well. the agassi comparison isn't great... for one federer has a great serve, whereas that was always agassi's weakness.... tall and imposing? posted by: ludwig 10:30 7.11.06 Are we watching the same person? Federer seems neither tall (6'1" by his officials site) nor imposing (187 lbs). The height listing is suspicious and I don't believe the website at all in regard to weight as Nadal's website says he weighs ten pounds less and he's sporting far bigger biceps (not unlike my own, which I call Zeus and Appollo). In fact, according to Wiki, Federer is shorter than either Lendl (6'2") or becker (6'3") and the same weight. I would put Federer in the class of agassi (albit far more disciplined than agassi) - a player who is able to anticipate and ascertain angles better than virtually anyone else. He knows preciely how much room he has with each shot and is able to fix his to hit that space. If you watch him, he doesn't bother to look where the ball is going because he already knows. It's not something that can be learned - the calculations are far too instantaneous. It must be something that he was born with. It's what seperates him from the others. career atp money list posted by: horsebeater 09:47 7.11.06 http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/TrackIt.asp?file=http://www.atptennis.com/en/media/rankings/Career_Prize.pdf federer... posted by: horsebeater 09:47 7.11.06 ...didn't strike me as a meathead, but he certainly seemed to me to be cut from the lendl / becker mold. probably closer to lendl in style as a baseliner and as someone who makes very few errors. but tall and physically imposing like becker. i didn't exactly see an array of drop shots and lobs coming out of him, however. as far as crafty players, borg and mcenroe certainly, wilander, gerulitas, noah, vilas. agassi and chang and late-career connors to a lesser extent, although agassi and chang's skills were largely speed and return of service, but watching people chase down balls they shouldn't be able to get to is entertaining and feels like a "smart player" skill even if it isn't. i found the jacket inspiring posted by: ludwig 07:24 7.11.06 Federer is such a controlled person that showing up in a cream (not white, which is a violation of Wimbeldon's all-white rules) blazer with a bizarre coat of arms was a nice departure for him. I like to think that he looked at his sports togs and said "I look like such a schlump in the trophy ceremony next to the Duke of Kent in his finest Saville Row tailoring. what can I do to make myself more respectable?" I find it all adds a human touch to Federer . . . unless Nike told him to wear it. more on the jacket posted by: isidorus 21:16 7.10.06 apparently it's a nike special, custom made for rog with his own little embroidered coat of arms http://tinyurl.com/pjhl7 which makes me like it less, but still like it. somehow I foolishly imagined that one day he was looking in the mirror while wearing an ordinary warm up and decided he needed to spiff it up a bit. which is the maybe what happened, but now i'm afraid nike just wanted to get into the dinnerware market. and what do you make of the wh posted by: isidorus 17:55 7.10.06 http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=71296672&cdi=0 Awesome, I say. and better than this number, at least http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=106296&page=5 wait a minute posted by: isidorus 17:49 7.10.06 The brawn argument about nadal is right on - his power and footspeed are scary - but I've always thought of federer as a crafty, intelligent player - who's also basically unstoppable from everywhere on the court (the grass court, at least). Part of the reason he's so graceful and easy to watch is that he's smart - he understands how to play his opponents and doesn't have to waste much effort doing so. who were some of the the crafty (and perhaps by implication, weak) players you like? I'd say Borg, and to some extent, McEnroe too. arthur ashe. vitas gerulitas. However, If you want to talk about dumb brawny guys, let's discuss robby ginepri. who I hate. i watched the second set posted by: horsebeater 14:13 7.10.06 ... i had never really watched federer (tennis was another sport like college basketball that was coughed up at the time of marriage in exchange for unlimited browns and indians rights). as an avid tennis watcher in the 1980's and early 1990's, let me say this: wow. i mean double fucking wow. In some ways it is sad that there is no way brains can win out over brawn now when brawn means federer and nadal. i liked it when the crafty guys could win. well.... posted by: publius 12:05 7.9.06 that last set was something of a letdown. but you certainly get the feeling that these two guys are going to be in a lot of major finals against each other, and that sooner or later nadal is going to be the guy to beat federer on grass... rafa posted by: publius 11:33 7.9.06 not sure if anyone is watching this wimbledon final between federer and nadal, but if you're not you should be. these guys are so far ahead of everyone else playing the game right now that they're really the only two worth watching. so federer comes out and takes the first set 6-0 and it looks like he's going to assert his dominance on grass and cruise to his fourth straight wimbledon title and his trillionth straight win on the surface. but then nadal breaks in the first game of the second set and stays a break up until the end of the set when it goes to a tiebreak and federer edges him out to go up 2 sets to none. but nadal hangs in and just took the third 7-6 (that is the fifth...the fifth!...set that federer has lost so far in his his 4 wimbledon campaigns). so on to a fourth set...rafa has the momentum, and if he can keep it up he may be able to get inside of federer's head and become the first guy in something like 30 years (borg was the last one) to win the french open and wimbledon in the same year. and once this match is over, we get the world cup final...great day for sport... through to the quarters... posted by: publius 19:44 6.5.06 but now the real tests begin. clijsters next, and possibly henin-hardenne if she wins that one.... let's hear it for the swiss miss.... http://edition.cnn.com/2006/SPORT/06/05/tennis.frenchwomen/index.html and while we're talking tennis posted by: isidorus 00:35 6.5.06 the new nintendo sounds awesome. so awesome, in fact, that it probably deserves its own thread. ====================================================== http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/arts/04schi.html The Video Game Goes Minimalist: Nintendo Comes Full Circle By SETH SCHIESEL Published: June 4, 2006 SOME new media, like the Internet and cellphones, begin life in a niche, as curiosities even, before becoming everyday elements of mainstream culture. Others evolve in the opposite direction. Think about video games. Once upon a time, call it the 1980's, video games were simple. Facing one joystick and at most a couple of buttons, most anyone could simply drop a quarter into a Galaga or Ms. Pac-Man machine and have some cheap thrills. And because the games were simple, they were practically ubiquitous in bars, waiting rooms and other public places. Remember arcades? Inevitably progress got in the way. As game machines have become cheaper over the years, they have mostly disappeared from public spaces and burrowed into bedrooms and dens. And as the machines have gotten more powerful, the games have gotten more complicated. Both avid gamers and the industry have come to fixate on the ever more impressive graphics and ever more complex scenarios that faster chips can create. The results can be downright intimidating. People now in their 40's who might have just walked up to a Centipede machine and started playing when they were in college now might look at a Sony PlayStation 2 (which has 17 buttons and joysticks) and think, "I'll never figure that thing out." Nintendo, the Japanese company synonymous with video games, wants to put an end to all that. Trying to attract new fans and win back a growing population of lapsed players, the company is on an almost evangelical mission to rescue video games from the clutches of the sunlight-deprived, testosterone-addled, slightly gamy demographic group that has come to rule the gaming world. And the instrument of Nintendo's mission is called the Wii (pronounced we, not why). Every five years or so, the big game console makers release new flagship machines. Microsoft, maker of the Xbox, released its latest console, the Xbox 360, last November. This fall, when Nintendo plans to introduce the Wii, Sony is expected to weigh in with its PlayStation 3. But while Microsoft and Sony duke it out at the high end of the market with expensive machines (the PS3 will cost at least $500, not including games) that feature the flashiest high-definition graphics, Nintendo is taking a radically different, inexpensive path, one that focuses on how games feel rather than on how they look. The company says the system will sell for no more than $250. Playing a video game may require looking at a screen, but the primary interface between a human and a game is the player's hands. So to play tennis with the Wii, you watch the screen, and when the ball comes, you simply swing your arm to make your on-screen avatar swing. (If you're good, you can get spin on the ball). To throw a football, you mimic throwing a football. To swing a sword — well, you get the idea. The Wii controller has been consciously designed to resemble a television remote control, and the kinetic, tactile entertainment experience it produces is unlike anything on a current game machine. "My mother is never going to play a PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360 game because she simply cannot comprehend the controller," Dan Hsu, editor in chief of Electronic Gaming Monthly, a top game magazine, said in an interview. "But Nintendo wants to appeal to those people. Wii does feel very friendly and easy to use, and it's very intuitive because all you have to do is point the controller at the screen and just move it around. And most games only need one or two buttons." Most North American game insiders got their first chance to use the Wii at the E3 game convention in Los Angeles last month, and it quickly became clear that the Wii was more than just a novelty. (A test version of the machine was demonstrated at the Tokyo Game Show last fall.) With its sleek vertical design and unobtrusive white controller, the Wii is made to fit into a middle-class living room without looking like an alien invader from Planet Video Game. (By contrast the original Xbox's hulking black exterior turned off a lot of traditional nongamers. In response Microsoft made the Xbox 360 curved and off-white.) More important than the unit's look, however, have been the almost entirely positive reviews from people who have played it. Tennis feels remarkably like tennis, employing a nearly full range of upper-body motion. With Excite Truck, the user holds the controller between two hands like a steering wheel and merely tilts it left and right to steer. You can also wield the Wii as a pen, a fishing rod and, of course, a weapon. "We wanted to change the image that people have when you think of someone playing a video game," Shigeru Miyamoto, Nintendo's creative director (and the creator of the famed Donkey Kong, Mario and Zelda franchises) said during an interview at E3. "There is always this image where you think of a young person holding a controller in two hands kind of in a darkened room with the light of the TV shining on his face, and it's not a very positive image. We really wanted to break that by creating this interface that would allow people to be much more active." But even as the company reaches for the mainstream, it knows it cannot afford to lose the millions of seasoned Nintendo fans. For them there are more complex games like new Wii installments of Zelda and Metroid Prime on the way. But the overall focus is on using the controller to make the gaming experience as simple and intuitive as possible. It's the sort of approach that appeals to Nintendo fans like Floyd Hayes, 34, an advertising creative director who lives in Brooklyn. "Nintendo has really the best track record in terms of innovation," he said, "and what they're trying, in dropping the barriers to game play by lowering the barriers presented by the controller, is fantastic. I'd love to be able to stop memorizing different button combinations for every game. It's like having to learn to walk all over again in every game, isn't it?" Nintendo's innovation seemed to captivate attendees at E3. "Wii was extremely popular," said Mr. Hsu, who was there. "As usual Nintendo has the longest lines because they really draw in the hard core, but I noticed a lot of people who weren't the typical Nintendo fanboys were waiting in long lines to play Wii. That's because you have all these other games for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 on the show floor, but they're pretty much what we've seen before, just with prettier graphics. But Wii is a totally new experience." The company started its mission to expand the gaming audience with more user-friendly products in 2004 with the Nintendo DS handheld. While Sony has garnered more headlines with its sleek black PlayStation Portable, Nintendo has had at least as much success with the less expensive DS, which employs an entirely different approach. While many PSP games are for hardcore players, the top DS games were made to appeal to a wider audience. Nintendogs, for instance, which allows users to take care of a virtual dog, is a nonconventional game that has proved highly successful among women and girls who are not generally gamers. Another example is Brain Age, a series of mind-training games that have been hugely popular among middle-aged and older people in Japan and have recently been released in the United States. "People often call this another next-generation game competition or war," said Nintendo's president, Satoru Iwata, who was also at the E3 convention, but "Nintendo is not trying to compete with merely the next generation. Instead we want to provide completely different experiences. What we want to provide you is not something that is simply a linear extension of current high-end gaming. But rather we will provide you with something brand new, something unprecedented." It's no easy feat to make extremely complex technology feel as basic and straightforward as picking up a tennis racket or golf club. And it may be just as hard to excite a die-hard audience accustomed to the loudest bells and whistles. But it may be hardest of all to convince nongamers that they won't feel like geeks if they pick up a game controller. For Nintendo, however, the dream is that there is a huge untapped audience sitting out there that is ready to stop watching and start playing. forget the russian loveliness posted by: isidorus 00:32 6.5.06 I prefer czech loveliness Nicole Vaidisova http://www.nicolevaidisova.com/# i've lusted after hingis for y posted by: isidorus 00:25 6.5.06 causing much befuddlement among those I deemed trustworthy enought to share that tidbit with. so I'm glad to see some hingis love on the fort. what's weird, though, is the fact that right now (sunday night, june 4 06) her match against Shahar Pe'er has been postponed due to darkness, knotted at two sets apeice. So I'm like, who the fuck is Shahar Pe'er, maybe she's hot, let's put her name into google images and see what comes up. And what I learn is that A) she's not especially cute (but she's a pro tennis player, which means she's pretty hot at a basic sweaty/athletic/grunting level - I mean even lindsay davenport, in the heat of battle, is kind of sexy sometimes); B) she's from israel, which as a pro athlete makes here pretty rare; C) apparently it's a very big deal when even a minor israeli celeb shows up for their mandatory military service, because that's what every google image hit links to. Not coverage of her winning a tournament or anything. Reporting for duty. Which i suppose underscores some of the differences between israel and most other places. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1129540635307&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull look at henin-hardanne (sp?) posted by: ludwig 09:44 5.31.06 She isn't a true power player and yet she has won a number of tournaments. The Williams sisters want to be fashion designers, not tennis players. Hingis can worm her way up to the top 5 if she paces herself (no need to enter every tournament) and dedicates herself to tennis. she's consistent, possesses an posted by: rabelais 07:43 5.31.06 and doesn't harbor show-biz dreams like Serena... could take her far. she won the Italian Open recently, in 2nd on Tour with 31 wims, and has beaten most of the women in the top 10 in the process... maybe not a regular future member of the top 5, but if she stays healthy, seems like she could go back to being a force. hats off, hingis. connors...mcenroe...nastasie.. posted by: publius 22:52 5.30.06 she's almost a throwback to a time when every utterance and move by a top 20 player wasn't scripted by nike... that said, i still don't see how she's going to overcome the problems that knocked her out of the game last time around. namely that her particular brand of finesse tennis got steamrolled when the women's game changed to a power affair. the williams sisters (especially serena) simply blew her off the court. i haven't seen her play in her comeback yet, and she doesn't look demonstrably bigger in a mark mcgwire sort of way, so i have a hard time seeing her getting herself back into the top 5 on any consistent basis. but a boy can hope... yep, she is a looker...and do posted by: rabelais 22:30 5.30.06 "I don't think I was totally tested today; it's hard to say something after 6-2, 6-2 against Lisa Raymond," Hingis said. "I'm sure once you work yourself into the tournament, you can tell more." Even at age 25 and after a 3-year break from the game, Hingis is not yet a model of diplomacy. It is a character trait that makes her worth listening to — and one that got her into trouble on this same Center Court when she had the audacity to cross the net and walk deep into Steffi Graf's side of the court to question a line call in the midst of the melodrama of a final that she would end up losing in 1999. one of my favorite sports to w posted by: publius 21:11 5.30.06 and i am pleased as punch at the return of martina hingis. she may be no julia stiles, but she's my favorite female tennis player, and her comeback (i had no idea she was up to number 15 in the world) makes me giddy (though, like pretty much every other male in the world, when sharapova is playing i find it difficult to leave the television beaming her russian loveliness into my home). http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/news/reports/2006-05-30/200605301148966368632.html