Mr. Federer

Mr. Federer, we are not satisfied with your performance. Hop to it!

Oooh. I think I just got taller!

Technorati Tags: tennis

Changing Tennis Style & Grips

Peter Bodo has a post over at TennisWorld entitled House of Laver that you shouldn't miss.

I want to zero-in on a point he makes.

It's always been interesting to me that the more radical stylists and clay-court experts - Bjorn Borg and Rafael Nadal come to mind immediately - are the ones who appear to play tennis in the most natural, technique-and-theory free way. In keeping with recent thoughts I posted on Nadal, this impression that he plays like a kid who just picked up a racket, never bothered to find out how to hold the danged thing, then cut a swath to the top, is part of the larger whole. And let's not forget that while the western may be the most natural, it is neither the most elegant nor, necessarily, the most fruitful forehand grip. There is something intrinsically unschooled about those who use the Western grip, despite all the hard work and discipline such players may invest in their games.

The point isn't that this is the best or only way to excel (in fact, he contrasts this with Roger Federer's refined technical style), but players do get to the top this way.

Speaking of Manolo Santana then, Bodo writes...

They broke the mold after they made Santana, but perhaps one day we'll see a player of his ilk once again. It is, in the end, tennis is a game in which the individual always finds a way to express his talents and impulses, regardless of technique and theory.

And I'll wager that even Roger Federer doesn't consciously try to mold his form half as much as those dissecting and trying to copy it do.

This article also points out something important about grips. The standard advice on grips dates to Rod Laver's time, when equipment and court surfaces were much different. Likewise with the standard advice to hit approach shots with underspin.

And so, though the standard advice lives on, the Eastern Forehand grip and the Continental grip are disappearing from the professional tour. More and more players hit approach shots with topspin and never dare to hit them crosscourt.

Technorati Tags: tennis

Australian Open: Djokovic defeats Tsonga for the Title

The No. 3 seed, Novak Djokovic of Serbia, won the Australian Open men's singles title by defeating unseeded Jo-Wilfried Tsonga of France 4-6, 6-4, 6-3, 7-6(2).

Djokovic dropped just one set en route to the title. He hit 46 winners and 11 aces in the final.

I feel kind of relieved. I've played at least the semi-finals in every Grand Slam in the last year. I was pretty close in the US Open, so probably today I was a bit nervous at the start 'cause I found myself in the strange situation: that I am the favorite in the finals of a Grand Slam, which is not usual for me. So it was dangerous, but I managed to cope with the pressure well and to win... It's probably indescribable feeling, something that I always dreamed of... I think every player dreams about winning a Grand Slam. For everybody who wins a Grand Slam, you have to give them a lot of appreciation and respect. I just felt it now... Hopefully in the future I'm gonna feel it more.

The title solidified Djokovic's world No. 3 ranking. His performance in the tournament boosted Tsonga from No. 38 to 18.


Throughout the tournament, Tsonga defeated three top-10 players and served 100 aces, more than any other player.

Not everybody can beat the players who I beat, so to beat them gives me a lot of confidence. ...I'm very proud of myself. I'm happy for Novak, because he played unbelievable today. I don't know if I have to be sad or happy of this final, but I feel great. It's just unbelievable because the crowd was unbelievable. A lot of noise and everything. I had goose bumps. It was crazy.

This was the first slam of the Open era in which no American - in singles or doubles - made it past the quarterfinals.

It was also the first slam since the Australian Open 2005 in which the men's singles not won by Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal.

Speaking of... via the BBC:

Despite his victory, the world number three [Djokovic] does not expect an immediate changing of the guard and the imminent demise of number one Roger Federer.

No kiddin'.

Technorati Tags: tennis

Roger Federer: "I have created a monster."

Via the BBC:

World number one Roger Federer believes he is a victim of his own success after his shock 7-5 6-3 7-6 (7-5) defeat to Novak Djokovic in the Australian Open.

Hold the phone. "Shock" defeat? It's a "shock" that Roger Federer ever loses a tennis match? A TENNIS match? One might as well be shocked that a major league pitcher ever loses a baseball game. But Roger Federer ever losing a tennis match, even to a top-ranked player like Djokovic, is a "shock"?

No it ain't a shock. Calling it one is sexing up the "story."

In fact, any sportswriter who says such an ignorant thing has no business being a sportswriter. He or she should be writing sell copy for an ad company.

Federer, 26, lost at the tournament for the first time since 2005, ending a 19-match unbeaten run in the process.

Notice how the writer is all ho-hum about that 19-match winning streak. He plays that down. Instead he hypes up the one loss.

He said: "I've created a monster that I need to win every tournament - still, the semi-finals is not bad.

No, Roger, you didn't create the monster. The press is the monster, and you didn't create it.

Tennis isn't the big gig. To get noticed for assignments on the big gigs, you've gotta get the editors' attention. "60 Minutes" let the genie out of the bottle back in the 1970's by adopting fiction-writing techniques in journalism.

So, it's no longer "who, what, why, where, when, and how." Now it's all "conflict (controversy) and suspense."

You create suspense with story questions like "Oh my! Is Indiana Jones about to be emasculated by that raging rhinoceros?"

Suspense, guaranteed to tantalize the audience so they tune-in again tomorrow to buy more of what you're selling, in hopes of find out the answer to this excruciating question. It's called "hooking" your audience.

Kind of like the weather forecast does. The "news" is like that today: it's no longer about today, it's a big fat "what if" about tomorrow.

Nothing wrong with manipulating the audience that way in fiction, because fiction is supposed to be fiction solely for entertainment. But the news supposed to be fact solely for information.

To make it exciting entertainment instead, you just leave everything out of a news report except whatever can be trumped up into some kind or controversy or suspense hook. What does this warping and cherry-picking of the news do to it?

As in politics. The press couldn't be less interested in the candidates' stands on the issues. Their "story" is all about the race. "Oh my! Is So-and-So about to crash and burn? What if he/she doesn't win this primary?" If that worthless junk sells, fine, but don't try to pass it off as legitimate news.

And the candidates know that the only way to get any air time is to make some outrageous accusation against a political opponent. Nothing else is "newsworthy."

Similarly, in press briefings, reporters show no interest in getting information. Instead they spend the whole time arguing policy with government officials and trying to wrestle from them some statement that can be trumped up into some "controversy" or dramatic admission of failure or guilt or a story question that amounts to the headline: "Is Doomsday at Hand?" Tune-in tomorrow in hopes of finding out.

Translation to sports, where the story question is "Oh my! Is the great Roger Federer about to crash and burn?"

Subliminal message: "Tune-in again tomorrow in hopes of finding out, so we can make more money selling ad space."

That's why they aren't interested in the match itself - only in whatever suspense and controversy they can manufacture from selected facts in it.

In other words, they are deliberately making something out of nothing.

They do the same thing to Venus and Serena Williams all the time. Don't listen to them. Don't let them make you think you should feel terrible about losing a tennis match. That's ridiculous, and everyone but them knows it.

Technorati Tags: tennis

Australian Open: Novak Djokovic defeats Roger Federer to reach the final

Today down under in the land of tommorrow Novak Djokovic defeated Roger Federer yesterday 7-5 6-3 7-6 (7-5).


Something unsettling about that picture.

Roger Federer is one of the few players who actually says something in his pressers. So, let's see what he said about the match.

"There's no doubt I've played better in my life," Federer said afterwards. "I've not been really serving like the way I wanted to, maybe the last few matches. Look, it happens. But he covered the court well. He didn't give me much."

"So that obviously played a role in the way I played tonight. But … I wasn't completely satisfied. He's come through the draw convincingly. He's been playing very solid. He had a tough draw, you know, if I compare it to maybe Rafa's (Rafael Nadal's). So he absolutely deserves to be in the final."

Having started the tournament in convincing fashion, particularly when he conceded just three games against Fabrice Santoro in the second round, Federer had to dig deep to get through his third-round meeting with Djokovic's compatriot Janko Tipsarevic.

And while he followed that victory with straight-sets wins over Czech Tomas Berdych and American James Blake, Federer added later that he hasn't felt completely comfortable throughout the fortnight.

"No, I don't, I didn't think I was moving that great," he said. "I think I played really well the first two matches, in terms of movement also. I don't know if the surface got a bit quicker."

"I definitely wasn't as good on the defensive like I usually am. I couldn't come up with the passing shot when I needed to. Yeah, that definitely hurt me, especially today."

Still coming to terms with the defeat when he faced reporters shortly after the match was over, Federer did manage to find some positives in the fact that he made Djokovic earn the win.

"There's some sort of a disappointment. But, you know, from the spirit, the way I fought, the way I tried, it's all I could give, you know," he said. "When you give a hundred per cent, you know, you're sort of happy with your performance."

"It can't always go your way. I know that. I've won, many, many times when I didn't expect myself to win. So tonight's one of those nights where you're a little bit disappointed. But it's going to go over and I'm going to look forward to the rest of the year."

According to Federer though, the turning point of the match was clearly when he dropped his own serve at 5-4 in the first set when he was serving for it.

"We all know if I would have served it out the match would have been a bit different," Federer said. "Sure, he could have come back and still beaten me, but circumstances of would have been different. He wouldn't have played that freely in the second set."

"He usually doesn't play that well. That was unfortunate for me. You know, I paid the price twice, not only losing the set, but also the second set. You know, I missed many opportunities the third set."

"But, like I said, he came up with some great shots, some great serves, and, you know, saved himself that way."

The loss kept Federer from reaching his 11th straight Grand Slam final.

Today Djokovik will play Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in yesterday's final tomorrow ... or something like that.

Technorati Tags: tennis

Tennis Confidence - A Kind of Magic - Not

All tennis players know that confidence is everything. When you play with confidence, you play well, and most of your shots go in. The opposite of confidence is diffidence. When you play with diffidence, you play poorly, and most of your shots go out – simply because you fear that they will.

It is no wonder then that players get superstitious about confidence. They view it as a kind of magic.

Success builds confidence, and failure erodes it. So, how do you gain confidence when playing badly?

In other words, how do you make yourself believe in yourself when reality seems to contradict that belief? Stating the question in these terms shows how akin belief in yourself is to a religious belief, which often likewise seems contradicted by observable reality.

The problem then becomes a question of how to maintain this belief in the face of facts that constantly challenge it.

Many people resort to manufacturing an artificial confidence, convincing themselves that they have this mysterious magical power despite all evidence to the contrary. It's a kind of self-delusion, a psyche job. Though it negates reality, they call it "positive thinking," which it ain't.

Since tennis is head-to-head competition, they forget that this "magic" is simple confidence and view it instead as some kind of inherent superiority to their opponents.

Delusions are powerful. They can work. As Bill Tilden said, you can impress belief of your inherent superiority on your opponent = make him or her feel inferior and psychologically dominated.

But the problem with delusions is that they are constantly assailed by reality. Therefore, it's a struggle to maintain them. You must keep brainwashing yourself and repressing self-doubt as it threatens to surface to consciousness and break the spell.

Sooner or later, it will. Then it's like you lost your mojo, and your game falls apart.

Venus and Serena Williams are not the only pro players afflicted with this superstitiousness. So are Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin. In fact, many players are. It can make you a flash in the pan, but it will desert you someday so that you don't build a career like Pete Sampras did or Roger Federer is doing.

What's more, when your mojo is gone, your opponents come out from under the spell of inferiority, as Brad Gilbert did when John McEnroe tried to make sure he got the message in their 1984 match: "Gilbert, you are the worst! The f***** worst! You don't belong on the same court with me!" Gilbert smelled blood and went on to win. McEnroe immediately took a sabbatical from tennis and never won another major tournament after he returned to the tour.

Unbelievable. John McEnroe, the guy who gets mad at himself for every error. Never won another major tournament. That is gross underachievement for a player of his caliber. It happened because he became dependent on his mojo and didn't think he could win without it = that he couldn't beat an opponent who thought he could win. Baloney.

So, you see this artificial confidence is no substitute for the real thing – a realistic level of true confidence in your ability, true confidence that isn't undermined by every error or sent skyrocketing by every great shot. A stable, tranquil self-confidence that nothing can shake. One based on an accurate perception of the facts. One that disregards whatever your ego is yakking at you.

During the early part of the decade Venus and Serena dominated women's tennis, largely through psychological warfare that upset the other women, most of which was waged off court – in the locker room, on the practice courts, and on the tournament grounds.

Over time though, the other women caught on. They recognized the contemptuous haughtiness as a mind game and stopped letting it get to them. Venus and Serena have not dominated since.

I bet they never will again. But that is no reason to think that they aren't good enough players to still win their share of tournaments. Serena, especially, just needs to lose the superstitiousness and replace it with Andre-Agassi style modesty and hard work.

In the midst of all the gobbledygook and conflicting messages she sent during her presser yesterday, Venus said this in answer to the shark who asked "If people start talking about the Williams era being over, what would you have to say to them?":

I've been a champion. I have full expectations and aspirations to continue to play high-quality tennis and to continue to be a champion.

And she should have. Her track record proves that to be a realistic appraisal of her ability. She needs no self psyche job to achieve it.

Technorati Tags: tennis

Australian Open: Federer defeats Tipsarevic

Roger Federer just defeated Janko Tipsarevic in a cliff hanger 6-7 (5-7) 7-6 (7-1) 5-7 6-1 10-8. In the fifth set, the first 16 games went to the server until Federer came back from 40-0 down to break the Serb's serve. Federer then served out the match.


His next opponent will be either Juan Monaco or Tomas Berdych.

James Blake (12) also advances, beating Sebastian Grosjean, whom he'd never beaten before, battling back from down two sets and then a double-break in fourth.

"That's got to be my biggest comeback — down two sets to love, two sets to one, two breaks; 4-1 in the breaker, 5-3 in the breaker," Blake said. "Just seemed like every time there was a mountain to climb ... couldn't have been a better feeling than to accomplish what I did."

Blake said the key was keeping calm.

"I don't think a lot of people like my chances, but I always do — no matter what my body language says."

Now Lleyton Hewitt and Marcos Baghdatis are vying for a spot in the fourth round.

Technorati Tags: tennis

Australian Open: 2nd Round, Day 4

It's late tonight in Australia, and Marat Safin of Russia is still playing Marcos Baghdatis of Cyprus. Baghdatis won the first two sets 6-4, and Safin came back to win the next 6-2. He leads 5-3 in the fourth.

Earlier today, Roger Federer defeated Fabrice Santoro 6-1, 6-2, 6-0 in just 1 hour and 20 minutes.

This was Santoro's 62nd Grand Slam tournament appearance, breaking Andre Agassi's record.

"It was a tough match for me," Santoro explained. "It was not easy to have fun, but I tried to have some."

Despite the rout, Santoro was ready to take on Federer again.

"Because it's so beautiful, what he's doing," the 35-year-old Frenchman said. "At my age, you can be able to play your match and appreciate your opponent, too.

"Today, I feel like he's coming from somewhere else. I served quite good. I was moving well. I was fit physically. I was hitting the ball well. And I won three games."

What a breath of fresh air. Here's the whole interview. See also Federer out-foxes Santoro.

Lleyton Hewitt, Novak Djokovic, David Nalbandian, James Blake, Juan Carlo Ferrero, David Ferrer, Fernando Gonzalez, Tomas Berdych, Sam Querrey, Sebastian Grosjean, Vince Spadea, Juan Monaco, and Marin Cilic also advanced to the third round of the men's singles.

On the women's side, Ana Ivanovic, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Venus Williams, Daniela Hantuchova, Anna Chakvetadze, Nadia Petrova, Sania Mirza, Na Li, Katarina Srebotnik, Maria Kirilenko, Agnieszka Radwanska, Marta Domachowska, Virginia Ruano Pascual, Ekaterina Makarova, Sabine Lisicki, and Caroline Wozniacki (Whew!) advanced to the third round.

With a name like mine, I'm pretty good at slavic names, but this list has me reeling! Some of them I have no idea how to pronounce even.

Technorati Tags: tennis

Australian Open: Day 4

It's tomorrow morning Down Under, and Day 4 of the Australian Open will begin in a few hours.

The big surprise so far was 9th seeded Andy Murray of the UK losing to the talented Frenchman Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the first round, 7-5 6-4 0-6 7-6(5).

Murray actually won more points. Tsonga hit both a ton of winners (57) and a ton of unforced errors (61).

Today in the second round, Roger Federer, the world No.1 and top seed, takes on the 35-year-old Frenchman, Fabrice Santoro, and Marat Safin takes on 15th seed Marcos Baghdatis of Cyprus, who reached the finals here in 2006.

Santoro is delighted at this chance to play Federer at least once before he retires.

Note to Lleyton Hewitt: Don't call your coach "Roachey."

More later when the matches are underway.

Technorati Tags: tennis

Sampras Beating Federer

Some folks just can't let things happen the way they happen. Via the Dysfunctional Tennis Blog: Federer Lets Sampras Win.

Oh, so Pete can't win, can he? Because even if he does win you won't let him have won. So he either loses or doesn't win, right?

Here he is at 36 years old and has has just beaten the best player in the world, and you have to deny him his victory. That sucks.

Sure, the series was interesting to watch, fun to speculate the “what ifs”, but as I’ve said before, the only thing this it proves (or proved) is that both Federer and Sampras like the cash.

Wrong. The series proves that Sampras' game and Federer's game match up pretty well against each other. Wouldn't it be great if they were closer in age so we could see them compete against each other in major tournaments?

But some folks are driven on the winds of change like weathervanes. Sampras was around for only six months when they all pontificated that he was the GOAT. And then and he wasn't gone for six months months before the stampede turned and started pontificating that Federer is the GOAT.

Jeez, they all sound like caucus of crows darkening the trees in the fall. Guess what, folks? These know-it-alls don't know what they say they know. They never saw Bjorn Borg, Stan Smith, Rod Laver, Jack Kramer, Fred Perry, or Bill Tilden play, but they think they know who the GOAT is. Yes, I know I'm supposed to pretend I never thought of that.

And like who really cares, anyway?

But I digress. Let's look at that again:

Sure, the series was interesting to watch, fun to speculate the “what ifs”, but as I’ve said before, the only thing this it proves (or proved) is that both Federer and Sampras like the cash.

Fully bake that thought. Do either of these guys need the cash? It makes no sense to say that Pete Sampras and Roger Federer go all the way to China to play an exhibition match just for the cash. When have we seen them chasing cash?

Yes, their track record. Always check out the target's track record before you accuse them of something. How Pete and Roger have behaved in the past is relevant. They are among the last players you could accuse of chasing cash. And people who've never chased cash before don't suddenly become different persons and start doing it overnight. So, that is an accusation that just won't stick to these two men.

Then Randall torpedoes his own assertion by continuing:

Federer has to be some sort of glutton for punishment. He really does. By losing last night he’s now opened himself up to even more vomit-inducing press questions in the coming months on the Great Debate.

Exactly. Thanks for winning my case by giving him a huge motive for wanting to win that match.

Roger had powerful motive to refuse to even play Sampras. This is hard to explain as anything other than a fine sense of sportsmanship in Roger, in taking on the challenge. Pete has nothing to lose in losing but Roger does.

So just what was the motivation behind Federer deciding to lose the finale, and lose in straight sets? Simple. It’s good for business.

Where is all this omniscience coming from these days? Is God passing it out to his favorites so they can be just like him, able to read minds?

Sampras beat Federer. Repeat it 99 times. It won't kill you. This is no great surprise, because the previous match had been very close.

You're accusing Fed of fraud. On what grounds? What evidence? Just divining, that's all. It is wrong to ever puposely lose a contest like a tennis match. But most people are too thoughtless to think a minute and realize that these days.

Roger Federer ain't one of them though. And Pete would rightly be insulted by Roger throwing the match.

What's more, people were betting on this match. That's match-fixing you're accusing Roger of. You say he did it for money and that he lost because it would be "good for business," like some pool sharp who throws a few games to sucker big betting.

Federer doesn't deserve such wild accusations. There is zero REASON or EVIDENCE for believing these things about him. He just lost a tennis match. That's possible, you know.

This is getting like politics, where everything that happens must prove your firmly held beliefs or you will twist the facts until it does.

Technorati Tags: tennis

Wimbledon: Afterword

If you'd like to read a good report (with great photos) on yesterday's Wimbledon final between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, see this one at Craig Hickman's Tennis Blog. I'll highlight some of the points I'd like to comment on.

I remain surprised by how many players don't recognize Raja's tendency to serve flat out wide in the ad court on big points.

It is surprising, isn't it - even pros miss an awful lot of what goes on in the heat of the battle. Andre Agassi once said that people would be surprised to discover how little pros' play has to do with tennis, because they are so busy thinking nothing but, "Win the next point!"

It is the consequence of a noisy mind. Understandable on Centre Court during a Wimbledon final, but still a hindrance.

When your mind is thinking, it automatically distracts your attention inward, onto your thoughts. You WILL then fail to notice things out on the court. All tennis players struggle with this, even the pros.

I think that today's pro players aren't as good at controlling and quieting their minds as past tennis greats were. Why? Simply because they have a crutch = a coach. They expect their coaches to notice these things for them.

Unfortunately, your coach can't tell you that Raja serves flat out wide to the ad court on big points until the match is over. Besides, your coach is an aide, not someone you should depend on to do your observing and thinking for you.

How often does it happen that a player, even at this level, wins an intense tiebreak and drops serve immediately in the next set? I wish I had the stats.

So do I. It's the letdown that occurs in that situation. You must be ready for it, adjust you tactics (not strategy) accordingly, and mentally stoke your fire.

Then Hickman goes on to relate Federer's unravelling to the point that he asks for Hawk-Eye to be turned off. Of course the request was denied, so Federer started sarcastically whining as though Hawk-Eye and Company are "homering" him here in England, in favor of the guy from Spain.

I guess Andy Roddick is in the final, because Raja continues a dialogue with no one in particular, asking after a Rafa shot misses just over the baseline, "How was that one? Was that in?"

An unraveling that has silenced the entire stadium. The fans can barely applaud any of the points won or lost. Raja fights off a deuce after a double fault, and yet another flat serve ace out wide gets him on the scoreboard in the fourth set. Fans, still stunned, applaud tepidly.

Can you blame them? Atta way to take yourself down off that pedestal, Roger: act like a child.

Federer is on the verge of a breakdown, but guess what saves him at that very moment?


Hickman makes the crucial point that the rain delays are what caused unfairness - in Federer's favor, not against him. The rain delays created a final in which Federer was physically and mentally fresh, while Nadal was physically and mentally exhausted. Not fair.

Rafa's mental exhaustion showed through in the tiebreakers, where mental strength is most tested. And his physical exhaustion showed through in this inflammation of the knee injury.

True, this was no deliberate favoritism. But that doesn't make it any less unfair. Wimbledon should do everything possible to make sure that rain can't create such an unfair situation, especially in the finals, ever again.

Do read the rest.

Technorati Tags: tennis

Roger Federer Wins Wimbledon Championship

Women's Singles Champion: Venus Williams (seeded 23) of the United States defeated Marion Bartoli (seeded 18) of France in yesterday's final.

Men's Singles Champion: Top seeded Roger Federer of Switzerland defeated second seeded Rafael Nadal of Spain in the final today.

This was before the match...

Kinda like Yin and Yang, eh?

Image, image, image. If you ask me, they're both a little silly. But, boy, can they play tennis.

Women's Doubles Champions: Cara Black of Zimbabwe and Liezel Huber of South Africa defeated Katrina Srebotnik of Slovakia and Ai Sugiyama of Japan

Men's Doubles Champions: Arnaud Clement and Michael Llodra of France. Seeded 10th, today they defeated top seeded Bob and Mike Bryan of the United States in the final.

Mixed Doubles Champions: yet to be determined.

Technorati Tags: tennis