Weekend Wrap: Pennetta Flips Off Chair Ump; Gonzo, Cilic, Tsonga Win Titles

“Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps get caught hitting a bong and his biggest concerns are keeping his sponsors? Nice sport.”

I don’t get it. Do you mean that we should congratulate swimming for recognizing that marijuana is not a performance enhancer (unlike tennis which sent Hingis packing for a little snort)? Or were you being a sarcastic teetotalling ninny?

Oh, and I don’t blame Sania Mirza one bit for begging off Fed Cup. Indians have wholly dysfunctional relationship with their famous athletes bordering on obsessive idolatry; combined with the fact that she’s Muslim and the attendant fundamentalist in(s)anity, I’m surprised she doesn’t ask for asylum in Bradenton, FL …

February 9th, 2009 at 12:27 am

Just to clarify, I think tennis was right to ban Hingis since cocaine is potentially a performance enhancer during competition. Swimming would have been wrong to ban Phelps for doping (any “performance enhancement” during competition would be limited to relaxation; this is the offseason for swimming).

February 9th, 2009 at 12:40 am

Here, here Hypnos!
I was going to post similar comments re: Phelps and Mirza but you beat me to the punch.
Thanks for being a voice of reason.

February 9th, 2009 at 5:10 am

Guillermo “The Juice” Canas? LOL :)

February 9th, 2009 at 2:52 pm

“GOLLIWOG” !! This Thatcher woman deserve to be fired, this is uncalled for, thanks to BBC for showing good example.

“He insisted on watching me provide a sample, literally with my trousers round my ankles” says Murray

Oooooooh Nooooo !! Unbelivable. This is breaching peoples privacy !! Is this what they do to all athlets, litelary watching them while they pee…. unblelivable !! I remember reading it somewhere Federer saying he is OK with it, I guess he hasn’t had to pee in front of these dudes yet ?

February 9th, 2009 at 5:29 pm

“Murray is not a fan of the new super-strict drug testing program instituted by the ATP that came into effect at the beginning of the year, requiring players to let the international doping body WADA know where they are for one hour per day, ‘every day on the year’.”

They are ONLY required to inform WADA of their whereabouts for ‘one hour per day’, at a time that’s convenient to them between 6:00 am and 11:00 pm each day for a 3 month period. It doesn’t necessarily mean that WADA will be stopping by every day of that 3 month period to take a sample. The athletes who are complaining are making a big deal out of nothing. It’s a matter of complying with a new rule and new rules always initially produce rebellion by a few who are normally non-compliant in life with anything, or feel such things are infradig for them.
____________

“To win it is my dream this year,” Nadal told Spanish media during an interview from Melbourne. Spain will face Serbia in the first round in early March. “It’s a dream more than an objective,” Nadal said.

How could winning Davis Cup, AGAIN, be a dream for him? Usually one’s dream is fulfilled once a person’s wishful thinking/dream was fulfilled the first time, and in Nadal’s case the Davis Cup “dream” was fulfilled when he won his first Davis Cup. Does this mean that dream was not originally fulfilled the first time, or he needs to annually fulfill the Davis Cup dream? He can’t seem to get enough of a good thing, so Nadal, knock yourself out. I just hope we don’t begin to hear about the season being too long, or hard-court is too bad for his perpetual knee tendinitis problem.

If I were Federer I would pull out of Davis Cup, because if Switzerland were to meet Spain in the final, and the two meet, then Fed will suffer another defeat at Nadal’s hands, and I don’t think Fed would be able to handle any more defeats at Nadal’s hands. If the AO was ‘killing him” then the The Davis Cup defeat will definitely “kill him”.

Nadal is not talking about the unattainable “GOAT” status, but all of his actions demonstrate that he wants to be the best in tennis now and forever. He’s lucky he doesn’t live in the US because we’ve been there and done that so many times in Davis Cup, and other titles, but our athletes unfortunately, don’t get the deserved recognition. However, for Nadal, placing Spain in the limelight, and he’s the one doing it, it’s got to be very ego-boosting for him. The guy already has several Spanish halos, how many more will be enough, or what will it take, to quench his unspoken desire to make him the “best Spanish player ever” and the Nadal family’s gift to Spain? I’d say probably a room in Spain’s Royal residence. Oy Vey.

February 9th, 2009 at 6:22 pm

Wow Von… pretty negative post there. Obviously Nadal wasn’t there to celebrate the Davis Cup win with his team last year. So it’s understandable that he wants to win it again this year.

Also, what’s wrong with these guys being ambitious? Spain won the Davis Cup once, is that reason enough to give up on the Davis Cup?

“If the AO was ‘killing him” then the The Davis Cup defeat will definitely “kill him”.”

Funny :)

But realistically I’d love to see Federer play more Davis Cup and try to win it. When you think about it, it is something that is missing from his great list of accomplishments.
Pete Sampras’ performance in the 1995 Davis Cup final (on clay) was one of the highlights of his career. Maybe Roger could emulate that?

February 9th, 2009 at 7:03 pm

Von: Do I smell a bit of resentment towards nadal ?

The guy did not participate in the davis cup victory last year, even though spain won it. He wants to win the last match point, that is a different feeling all together. What is wrong with that being his dream ? He has already won everything big thats needs to be won, winning the last match point on each of them but not davis cup.

I don’t prefer Nadal style of play but I appreciate his tenacity, his “play every point like match point” attitude. I don’t see anyone as mentally strong as nadal at the moment. But I am secretly hoping someone, just someone to beat him at the french open………

February 9th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

Oleg & Kimmi:

No resentment, just his statement. he’s won it once before and got the medal. My point is his statemnt, how many times does one fulfill a dream? It’s as if I’d say it’s my l,ife-long dream to meet Prince charles and then I meet him — dream fulfilled. After that, wouldn’t it be kind of stupid for me to say again, it’s my dream to meet Prince charles. come on you tow, he’s been there and done that. The novelty has passed. Maybe it’s just his objective and desire to win every Davis Cup henceforth. hat i’ll understand, but not the dream thing.

____________
Oleg: I explained my views on Nadal previously to you. I don’t like a lot of the stuff he says and does, and I’m yet to understand how people can say he’s the most humble and respectful guy on tour, and well-liked in the locker room. To me he’s not a class act, but a good class actor. If he was so nice and wonderful, then in that case, Federer would not be voted as the best among his peers. I don’t like Nadal’s arrogance, and his disrespect towards his opponents, his time violations, et al. I used to like him, but I got turned off by his on-court demenour towards the other players. I was brought up to listen to people when they’re talking, and I think he is extremely unmannerly when he keeps his opponent waiting at the net, then does all the stupid jumping jack semantics while the Umpire is speaking. sorry, that’s just my preference.

February 9th, 2009 at 7:19 pm

Oleg:

Pete’s 1995 performance in DC was superb. I always remember the scene where they had to take him out because he couldn’t stand up. Pete is/was my all-time fave.

February 9th, 2009 at 7:21 pm

Kimmi:

“He has already won everything big thats needs to be won, winning the last match point on each of them but not davis cup.”

I don’t know if you know this, but Nadal’s won Davis cup once before, so this will not be the first time for him.

February 9th, 2009 at 8:28 pm

Von:”I don’t know if you know this, but Nadal’s won Davis cup once before, so this will not be the first time for him”

I did not know he won this before, when did he win it ?

I also I agree with you about his antics on the court. I always cringe when I see him

February 9th, 2009 at 8:48 pm

Sorry, I accidentally press submit while not finished my statement.

I mean, I always cringe when I see him making others wait during a coin toss. But I still see him as a very nice humble guy, I like his gestures to federer during the trophy presentation at the 09 AO. I thought that was very sweeeeeeet from Nadal.

But my wish is for someone to take him out at the FO this year…..The way it looks right now is “they might as well give him the trophy right now” feeling. He proved people wrong by winning AO and now he has a different dynamics on his GS winnings.

February 9th, 2009 at 8:56 pm

Kimmi:

He won DC with Moya in 2004, hence my statement about his DC dream being kind of silly to me.

I’m going to have to agree to disagree with you on the “humble” demeanour. I don’t see him as such. Also, I don’t deliberately wish for anyone to lose, and if he wins the FO again, well more power to him. You probably want Nadal to lose so that Fed could win — I’m not rooting for either so it doesn’t make a difference to me who wins. My feelings on the FO — may the best man win.

February 9th, 2009 at 9:12 pm

MEN IN OZ – by TW Poet Laureate, Mme Highpockets (Pete Bodo Tennis World)

Melbourne’s Grand Slam is a welcoming sight
To tennis fans hungry for summer and light.
It’s a place full of fun, a land of no worries,
Of seagulls and moths and tennis ball flurries.

Here the season begins and the players are rested;
New talent emerges—the old guard is tested.
The tension will build as the sun bakes the court,
And the Aussies will chant and sing their support..

The sun down in Oz can be blistering, cruel,
And only the fittest survive and stay cool.
Some guys lose their focus and some leave in tears,
And this was the hottest in one hundred years.

At the start of this tournament, Murray was favored,
Since the Summer of ’08, his form hadn’t wavered.
When we got to the quarters, all the top seeds were there,
But Murray lost early to “the guy with the hair..”

The “guy with the hair”, Fernando Verdasco,
Was hotter than fire or sun or Tabasco.
With a Davis Cup victory, his confidence rose,
And he was determined to beat all his foes.

The mens’ game is deep and that is a fact,
And Tsonga and Cilic are part of the pack.
Simon and Del Potro are in the top ten,
But Novak needs something to tune up his zen.

In the semis, Verdasco came out with guns blazing,
Taking Rafa to five sets—his forehand amazing.
Roddick, in great shape, gave us hope in the States,
And we now had our final—the two current greats..

Nadal was just brilliant and seemed very fit;
He was no longer sleeveless, but his kit was a hit.
We saw Roger improve as he moved through his draw;
And all we could do was observe him in awe.

The pressure on Roger was very intense;
He was gunning for Sampras—his goal was immense..
For Rafa, this trophy would keep him on top,
And would put him up there with the cream of the crop.
Their match was ablaze with glorious shots,
But also was scratchy and careless in spots.
Fed disappeared, to his own great chagrin,
And Rafa just said, “I came out here to win.”

In the end, Roger cried and lost his composure,
And Nadal felt his pain in that public enclosure.
And there amid shock and sadness for Federer
Stood the stark fact that Rafa’s getting better and betterer.

February 9th, 2009 at 9:13 pm

On Nadal’s “sweet” gestures to Fed at the AO, it’s always very easy to be magnanimous to your opponent when he loses. After all, you’re the one holding the trophy. Sweet gestures between athletes don’t phase me. I don’t care for them to be sweet, because it’s war. I like for them to be respectful and considerate though. My personal opinion is that it’s more for their image than anything else, e.g., the net hugs. Then there’s the applauding of the opponent’s shots. I’ll buy it that once in a while it’s genunine, but too many times, it’s looks kind of fake to me. Don’t go by my thinking though, I’m not an easy person to convince when it comes to sports, and when they get on court it’s, mano e mano. Have you ever looked at Nadal’s face and his mouth when he loses a point. His face is so contorted and he looks as though he’s ready to slice his opponent’s neck off. Never mind what he mouths off to himself. Then his arrogance when he wins a point, e.g., the lawnmower and the repeated fist-pumps, a la Hewitt. Many found Hewitt’s mannerisms to be insufferable, and yet those same people don’t see anything wrong with Nadal. To each his/her own.

February 9th, 2009 at 9:30 pm

Tennis coverage in the US really stinks to high hell! There’s free live streaming for matches played outside the US, but that’s not so for the US matches, e.g., San Jose. $39.95 will get you a live streaming pass for the whole tournament. If you don’t pay, sorry, no picture. What’s wrong with this picture? I’m angry.

February 9th, 2009 at 9:37 pm

Von “He won DC with Moya in 2004, hence my statement about his DC dream being kind of silly to me” I seriously did not know about this, I thought his chances were last year, maybe he would like to win the davis cup as the world number 1..i don’t know…..as what Oleg says, the guy is ambitious !!

Von, “You probably want Nadal to lose so that Fed could win”

As much as a admire Federer, I loose hope on him on winning the french. I think his big chances have come and gone. Now it will get tougher and tougher to reach the final. He needs his draw to open up big time to have a chance.

I have great hope on Monfils, murray and even Novak. But more Monfils, he has a game to win the FO if he can straighten himself mentally. last year he did very well, and I feel he has improved even more this year.

Murray, I feel he has a game to play on clay but he has always struggled more than any other surface. So i don’t how or what he can do to concur that.

Novak, He also has a chance, he is the one who gave nadal the hardest match last year. But IMO Novak seem to have some mental problems since last year to fix.

So, in a way I agree with you, let the best man win…but not nadal.

February 9th, 2009 at 9:37 pm

Kimmi says:

“I thought that was very sweeeeeeet from Nadal.”

I feel that way too, and I believe millions of people out there see it that way too…

February 9th, 2009 at 9:42 pm

“So, in a way I agree with you, let the best man win…but not nadal.”

;D. Hehe… I mean, nothing wrong with it. I will definitely hope the same if I am Roger’s fan.

February 9th, 2009 at 9:46 pm

“I feel that way too, and I believe millions of people out there see it that way too…”

And, many millions see it the other way too. In the end, we believe what we want to believe, we see what we want to see, and we hear what we want to hear. Whether we agree or disagree, we have to go with our instincts, and that’s all that matters on an individual basis. One man’s meat, is another man’s poison.

February 9th, 2009 at 9:48 pm

Kimmi:

“So, in a way I agree with you, let the best man win…but not nadal.”

Awwhh, Kimmi, shame on you! You’d deny Nadal that win even though he was so “sweeeeet” to Fed? That “sweetness” didn’t go very far with you, did it? Ha, ha.

February 9th, 2009 at 9:53 pm

“And, many millions see it the other way too. In the end, we believe what we want to believe, we see what we want to see, and we hear what we want to hear. Whether we agree or disagree, we have to go with our instincts, and that’s all that matters on an individual basis. One man’s meat, is another man’s poison.”

Yeaaaaa right! Hopefully you will apply that when people talk rubbish about Roddick.

February 9th, 2009 at 9:57 pm

Von: I guess not sweet enough for me to support him on that win, but I guess it will not matter what I want anyway.

I see your cry on the US tennis. $39.95 to watch live streaming on san jose????? Thats is a lot of money for just one tornament. I will be watching Rottardam over the weekend. I bought yearly subscription on tennistv. In canada there is very little tennis one can watch from the TV so have always subscribe on MS TV for previous years and I enjoyed it and thought its worth it.

February 9th, 2009 at 10:19 pm

That hug he gave Rog was not humble sportsmanship, it was, “boy, you are now officially my BEEEoautch.” The ATP should rename themselves the ABS. Rafa is the A-Dawg, the rest are the Association of Bending Sheep.

February 9th, 2009 at 11:22 pm

“And, many millions see it the other way too. In the end, we believe what we want to believe, we see what we want to see, and we hear what we want to hear. Whether we agree or disagree, we have to go with our instincts, and that’s all that matters on an individual basis. One man’s meat, is another man’s poison.”

“Yeaaaaa right! Hopefully you will apply that when people talk rubbish about Roddick.”

What is it that’s so wrong aabout my comment? You don’t want to hear that not everyone sees him as so wonderful and sweet as you see him? I can show you multiple threads where Roddick was crucified by Nadal’s favorite fan and several others. I’m accustomed to it. Whatever rubbish is spoken about Roddick I’m aware of, with respect to his umpire tiffs and everything else the other players, including Nadal are also guilty of doing. Roddick doesn’t hold the record on anything that the others won’t or haven’t done before. At least one thing I can vouch for with Roddick, he’s not a hypocrite, and he tells it like he sees it. He doesn’t cover it up with a shrug or a twist of the mouth or the other stuff I see from some of the other players. If he’s asked a straightforward question, he gives a straightforward answer. I can handle that, and it’s why I like him. You like the sweetness, enjoy it, but don’t expect me to say I like it. I’m not asking you to like Roddick. i don’t care who likes him. I like him and that’s what matter to me. It seems some of the nadal fans want him to win the mr. congenialikty award. Well wake up, not everyone likes those who ooze of sujgar. I prefer potato chips to cookies.

_____________
Milo:

“boy, you are now officially my BEEEoautch.”

Nahh, it was an “I’ve got you just where I want you, sucker. No?”. “Cry your heart out on my shoulder, I’m enjoying every bit of it, there, there, daddy’s here?”

February 9th, 2009 at 11:52 pm

Typos galore:

“It seems some of the nadal fans want him to win the mr. congenialikty award. Well wake up, not everyone likes those who ooze of sujgar. I prefer potato chips to cookies.”

Should read: “It seems some of the Nadal fans want him to win the Mr. Congeniality award. Well, wake up, not everyone likes those who ooze sugar. I prefer potato chips to cookies.”

February 9th, 2009 at 11:55 pm

Maybe Nadal can send Rog a “Rafa doll,” so he can cry himself to sleep every night? Or should it be a Laver doll? Either way, I’m not much of a fan of seeing grown men cry, unless it’s about something meaningful and important — like the time this hot stripper in Tijuana picked up my $20 without using her hands.

I guess if Roger was crying about the “wuss factor” of his pretty one-hand backhand, I can accept it.

February 10th, 2009 at 1:06 am

Maybe the Swiss can break with tradition and attack and conquer Spain. Then Roger + Raf can win the Davis Cup and cry together…and we all lived happily ever after.

February 10th, 2009 at 1:20 am

Von, I want to ask you a few simple questions.

1. Have you ever seen any of my comments stating anything bad about Roddick like yours towards Nadal?
2. Is it wrong for me to defend Nadal WHENEVER I THINK IT IS NECESSARY?

February 10th, 2009 at 1:41 am

Ezorra:

1. No, I don’t recall seeing anything bad written by you with regard to Roddick, whatever “bad” means, in your opinion. I don’t view everything written about Roddick as bad, and I’ve ignored many derogatory statements written. The most recent comments concerned the AO, where many Djoko fans blamed Roddick for a lot of stuff he didn’t do. I don’t know if you recall, I didn’t dispute them or defend him, because I felt they were just letting off steam due to Djoko’s loss. I also consider some statements to be stupid because of the prejudice towards the Americans.

Please tell me in your opinion, what bad things am I saying about Nadal that’s not true? I think I’m being very honest because I’m speaking from my perception of him and what i observe. I don’t understand why you are taking it so personal. You’ve blasted me big-time several months ago, especially when your other Nadal friend was posting, the two of you ganged up and I was being blasted from both sides. I hope you can remember that.

2. No, it’s not wrong for you to defend Nadal whenever you deem it necessary. You’ve never been deficient in that respect, and you should continue to do so. However, you need to step back and look at what you’re defending with respect to your dislike for other people’s comments concerning him, especially mine.

For instance, is it a lie when I or anyone else state he’s guilty of overly excessive time violations, thus abusing the rule? Is it also a lie when others have stated they don’t like his pretentions, playing down himself in favor of Federer? What about his on-court demeanour/antics, haven’t you seen many mention his utter disregard for his opponent at the net and on-court? Then there has been mention of his many medical time-outs and bathroom breaks when he’s losing, which others feel he does deliberately, thus throwing off his opponent’s rhythm? And, several other problems, of which I’m sure you’re aware. I’m guilty of expressing my opinions of what I like or dislike with respect to Nadal, but this is what forums are all about. What you’re looking for is not going to happen on this forum. People will express their likes and dislikes. I’ve never visited Nadal’s website, but I would assume that would be the only place where everyone would be saying wonderful things about him, because they are all in unison as to his greatness and wonderful personna, but, as I’ve stated, don’t expect to duplicate that atmosphere on a forum where posters of different fans post.

I apologize for hurting you, but I’m only being truthful – sometimes the truth hurts. And, to reiterate, you’re not wrong for defending him whenever you feel it is necessary to do so.

February 10th, 2009 at 2:36 am

Ezorra:

I’d like to ask you a couple of quetions also.

1. Don’t you think that there’s a grain of truth in the supposedly “bad’ statements made against Nadal by myself and other posters? I mean isn’t he at all guilty of even one or two of those accusations?

2. Do you feel that people are unjustly picking on Nadal because we dislike him, or better still, hate him? Hate is usually how some of his fans attribute any statements they don’t like whenever he’s criticized — people hate him?

3. Would you prefer it if I and others who criticize were to refrain from so doing? would that make you happy? Please tell me, what would you have us do?

I’m very curious as to how you view the criticisms whether they are baseless, without merit and with prejudice. Or maybe we are all straying from the intent and purpose of this forum, and are in violation of some hidden rules.

February 10th, 2009 at 3:14 am

Federer is the ultimate loser. He is the A-Rod of tennis.

February 10th, 2009 at 4:21 am

Fed’s favorite group on his Ipod:

Tears for Fears

February 10th, 2009 at 4:23 am

Von says:

“You’ve blasted me big-time several months ago, especially when your other Nadal friend was posting, the two of you ganged up and I was being blasted from both sides. I hope you can remember that.”

– Of course I remember. In fact, I still can’t forgive myself for doing that. Sorry again…

“I don’t understand why you are taking it so personal.”

– I take your comments very personal because they are yours, because I value your comments (and a few others’) more than I value other posters’. You might laugh to death hearing me saying this but truthfully, I’m hurt. I don’t care if the remarks are Ryan’s or Milo’s because I never value their comments.

To make it clear, I have the same opinion that everyone should be given an equal opportunity to express their opinions anytime they want. As you said, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But when they keep repeating the same stuffs/issues again and again and doing that very constantly, I start to ask myself, are there any hidden agendas behind it or are the statements are made just for the provocation purpose?

You ask:

1. Don’t you think that there’s a grain of truth in the supposedly “bad’ statements made against Nadal by myself and other posters? I mean isn’t he at all guilty of even one or two of those accusations?

-Maybe yes maybe not. However, is it necessary for us to repeat what we have said from the last 8 months again and again? What is the agenda behind it? Furthermore, if we want to accuse him of using drug (for example) to enhance his performance level, we should come out with VALID EVIDENCE such as the statements from the authorities, or maybe a video clips or pictures showing him doing all those stuffs to show that you’re responsible on your accusation. To me, if the allegations are solely based on our assumptions, that accusation should be perceived as baseless and considered as no more than a conspiracies plan to discredit particular players.

2. Do you feel that people are unjustly picking on Nadal because we dislike him, or better still, hate him? Hate is usually how some of his fans attribute any statements they don’t like whenever he’s criticized — people hate him?

-Not necessary but in your case, based on your style of writing towards him, I have to say that I do believe that you never like Nadal in anything he does. I’ve no problems with that at all because I cannot force everybody to like or hate him.

3. Would you prefer it if I and others who criticize were to refrain from so doing? Would that make you happy? Please tell me, what would you have us do?

-No, absolutely not! My only request would be give credit where credit is due! IMO you can criticize people whenever you want but it would be super nice if the intention is to encourage them to become a better person.

Sorry for all the grammatical errors!

February 10th, 2009 at 4:36 am

Rafa must be a psychologist’s dream, he is so full of tics and twitches, yes I know most are but he seems at the extreme end. Of course the pumping could be stopped but I’m not sure of a lot of the rest, it seems extremely ritualistic. One other thing, Uncle Tony turned a right handed boy into a left handed tennis player, the mental effort for this is astonishing and I don’t know how willing Rafa was, initially. It’s hardly mentioned in the British media except to marvel. Well, I don’t find it marvellous, I find it incredibly cold,calculating and damaging.

February 10th, 2009 at 4:49 am

Ezorra,

I have no first hand knowledge that Mick Jagger has used drugs. Would it be “crazy talk” to accuse him of such?

Catching a cheat is like catching Bigfoot — especailly when law enforcement or the powers-that-be show little concern. Cycling’s dirty secret wasn’t exposed until the French Police finally got involved and raided rooms.

February 10th, 2009 at 5:06 am

Ezorra:

I’m very sorry to have hurt you. it wasn’t my intention to do that, even though you think I don’t like Nadal. I DON’T enjoy deliberately hurting anyone, even if that person is my adversary. Again my apologies.

You don’t like the same things repeated over and over, however, it’s difficult to ignore them, since he keeps doing the same over and over. I will try to do my utmost to refrain from pointing out his faults, and it’s because I feel you are offended by those actions. If I do, remind me, and I will do my utmost to refrain from so doing. I can’t say i won’t do it again when the topic arises, but I’ll try to temper my remarks, just to please you.

You flatter me by saying you value my comments, and I thank you for the praise. I’ve mentioned before that I’ve found you to be fair-minded and I still mean that. You have to try to not let the comments get to you personally though. As you can see I ignore some remarks, because just look at the source. Right now there is a comment about Rodrick which is not nice, but would it serve any purpose if I were to answer? Absolutely none whatsoever, hence I’ll just let it go. And, this is what I mean when I say that you have to determine and deem fit what’s worth defending and what you should ignore. I used to be perpetually upset in the past when people, unjustly lashed out at Roddick, but I’ve worked on ignoring them and it has helped me to deal with the bad comments. I would advise you to try that approah. This way you’ll enjoy posting much more.

I hope I’ve cleared up some of the issues, and again, I apologize for offending/hurting you. Don’t worry, be happy. PAX.

February 10th, 2009 at 6:36 am

Hey Von:

I’ve now scheduled my DVR to record the SA Open semi-finals today and final tomorrow on TTC. Looking forward to it. I think he could do well at the French Open, and given that the power game doesn’t seem to have a big effect on him could see him doing well there. He’s got a much better shot at it than Monfils, who I think is a paper tiger.

I’m also looking forward to catching some of the Brasilian Open – last year Almagro had a fantastic match against Massu in Acapulco, and it would be nice for them to repeat it again this year in Costa da Sauipe. I’ve been waiting for that guy to show us something at the French Open, but last year, he really put up very little resistence to Nadal in the QF.

Finally, I find all this French belly-aching about Pennetta’s misbehavior to be pathetic. I’m certain that if Mauresmo had closed out her match point with an ace, they wouldn’t be complaining about anything. Pennetta probably figured she’d lose the match anyway, and lost it – bit deal. It’s up to Mauresmo to close it, which she didn’t (big surprise), but to complain about it later is pathetic.

February 10th, 2009 at 8:51 am

Von & Milo:
“boy, you are now officially my BEEEoautch.”

Nahh, it was an “I’ve got you just where I want you, sucker. No?”. “Cry your heart out on my shoulder, I’m enjoying every bit of it, there, there, daddy’s here?”

Ouch! Do you think Federer sensed that ? he gave back a very “thanks, you are welcome” smile. he was probably as blind as I was. Ouch !!

February 10th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

Aren’t you guys being a bit precious about your heroes? If you can’t bear criticism why don’t you just join a “I love Rodan” site and bask in superlatives? To me Fed is from Mount Olympus but I’m really interested in intelligent criticism of his game. It informs me. Even comments like “his opponents are bribed to lose” just make me laugh, which is a good thing.
If you saw Fed on song and didn’t feel this was one of the gods showing us how to play tennis, well I’m just sorry for you

February 10th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

Milo – that ipod quip was hilarious: “shout, shout, let it all out…). Do you do stand up or what?!

February 10th, 2009 at 3:17 pm

margot,

Re: right to left hand switch – “I find it incredibly cold,calculating and damaging.”

Calculating, yes. Cold, I am not sure. But damaging? The guy is the number 1 player in the world, with millions of dollars at age 22. Damaging how? Maybe, alas, to Fed’s backhand.

February 10th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

Milo,

“I have no first hand knowledge that Mick Jagger has used drugs.”

Sir Mick has been busted (remember the chocolate bar incident?) for drugs. So comparison is faulty. Rafa hasn’t. But they did catch him on film with his shorts down!

February 10th, 2009 at 3:22 pm

MM T:

Finally, you’re taking some action to record the matches. I have my DVR set to record too and am anxiously looking forward to seeing those matches tonight and tomorrow. Enjoy the matches! Have you noticed how little space is allocated to HD recordings on the FIOS DVR? Wow, it’s become very difficult for me to save recordings. I’m working on trying to record stuff on a regular DVD that’s connected to one of my other TVs because the HD extreme is erasing my saved recordings whenever space is needed for the new recordings.

BTW, did you see Lenny’s post wherein she listed a free tennis website that saves older matches. Perhaps you could check it out for the Emerson matches you’d like to watch. Her post is on the Nadal/Fed Postcript thread around Feb. 7th or 8th.

I would like to watch the Costa da Sauipe match also. Almagro has been a huge disappointment over the past year. He just rolled over and let Nadal stomp all over him at the FO. It was embarrassing.

I’m very upset that there isn’t any free live streaming for San Jose. Would you believe ATP is charging $39.95 just to watch live streaming for San Jose? What a rip-off. Is it any wonder why tennis is not flourishing as the other sports in the US. We can see free live streaming for matches played in other countries, but when our own American tourn aments are being played, we have to pay to watch. disgraceful.

Pete Sampras lost to Haas 7-5, 4-6 and 10-12 in his exho match in San Jose. He was originally scheduled to play Blake but it seems that there was a change and he played against Haas instead. Sampras beat Haas last year in their exho match, so this year Haas reurned the favour.

Blake and Fish are playing doubles at San Jose. Nadal lost his first round doubles match at Rotterdam.

I think Tsonga would do very well at the FO, way better than Monfils. I’m anxious to see how Tsonga is going to play against Nadal in Rotterdam where they should meet in the QFs. would you be interested in watching his matches there on live streaming? If yes, I’ll post the live streaming sites and match time whenever I come across same.

Set your DVR for Feb. 14th to record the “5 biggest upsets” which is a new segment of the “Best of 5” series. I’ve seen little clips when TTC advertises it, and it should be interesting. One little piece I saw was Roddick losing his first round match at the USO. That match broke my heart and I’ve heard him mention in an interview a while back, that that loss broke his heart.

Mauresmo is one of my few women faves. I love her serve and volley game and she has a very sweet one-handed backhand. Sadly, she’s a choker when it comes to closing out matches, and I feel it’s mostly her choke that was the problem than Penetta upsetting her which made her lose the match. I agree with you that the French FedCup team made an issue of nothing and it’s pathetic to be that unsportsmanlike. Grow up!

BTW how did you like our FedCup team? Our girls played with “heart” and are to be commended. I had them losing 4-1, but Oudin’s heart was bigger than the odds against them. I’m angry that neither of the Wiliams’ sisters could have made FedCup a priority and helped out, considering how weak the team was. Anyway, it turned out they weren’t need at all. I’m wondering if that put a little hole in their bubble and supremacy that the tie was won without them. I’m sure they won’t be so inaccessible in the future. The present Fed Cup team demonstrated true to form that “Where there’s a will, there’s a way”. Bravo!!!.

February 10th, 2009 at 5:40 pm

Von and MMT:
The Brazil Tournament and WTA Paris are livestreamed for free(I guess):
http://channelsurfing.net./

Check pages one and two for updates.

February 10th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

Mary:

Thanks for the links. I want San Jose. Why? My guy’s playing there. Even though I’d absolutely love to watch him play this evening, I refuse to $39.95. I think that ATP should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting the US fans for our own tournaments. shameful.
__________________
OOOOOHHHH; Jankovic hits out at Fed and tells him to ‘Mind his own business”. Follow the link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/

The shortcut’s not too good so here’s the lowdown:

Jelena Jankovic fires broadside at Roger Federer
Roger Federer should concentrate on his own career rather than criticising others, Serb Jelena Jankovic said on Tuesday after being irked by the Swiss master’s unflattering verdict on her number one world ranking last year.

By Telegraph staff
Last Updated: 4:59PM GMT 10 Feb 2009

Irritated: Jelena Jankovic has since moved down to third in the world rankings after Roger Federer’s comments Photo: AP
Last month, former world number one Federer hit out at the way the WTA rankings were calculated, saying a player who has never won a grand slam should not be granted the number one spot.

Jankovic reached the top spot in the WTA rankings in August having never won a major tournament. She lost her first grand slam final to American Serena Williams at last year’s US Open.

The Serb has since dropped down to third in the world following a shock fourth-round defeat to France’s Marion Bartoli at the Australian Open.

“To be honest, I do not like to talk about players, I really prefer to focus on myself,” Jankovic said in an interview at the Paris open.

She said she could not understand why Federer felt the need to hit out at women’s tennis while his great rival Rafa Nadal, who took over from the Swiss as world number one, was so “humble”.

“Why should he even care? I don’t like putting my nose in other’s business.

“I mean, one thing I like about Nadal is that he is such a great champion, he is so humble, always has kind words for everybody, he is a role model for everybody,” said Jankovic.

“Federer is a great champion, I don’t want to get in a fight with him but why does he care, I really don’t understand. Why does he need to do that?”

Federer also led the charge against Jankovic’s compatriot Novak Djokovic when he quit because of the heat in his Australian Open quarter-final match against Andy Roddick.

“I’m almost in favour of saying, you know what, if you’re not fit enough, just get out of here,” the Swiss said.

Jankovic said Federer should not criticise fellow players. “I don’t think it’s nice to attack other players.

“If he retired, he probably had his reasons, he knows better. You cannot attack someone when you don’t have proof, when you don’t have a piece of evidence.

“There is no reason to offend him that way.”

Jankovic will open her Paris Open campaign with a first-round match against Italian Francesca Schiavone.

Seems like Fed just lost a friend. OHHwwweeee

‘

February 10th, 2009 at 6:45 pm

Mary:

FYI. There are several articles on WADA/ITF/Beliguim, etc., on that site.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2325902/WADA-refuse-to-back-UK-doping-guideline.html

February 10th, 2009 at 7:17 pm

YAWN !!!
What is she on about ? Its not like its 1st time Djokovic has retired out of a match. The guy has a huge reputation. Is Djokovic and jelena from the same country, oooh yeah, i did not think about that.

If Djoker would have retired once or twice in his career with serious reasons, then no one would have made a big deal out of this. The guy has done that I think 7 time and counting. I think he should have finished the match and give Roddick his well deserved win, there was only few games left to do that.

I think jankovic should concentrate on how to be number 1 and win a grand slam.

If everybody was like humble Nadal I think tennis would be soo boring. I like about how Roddick joked regarding a series of illnesses Djoker would come with in the US open 08.

One wonders how many times this issues has come up, its because he keeps doing it over and over. Way to go Fed !!

February 10th, 2009 at 7:20 pm

Von and Milo:
Fire up the WAAHHHHmbulance for Murray.
I’d like to know who the hell released Nadal’s name as being tested at Rotterdam.It should be confidential as to who is tested when.
As much as I don’t like the guy, unless he releases his name, it should not be released until it is made public the next year or whatever.
And Murray should learn to STFU. Seriously, besides being bitchy, if I was tested the a few days after the open, even clean, I’d keep quiet. Why make it everyone’s business?
This is from sport.fr

Murray fed controls

Lundi 9 février 2009 Monday, 9 February 2009

The British tennis player Andy Murray, who suffered his 3rd Monday doping test in just over two weeks, has again criticized the system of controls established by the ATP since 1 January.

The Scotsman Andy Murray, world number 4, had to wait 1:30 after his match – lost – double the 1st day of the tournament in Rotterdam (Netherlands), to provide a urine sample, a fate also reserved to the N. World 1 Rafael Nadal also lost a dual match.

After a while the Australian Open, he had received a visit from a controller at his home at 7 am the day after his return from Melbourne.

Since 1 January, the ATP has adopted the code of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which requires that athletes provide a detailed timetable can be checked at any time.
“There are so many aspects that could be improved. We are human beings,” insisted Murray, criticizing in particular the fact that these rules apply to the 50 world leaders and not the rest of the players.

Monday, there was only one doctor available to make withdrawals from the five players selected for inspection, including Murray and Nadal.
“If you just finished a match, it was eager to go to the toilet. But I had to wait, you can not go forward control,” said the Scot.

February 10th, 2009 at 7:43 pm

I love Jelena.
“I mean, one thing I like about Nadal is that he is such a great champion, he is so humble, always has kind words for everybody, he is a role model for everybody,” said Jankovic.

February 10th, 2009 at 7:44 pm

You’re right Kimmi – the number of retirements for Djokovic is 7, but incredibly, 4 of them have occured at grand slams (FO 2, W 1, AO 1) and on of them leading 2 sets to 1 in the deciding rubber of a Davis Cup match against Russia.

Unreal.

February 10th, 2009 at 7:45 pm

Mary,

They usually test top players when they lose…so its not much of a surprise.

February 10th, 2009 at 8:15 pm

Mary:

“I love Jelena.
“I mean, one thing I like about Nadal is that he is such a great champion, he is so humble, always has kind words for everybody, he is a role model for everybody,” said Jankovic.”

Are you being sarcastic? I never know sometimes about one-liners. Bad thing about the blogs, can’t hear intonation, and inflection, sarcasm and being cute/coy. too baaaadddd.

_____________
“And Murray should learn to STFU. Seriously, besides being bitchy, if I was tested the a few days after the open, even clean, I’d keep quiet. Why make it everyone’s business?”

He should. The more he speaks out, the more they’ll target him. These guys don’t understand what red flags they are throwing up. Of course they’ll be under suspicion, for playing doubles AND singles. The way the people who test think, for most athletes, it’s difficult to play a match everyday, much more doubles and singles.

The athletes have been spoilt because the drug testing has been lax, so now they’re tightening up and they are all blown out of shape. they had better get used to it, because they forget one salient point — drug testing is part and parcel of sports. The more superman a player appears, the more he should expect to be tested. They need to use their noodle, but sadly many are noodle-less.

Mary, did you read all of the articles on that site. There were some very good ones?

February 10th, 2009 at 8:58 pm

“They are ONLY required to inform WADA of their whereabouts for ‘one hour per day’, at a time that’s convenient to them between 6:00 am and 11:00 pm each day for a 3 month period. It doesn’t necessarily mean that WADA will be stopping by every day of that 3 month period to take a sample. The athletes who are complaining are making a big deal out of nothing. It’s a matter of complying with a new rule and new rules always initially produce rebellion by a few who are normally non-compliant in life with anything, or feel such things are infradig for them.”

Did you know Mike Bryan has missed two spot tests this year already? One more and he’s suspended for 2 years, which effectively screws his brother as much as it screws him. Is Mike dirty, or is the new system impractical?

February 10th, 2009 at 9:01 pm

I think the new system is impracticle. Everyday of the year to call someone and tell your whereabouts I think is too much. “Everyday single day” I can imagine thats just insane.

WADA president Dick Pound, speaking at the World Conference on Doping in Sport, said: “There’s been a lot of discussion back and forth and there’s concern that it’s not a good solution and it’s too inflexible. We need to talk more before introducing the standard.

I agree, they have to sit down and come up with more practicle methods, or this will just not work.

February 10th, 2009 at 9:11 pm

Von: I’m reading the articles. It’s great to get the full background from different sources
I’m being sarcastic about the line I pulled for the post. Meow Jelena.
Google Dick Pound and tennis.

Kimmi: WADA, and the sports involved, compromised for this solution. It took some time to reach this compromise. Is it a pain to give one hour a day? sure. How else can you insure that the players are tested when they are not playing? Tennis only has a few weeks if that.
Do I care? No. The public wants to know it’s watching a clean sport. The athletes, coaches, unions, and the powers that be brought this on themselves.

Giner: Mike Bryan is an idiot. He gave them the hour to visit. You can get in touch with them if you are not at that location.

Let’s put Andy Murray into perspective: He was tested at the AO; he was tested four days later; he was tested at this week’s tounament. Does the dumba@@ know he will most likely not be tested again this quarter via whereabouts?

It is ashame that the badly named Dick Pound left WADA. He kicked(or pounded) ass.

Ladyjulia: Yes, I know he was tested after he lost doubles this week I read what I posted. I didn’t tell him to complain to the press. He will probably get tested if he makes it into the finals for singles and wins.

February 10th, 2009 at 9:25 pm

Von: Read his quote in the fourth paragraph:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601077&sid=aXPKpeoSurVk&refer=intsports

I posted the other live streaming sites in case you just wanted to hear the ball hit back and forth, while closing your eyes and thinking of Roddick.

February 10th, 2009 at 9:29 pm

To Von:

I dont think djok should be blamed if u were blaming him for retiring. I mean he retired coz of the heat. It was basically during the heat wave and fires that took place in australia and the temp came upto 45 degrees. Now I couldnt even sit in my apartment without air conditioning so imagine strenous exercises and playing tennis in that heat in the sun. People are different. Roddick trains in florida and is used to it but djok trains in monte carlo. I mean look Roddick beat him anyway and it is included in the head to head so I dont think djok is trying to take anything away. Coz whether u retire or not ur opponent officially wins.

February 10th, 2009 at 10:15 pm

I think djok is misunderstood by the majority of people for his actions.He is just being honest wen he says that wenever he has retired its coz he couldnt go on. I think he is a very straight forward person and is not like nadal who keeps putting all the pressure on his opponents so that he can play freely. Even for this years french open he’ll be like ” Roger is the favourite for the title no? He finished runner up for 3 years in a row no?”

February 10th, 2009 at 10:20 pm

“Did you know Mike Bryan has missed two spot tests this year already? One more and he’s suspended for 2 years, which effectively screws his brother as much as it screws him. Is Mike dirty, or is the new system impractical?”

I suppose you’re referring to nameless, Von, correct?

Yes, I know Mike Bryan missed 2 spot tests and he’d better be around until April because he’d not only mess up his brother but the Davis Cup team too. I don’t think it’s a matter of him being dirty since he’s never tested positive before. He said he forgot one and the other he had a flat tire en route to his designated meeting place. It’s plausible and I believe him until proven otherwise.
________________
Kimmi:

“I think the new system is impracticle. Everyday of the year to call someone and tell your whereabouts I think is too much. “Everyday single day” I can imagine thats just insane.”

I don’t think you’re reading the article correctly. It’s not everyday of the year, it’s once a day for 3 months of every year.
______________
Mary:

Poor Andy Murray is just tying himself into knots about this whole situation. I mean out-of-ompetition in the off-season, aren’t they both the same thing? They are usualy not competing in the off-season, hence they are out of competition.
______________
Ryan:

Please get your facts straight, when did I ever blame Djkovic for retiring? This is not verbatim: I stated something to the effect that all the talking and deliberaton about Djokovic’s retirement is overshadowing Roddick’s win and it’s preventing the Roddick fans from enjoying his success. Please tell me what or where in that sentence am I blaming Djokvic for anything?

FYI, they DIDN’T play during the heatwave — it came two days later.

February 10th, 2009 at 10:44 pm

Von,

Just a slight correction: “FYI, they DIDN’T play during the heatwave — it came two days later.”

Andy and Novak played Tuesday afternoon, and by around 5 or 6 p.m., it hit 36 degrees air temp (had a long talk with shaky on this on another thread so I do recall that). By Wednesday, the next day, they closed the roof for Serena’s match, which was roughly the same time. The “full-on” heatwave wasn’t until the next day, but not 2 days later.

February 10th, 2009 at 11:15 pm

Team Nadal is aplauding Fed’s nomination for Price XX Award of Spain, at the same time vowing to win Davis Cup. Just to continue getting under Fed’s skin. They play Fed like a guitar. Rafa had DC win back in 2004 and he won that Prince Award last year. Fed has neither. Well, we’ll give you the off court shit (the prize) and take away you all on court wins (the DC). Brilliant steps. Kudos again.

Ezorra, I’m a marketing type of guy. So I see everything a marketing plot. Please hate me if it helps to make you feel better. But sleep in peace that I do not hate your guy. I want to learn from him and his uncle. As for Von to repeat something, wasn’t it just at this past AO that Nadal got an on court coaching warning in semi, and 1 or 2 dedical time out in final (I only followed the matches on my cell phone)? Me for one would love to jump on winner’s wagon. But I witnessed Nadal’s on court coaching and time delays more than once from court side. It’s been 4+ years his antics happening and even if he stops all starting today, I can no longer forget and forgive. It’s part of his legacy already.

“I find it incredibly cold,calculating and damaging.”

Cold — nay, successful; calculating — yes. damaging — not to himself, yes to his opponents and to pro tennis’s overall well being, imo.

February 10th, 2009 at 11:29 pm

Congratulations Von, your man won!

Thank you so much for your words too… :)

February 10th, 2009 at 11:30 pm

Jane:

Thanks for the correction. The temperature on the day they played, according to all that I’ve previously, was around 90 degrees F, but there wasn’t a heatwave that day.

Ryan: FYI Roddick doesn’t train in Florida. He lives part-time in NYC and Texas. Murray lives in Miami Beach, Florida and trains there. Djoko was in Australia training 2 weeks prior to the AO, not Monte Carlo.

February 10th, 2009 at 11:34 pm

Von: It was if you were not playing for x amount of weeks or there was no competition going on.
They can be checked anytime during the year. They supply the schedule three months in advance.

The odd thing is Olympic athletes been providing this info since 2004. Now they are targeting the top athletes in a sport,Top 50 in tennis. Murray does think it should be more than the top 50.

I don’t remember hearing about any complaints from the tennis world before 2009 rules went into effect. I guess, since the whereabouts is actually happening and they are being visited and tested, it’s a big deal.

The Belgians, who are suing, are suing the Belgian govt(whoever oversees drug testing in that country) not WADA over this. But again, the complaints were earlier than Jan 2009.

Murray is lucky where he has a job in which he can complain in public and not be fired. I don’t know why they bitch in public, what the hell are we suppose to do about it? A young multi-millionaire has to take an hour out of his life, like one time a year, and pee in a cup. Where the hell is Amnesty International when you need them?!

February 10th, 2009 at 11:42 pm

Doesn’t Novak live and train in Monte Carlo? It’s not like his parents still have that pancake/pizza place anymore (or do they?) and he has to go to serbia to knead dought.
If he needs to adjust to heat, do like Federer does, train in a hot place.
Yeah, it was extra hot in Australia this year, but I guess since they have winner and runnerups that it was possible to play.

February 10th, 2009 at 11:45 pm

Spelling(’cause it counts): dough not dought

I wonder if, since the complaining players feel the two/three people that get busted each year is a fair reflection of the lack of doping in tennis, if ITF/WADA will have more whereabouts they are right?

… and I’m done

February 10th, 2009 at 11:49 pm

Two Cents:

So you are in marketing, eh? I love the field. I did a toss-up in college, Marketing/Business or Psychology. I chose the latter, but there’s a ton of psychology in marketing, e.g., dichotomous interviews v. face to face, et al.

You must have some huge cell phone bill there. I mean WOW, you watched the matches on your cell phone? I have to confess I’m an absolute technology idiot. I bought a new cell phone with the camera and other stuff on it, and I’m still holding onto and using my old cell phone because I’m not too crazy about using the new phone. What can I say, I’m a creature of habit.
_____________

Ezorra: Thanks and you’re welcome. I was sweating bullets during the second set. I can’t stand live scoring, it makes me too nervous. Next up Gulbis and if he gets by him it’ll be Haas, who has a better H2H over Andy. Meanwhile DelPotro has it made in the shade in the bottom half.

I can’t believe Neishikori beat the ace machine Muller.

February 10th, 2009 at 11:51 pm

Von,

Roddick had a bit of a see-saw match tonight, but he’s through in straights – is he defending the title here? Can’t recall.

Re: AO – mainly I am done with this topic. But yeah, you’re right that for the beginning of the match the temp wasn’t bad, but by about the 3rd set it hit that day’s high of 36 degrees (have got that from Melbourne municipal weather site. But either way – the heatwave wasn’t until the next day.

Djoko mainly trains in Monte Carlo, as that’s now his place of residence, which is likely what Ryan meant, but I think he should clearly consider doing some training elsewhere, in tougher and hotter conditions during the off season, in order to prepare better.

February 10th, 2009 at 11:53 pm

To Tejuz:

Now look fed maybe a better and a more versatile player than nadal. But in the end the winner is not always the better player but the better player on the big points. This is something fed has not been doing against nadal for I dont know how long. Wimbledon 08 3 -0 in the second set…loses it 6 -4
AO 09 had the lead in the first set 4 -2…..loses it 7-5. Had the lead in the 3rd set loses it in a tiebreak. Monte Carlo last year 4 -1 in the second set loses it 7 -5. Hamburg 5 -1 lead and loses it 7-5. Its crazy there is no way fed is beating nadal from now on…….not wit all these demons he has to deal with. Nadal know he can come back any time and beat fed. Lets face it mentally fed cant catch up to nadal.No way. He maybe the better player but that doesnt mean anything until u win. Berdych mite be a better player than lets say djokovic. But who is the champ and who is the man…..so thats wat this comes down to. It doesnt matter how many points fed wins or watever. He is unable to win the right points against nadal coz of the curse of the cross court nadal forehand to his one handed backhand…….end of story.Besides fed is getting old anyway so forget it.

February 11th, 2009 at 12:01 am

The truth is even if Fed has a 5 -0 40 – 0 advantage over nadal with a nice overhead to put away…………fed knows nadal can still win that set from him.

February 11th, 2009 at 12:06 am

Mary:

If I complained about my job my supervisor would tell me to deal with it, and if I didn’t like it, there’s the door. I’d further be told make sure it doesn’t hit you in the derriere on your way out.

There are a lot of people who would gladly hand in a sample 10 times a day for just one of those millions of dollars that the players rake in. I’m sorry, I really don’t see the need for the complaints because it’s all spelled out in their contracts and part of why they are athletes. As I stated previously they are just spoilt and need to grow up.

Thanks for the other live streaming, but my imagination is not that developed whereby I can interface Roddick on another player’s. I want the real McCoy. :P

February 11th, 2009 at 12:07 am

jane:

Yes, Andy’s defending his title there. He ran away with the firsr set 6-0, and then the second set the other guy seemed to find another gear. I’m happy it didn ‘t go to 3 sets. He’s got his work cut out for him just getting to the QFs. I was on pins and needles.

February 11th, 2009 at 12:12 am

Mr. Twocents:

With these clarifications, I hope you will clear with some of my stances:

1. To me, Nadal’s effort to nominate Federer for that particular award is totally nonsense because he just provides the public with a larger space to question about his actions!

2. I never care whether you like Nadal or not. As long as I have my bolster beside me and soft pillows to support my neck and my head, I can definitely sleep like a baby!

3. As I’d stated previously, I am totally against the time delay made by any players (including Nadal), JUST because it’s clearly against the rule.

4) Court coaching? Nay – I never see that!

February 11th, 2009 at 12:24 am

If u cant learn from the past then u’ll never learn. Fed has not been learning on his big point crisis wit nadal. Look at djok for ex: he choked away so many set points UO 07 final and then next year AO 08 he played all the big points well.All of them. He didnt choke for a second. Fed this year had a lot less pressure. Coz last year he lost out in the semis. But again he was serving like a pussy in the final. This is not the attitude of a champ.I remember pete playing agassi in UO 02. Even he was going for his 14th major. Nobody had even done it before and there was more pressure on pete’s shoulders to explore the unknown and to set the record than for fed to equal it. But still he played classic tennis and beat agassi once and for all and finished his career. Thats wat real champions do. Look at Phelps…….everyone was like there is more competition in beijing than he had in athens…..the same thing people are saying bout federer now and blah blah and look wat he did. He destroyed it with 8 gold medals winnin races by milliseconds. If u cant live up to it mentally then ur not a champ and fed is a mentally weak champion especially wen playing nadal. Coz he keeps choking and its not once…..its everytime.
Its almost like he knows nadal is gonna win or something like that. Its crazy

February 11th, 2009 at 12:57 am

Ezorra,

You’re a very fair minded fan. That’s why I don’t want to upset you. Good to know it does not. (Now I can talk more to hear myself talking!)I perfectly understand you may not see some of the things I think I saw.

BTW, I think Nadal’s hug of Fed at trophy was genuine and sponteneous, not part of his team’s plot:-)). I don’t like it but I’m ok with it, just like I don’t like but ok with Fed’s water. They both were toooooo girlish! Fed should just swallow the bullet, and Nadal should just say something nice but hands off the loser, please. Guess southern Europeaners do hug a lot? Now I’m getting racial. Oops.
Von,

Please don’t remind me my cell phone bill…Why did they invent this stupid thing at all?! Now they’re talking about connect it to air-borne plane, invading into my last asylum.

Ryan,

No. The major source of Fed’s choking against Nadal is bad match up, not mental. Fed himself was the very first to know this and told the world how good Nadal was. Fed’s game kills attackers/all arounders like Safin, Roddick, JMDP etc., but much less efficient against defenders like Simon, Murray, and Nadal. Again, I credit Djork to take down Fed 3:0: at a slam SF and play beautiful tennis at the same time.

February 11th, 2009 at 1:57 am

“The major source of Fed’s choking against Nadal is bad match up, not mental”. I guess I have to agree with that to some level. The cross court nadal forehand to fed’s one handed backhand will always remain a curse.

February 11th, 2009 at 2:27 am

Von says: “I don’t think you’re reading the article correctly. It’s not everyday of the year, it’s once a day for 3 months of every year”

I read the complaint Murray made regarding this issue. Here is what some of his complaints says..

“I don’t think anyone should tell people where they are every single day of the year,” said Murray. Murray also said the whereabouts system, which also tests players after each loss, isn’t practical during tournaments. In theory, the player could have been tested twice today.

“I have to get an hour every single day for 365 days a year,” he said. “I am not trying to hide, but I am playing a tennis tournament this week. Why do I have to fill out a form and say that you can test me between 7 and 8 in the morning? But the testers are here this week and they will test everyone that is going to lose their matches? It’s not fair.”

From this, I understand players have to report every single day for 365 days for 1 hours on their whereabouts. If its only three months as you indicated then its not too bad. I was sympathizing with Murray on this if he is right. I want to imagine reporting to someone everyday of the year on my whereabout for 1 hour, i would go mental.

Criminals have to do that but they deserve it for their wrong doings but not the athletes. I agree as what Mary indicated above that, we as public would like to see a clean sport. Even if the top players get paid millions of money, IMO they are not criminal and deserve to be treated not like one.

February 11th, 2009 at 8:13 am

Von,

I looked at Andy’s draw; he has Gulbis next – yikes. That’s a tough one because Gulbis can upset someone in a 3-setter much more easily than at a slam, where he usually can win a set, but not 3. Haas is lurking there too. But Haas is so strange. He plays early in the year and then fades; he knocks out someone, then retires. He’s very unpredictable. But I agree: if Andy can get past them he should get to the final. Stepanek can get hot but I think Andy has his number.

February 11th, 2009 at 10:35 am

Ryan:

I know it’s hard to have a long perspective on the Fed Nadal rivalry, but you should keep a couple of things in mind:

The first 7 matches, Nadal won 6 of 7; the next 7 matches Federer won 5 of 7; and the last 5 have been all Nadal. I don’t disagree that Nadal has the better of Federer, but I disagree that he’s not a champion because one player seems to have his number in the slams.

First of all, Nadal has everyone’s number; the reason you’re assuming that Fed’s choking is that you expect him to win in these situations based on his pedigree, fair enough, but I watched that match, and Nadal came up with some pretty great shots and plays at key moments. It wasn’t all down to Fed’s choking.

Furthermore, the man has been in tight situations a number of times in his career and has fought well – Wimbledon 2008 comes to mind – down 2 sets to love he could have packed it in, but he roared back to even the match. In fact, Wimbledon 2007, Nadal had the better of him for 2 sets, but he raised his game, and won it.

There are other examples of him fighting like mad against other players, so I don’t think you can discount his record just because of the last 5 matches against Nadal.

I would also point out that John McEnroe lost 7 in a row to Ivan Lendl before going 12 for the next 16 and regaining the #1 ranking. Fair enough, Lendl eventually won the remainder of their encounters, but you wouldn’t discount McEnroe’s championship pedigree because of that record.

Borg lost his last 3 slam finals against McEnroe and quit the game – is he any less of a champion? I think not.

For that matter Connors went a collective 5 for his last 45 againsts Borg, McEnroe and Lendl, but nobody questions his champion’s pedigree either.

I know it looks bad now when he goes 0 for his last 5, but that’s how rivalries are – players go through bad spots (just as Nadal did against Federer from 2006-2007), but that doesn’t make a player any more or any less of a champion.

February 11th, 2009 at 10:37 am

What would happen to Federer if he gets to this year’s Wimbledon final and loses again to Nadal?

February 11th, 2009 at 10:45 am

That would be the second-best thing for Federer – particularly if it’s lobsided. His losses to Nadal have left him too much wiggle room in terms of self-assessment, so if he loses big at Wimbledon, he’d be a fool not to recognize Nadal’s general superiority and make tactical adjustments when he plays him. As it is now, I feel he is still playing him straight up, and not really doing anything to counteract Nadal’s strengths against him.

February 11th, 2009 at 11:06 am

I agree with this statement of yours, MMT: “There are other examples of him [Nadal] fighting like mad against other players.”

That’s why I don’t think it’s all down to a mental thing with the Fed/Nadal rivalry. There have been some “chokes” and also some outright chokes from Fed’s side, but Nadal often starts a set slow and then comes back by getting the break back, stealing back the momentum, and finally, winning. There are examples against Djokovic (both at Hamburg and Queens, both first sets Djoko was winning and Nadal came back) and against Tsonga (IW last year, final set). So it’s not only against Federer that Nadal can get momentum back on his side due to his focus, strength and patience. He doesn’t fret too much when he’s down, he just concentrates more, and plays each point. Nadal is methodical in this way, and should be given credit.

His penetrating focus and relentlessness have the effect of crushing the other guy, who had the lead; the player feels bad for losing his lead, then loses his focus, and thus gets beaten.

Players can never get comfortable with a lead against Rafa, so they are always on edge. He’s too tenacious. He’s also incredibly strong, and plays relentless defense. This can be overwhelming. I truly think it’s why he’s number 1. That, and his dominance on clay, of course.

Players have to grab and early lead against him, and hold onto it by staying focused on every point. They might also play a bit quicker, and not let Rafa have all the time for his routines between serves. If his methodical rhythm can be thrown off, that might work to the opponent’s advantage. Might, being the operative word.

February 11th, 2009 at 12:04 pm

I know a lot of what I said above sounds like it’s mainly about
mental strength with Nadal, but I do believe he’s a very, very consistent player – his first serve percentage and second serves, his returns. His strength allows him to hit so much spin on the forehand, and his arm-reversal gives his two-handed backhand great power. Now he’s added the slice, and he’s a decent volleyer. Have I mentioned his speed? Thus, his game is very well-rounded. And not only is he tenacious ON the court, he’s a voracious learner OFF the court as well, continually developing his game.

All that makes him a formidable opponent.

February 11th, 2009 at 12:08 pm

Oops – MMT, I just realized you meant the above “fighting like mad” statement about Fed. And that is true too. Although Fed is at his best as a front-runner imo. His confidence, when he wins the first set, only grows (witness the Del Porto thrashing…).

That’s not always true, especially against particularly defensive opponents. In those cases, Fed can fumble and seemingly lose confidence, or will might be a better word?

Look at Murray, Simon and Rafa; they all start slow. But they all build momentum as the sets roll on. Simon and Murray have more than once lost the first set to Roger, only to come back and take the match.

February 11th, 2009 at 12:16 pm

Hi Jane, by “damaging” I meant damaging to Rafa’s psyche, hence the tics, twitches, grimaces, shoelaces, bottles,time taking etc.etc. I confidently expect him to implode on court one of these days, but hey what will it matter he’s been no1 and a multimillionaire…..
Had eureka moment when I read that Fed’s game works best against attacking players, not defenders. Of course, explains a lot, but gee it’s age too, didn’t he do OK against Hewitt?

February 11th, 2009 at 1:17 pm

Hey Von:

I saw the semi-final w/ Tsonga in S. Africa, and was not impressed. He did enough to win, and at the end of the day that’s what counts – I doubt Blake, for example, could have found a way to win playing as erratically as Tsonga did, but then he’s got that unbelievable serve.

I did see that post and took a look at the site, but sadly, there’s nothing on Emmo there. The only video I’ve ever seen of that poor guy is him doing knee high jumps in slow motion on a news reel. Bud Collins did mention that he always claimed that growing up on a farm in Blackbutt (that’s not a typo) milking cows all the time made his hands stronger, and he did have a reputation for supreme fitness. I think he played his last professional tournament in 1983 – that’s 22 years after his first grand slam, so I repeat my contention that the guy gets a bad rap.

Almagro was disappointing against Nadal last year at the time, but given Nadal’s form throughout the tournament, hardly a surprise. He won one fewer game than Federer and didn’t get bageled.

The San Jose tournament (I believe) is directed by Barry McKay, so I wish it all the best. Last year Roddick was not very sporting with that Nishikori kid, so it would be interesting to see if they go toe-to-toe this year how it turns out. Nishikori beat Gilles Muller yesterday, I believe.

I’d love to see Tsonga play Nadal in Rotterdam, but I fear Tsonga may be over-playing – I hope he skips anything before Indian Wells and Miami, because he does get injured a lot.

I haven’t seen the biggest upsets yet, but I do have a bone to pick with the 1-slam wonders. I think they really went the wrong way with those – they should have selected guys who won a slam and did nothing else in their careers – that’s hardly the case with Chang, Ivanisevic and Petr Korda. My five would be: 1) Iva Majoli 2) Gaston Gaudio 3) Adriano Pannatta 4) Mark Edmondson and 5) Thomas Johansson. That list never accomplished anything before or after their slam wins.

As for Fed Cup – I don’t see the Williams sisters taking that seriously…ever.

February 11th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

Hi margot,

I think (?) Federer lost to Hewitt at first, and had a losing H2H, but eventually he adapted and has owned him pretty much since (not that he squashes him but that he’s figured out how to win against him).

I guess it remains to be seen if Federer can turn around the recent trend against Simon, Murray and especially Rafa.

That’s where age, and being grooved in one’s ways and one ages, may be a factor more now than in the past.

February 11th, 2009 at 7:26 pm

Nadal beat Bolleli 4-6, 6-2,7-5. Didn’t see the match, but the score line is a touch surprising. Here are some comments from Nadal:”I deserved this win.I had all of the chances and he didn’t. I also had two match points. I picked up my game in the third set and started serving better.

I found my rhythm, but I had a bad game in the first set before I started playing better. I’m in the second round and I expect a better result. I’m hoping to play better.”

The tone is very interesting. I have long maintained that Nadal’s notorious “modesty” is not to be taken at face value, but is strategic in intent. To me, this has always been obvious, although it is not clear to me whether it has been necessary. People jockey around off court trying, in their differing ways, to gain advantage – and Nadal far more calculatingly than most – but how much does it really matter? Certainly Nadal is better prepared mentally than anyone else, but this surely is largely to do with his unusual temperament.

This is a small tourney, possibly there is no Uncle Toni around to monitor Nadal’s verbal offerings, and whereas Nadal is always extremely careful what he says about potential rivals, he can be more relaxed about a mere Bolleli.

At any rate, it was refreshing to hear words of candour from Nadal. Now we know what he was feeling without having to interpret. His meanness to Bolleli was understandable. Nadal is at last beginning to get the kind of huge plaudits which had become commonplace to Federer. This does strange things to the psyche. Basically, how dare this tinpot Italian threaten the great Nadal?

Yes, somebody kidnap Uncle Toni, will they, and we will be able (at last) to begin to enjoy Nadal’s pressers…

February 11th, 2009 at 7:35 pm

Grendel, why do you think its uncle Toni who is responsible for nadal “modesty’ ? I think it is coming with the teritory/confidence. Now he is number 1, and has cemented his status in the AO, he will slowly start to get used to being “I am the best”.

Until i hear him saying he is favourite when playing federer then I will know its coming. In all the 19 matches against federer he always said federer was the favourite, even in RG where he has dominated. One can argue federer was No 1 then but in this year AO he said federer was the favourite too because he was tired. So there is always a reason I guess…we will see.

February 11th, 2009 at 8:06 pm

grendel:

It’s nice how selective you can be in forming your arguments. It’s very easy to take a quotation out of context, and then make your argument fit around it.

So here are the quotations from Nadal, in context.

“Bolelli’s opposition emphasizes that the best players in the world are here at this tournament”, Nadal concluded. “Up front you just know that every match is going to be tough. Of course he had nothing to loose, but Bolelli is developing into a better player every day. He played well and the surface was in his favour too. This is one of the fastest courts I have played on over the past several years. In the third set I had the best chances and deserved to win”.

He’s not saying he deserved to win because of entitlement or because he’s superior. He’s simply saying he had more chances and if you have more chances you deserve to win. End of story.

It’s pretty obvious you’re looking for any excuse to call Nadal arrogant and falsely modest. That makes your credibility highly suspect.

February 11th, 2009 at 8:16 pm

MMT:

I wasn’t impressed either regarding the SA semi-final. Tsonga faced several breakpoints. TTC is showing the final now. There weren’t a lot of seeded players in that tournament. That guy Chardy seems to be another up and comer who shows promise. He has a pretty good return game and some stamina.

I also hope Tsonga doesn’t over-play because he’s so injury prone and that’s the last thing he wants to happen this year. I Agree Blake probably would have crumbled had he been in Tsongas’s shoes when facing so many break points. It seems that Tsonga has lost some weight also.

I’d love to see Tsonga play against Nadal in Rotterdam also, but I’d say presently Nadal would be the fresher of the two.

Mary had suggested that TTC would probably have those old tapes on Emerson. I’m sure they must have a library of some sort. Maybe you could try contacting them and who knows you could be pleasantly surprised. Why not give it a try — the most they could say is “no”. But, then on the other hand, you could get lucky.

I’m very disappointed with the Williams sisters’ attitude toward Fed Cup, but it’s voluntary and it’s their choice. No one can force them to play if they don’t want to. They have the exho against the Serbs at MSG in a few weeks, which should be interesting. I hope Jankovic and Ivanovic are not thinking they’ll win — they’ll be sadly disappointed. Venus and Serena love the glitz and glamour and they thrive on that type of atmosphere. I expect a good drubbing is in store for Jelena and Ana.

I agree that some of the guys on the One Slam list are way more accomplished than others. Your “friend” Korda did a similar worm dance to Stepanek. In that series it was stated he used an illegal substance and was banned.

I’m looking forward to seeing the “Best of 5” upsets.

Well, Barry MacKay and the ATP is not doing much for San Jose by placing the tournament in a black-out status. Not too many people would want to pay $39.95 to watch the tournament. I don’t understand the greed, nor do I understand the blackout. I think the viewers should have an option. This sort of monopoly is the reason American tennis so so stagnated. I believe TTC will be broadcasting the SF and final. At least I’ll be able to see those matches.

I received a questionnaire from ATP asking for my opinion on their new website. Even though they didn’t ask about San Jose tournament I added my two bits.

February 11th, 2009 at 8:22 pm

Von,

I agree with you regarding Chardy; I watched his match with Djokovic at the AO and thought then that he seems to have a good serve, first serve especially, and not a bad return, although it wasn’t great in that match. I don’t know much about him, or which service he likes to play on, but he’s got potential. He’s not hard on the eyes either.

February 11th, 2009 at 9:46 pm

I always do this! “service” should be “surface” in the Chardy post…

February 11th, 2009 at 9:47 pm

margot,

Do you really believe that Nadal’s OCD-like behaviors are due to the arm-switch? It’s an interesting theory, but I suspect he would’ve always had to be at least a bit like that (habitual, methodical, etc). I don’t know if he’ll implode but would predict that when his career finally takes its downturn, there will be injury involved.

February 11th, 2009 at 9:53 pm

Who watches doubles? Some big Frankenstein smashes a serve, as his big Freakenstein brother flushes it down the toilet. Great sport. ATP doubles is merely a weigh station for journeyman stiffs to park the hearse, before leaving silently in the night.

That said, I did have a good time a few years ago watching the Bryan’s courtside, play Whack-a-Mole over a doubles clueless Gasquet.

February 12th, 2009 at 2:01 am

“Mike Bryan is definitely doping have you seen him lately?”

sorry to disappoint you, Mike played at the AO and they won the trophy. They are usually tesred before and after they win. They’ve won the first two (2) rounds in San Iose. I’m sure they’ll be tested again after the San jose tournament. Because Mike missed the tests does not automatically mean he’s a doper. One reason concerned a flat tire en route to meeting the testing team. A flat tire is not a way out ridiculous excuse. After playing all of these years and testing clean, he’s suddenly a doper. Get real.

February 12th, 2009 at 2:02 am

This might be a good time to mention I HATE Wayne Bryan.

What was that self-serving drivel he penned? “How I sired the perfect supremely talented human species…and you can to.”

Please…quick, quick…someone give me the Heimlich Maneuver. Spearmint twins couldn’t even make it on the singles tour.

February 12th, 2009 at 2:11 am

Aaaaaa, does anyone have Mary Pierce’s #?

ReprintPrint Email Font Resize
In lawsuit, ex-girlfriend says Roberto Alomar has AIDS

Mercury News Wire Services
Posted: 02/11/2009 08:20:45 PM PST

An ex-girlfriend of Roberto Alomar filed a lawsuit alleging the former baseball star insisted on unprotected sex for four years despite having AIDS.

The lawsuit, filed Jan. 30 and transferred to U.S. District Court on Wednesday, contains accusations that could not be corroborated but portray Alomar as someone who demanded sex without a condom despite showing obvious signs of HIV.

Ilya Dall is seeking at least $15 million in punitive damages, saying the ordeal caused her severe emotional and mental distress and fear she may one day test positive for HIV herself.

Alomar said in a statement: “This is a very private, personal matter and I greatly appreciate all the support I have received in the past few days from my family, friends and colleagues in baseball. I am in very good health and I ask that you respect my privacy during this time.

“As for the lawsuit, it is filled with lies and I am deeply saddened that someone I cared for would make such terrible accusations and try to hurt me in this way.”

Dall said the two began dating in 2002. She said Alomar refused to get tested for HIV, despite severe fatigue, sores on his mouth and throat, a constant cough and an infection of the esophagus that is associated with AIDS. She said Alomar finally relented and tested positive for HIV in February 2006.

Dall said follow-up exams determined that Alomar had AIDS. By then, she said, Alomar had purple skin, was foaming at the mouth

February 12th, 2009 at 2:21 am

Milo:

Whoever writes as “Staff” should set an example with reference to the handles they place on the players. The girls are called “fat”, and other names/handles are placed on quite a few of the players. Further, I would suggest that a refresher set of sules be posted as to what a poster should or shouldn’t say, and/or what’s accepttable and/or unacceptable to the moderators. Guidelines and more communication are definitely needed.

On the previous thread:

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2009-02-05/834.php

the following was written: “Many players have won grinding, back-to-back, if not back-to-back-to-back five setters. So what? Is it no longer possible to play consecutive five-set matches with a day off in between anymore? Please. Unless there’s some hardcore evidence – like he’s growing a third arm – I really don’t want to hear about steroids and Rafa.”

If no one wanted to hear talk of it, it shouldn’t have been mentioned by the writer. It’s a very leading comment and invites speculatons and accusations. I’m surprised the posts were so mild.

BTW Milo, what do find so unappealing about the serve. I absolutely think a well executed serve is a thing of beauty, and further the game is depndent upon the serve. Without it, the game definitely will perish.

February 12th, 2009 at 2:30 am

Von,

Agreed, concerning guidelines.

I like how the author incorrectly puts the Verdasco v. Nadal 5-setter as just another match. It was only the most physical 5-set hardcourt match in the HISTORY of the sport. To compare it with an Edberg or Becker 5-setter is meaningless and deceptive. Rafa had to fight for the Heavyweight title and then fight a fresh horse two days later. No small feat.

I don’t really have anything against the fluidity and beauty of serving — I’m more interested in every game giving both players a decent chance of success. Often a match is called “close,” when it goes to a tiebreaker, when basically both players held serve easily throughout. I want more competition through the bulk of the match. Clay is the only surface that negates great serving. As good as Agassi’s return was, when Pete served well, he dominated A-train. And Pete was only 6′ 1″. If a truly sweet serving 6′ 10″ athlete ever showed on the scene, they would have to change the net height. That athlete is coming. You know you’re good, like Kareem Abdul Jabbar (Lew Alcindor), when they change the dunk rule just because of one man.

February 12th, 2009 at 2:49 am

Oleg:

“Bolelli’s opposition emphasizes that the best players in the world are here at this tournament”, Nadal concluded. “Up front you just know that every match is going to be tough. Of course he had nothing to loose, but Bolelli is developing into a better player every day. He played well and the surface was in his favour too. This is one of the fastest courts I have played on over the past several years. In the third set I had the best chances and deserved to win”.

Don’t you think Nadal is getting a little carried away in his statement “the best players in the world are playing here at this tournament.” So who’s playing at the other tournaments? Chopped liver? Meow. Calling Mr.Bailey.

I find it humorous when I see such statements made by the top ranked players. Roddick played against Bolelli on clay and won in Rome, however the writers on Tennis.X, felt at that time Roddick didn’t play anyone of substance to get to the Rome SF. It’s simultaneously amusing and sad how the observations and/or ratings of the players changes when a top-ranked player plays that previously inconsequential player.

February 12th, 2009 at 3:00 am

When you see Lance struggling mightily on the Alpe d’Huez this year, look closely at that fan…that humble Spanish Bull pushing his BEhind. “Hey it’s Rafa…look look, it’s RAFA!” Birds of a feather you know.

Armstrong scraps testing plan

Lance Armstrong has decided to scrap his plan to make public results from independent drug tests he was going to undergo to prove he was clean on his return to cycling because of the high costs of testing.

But he does plan to post as many of the tests he takes from anti-doping authorities and his Astana cycling team on his http://www.livestrong.com Web site. Armstrong already has taken 16 out-of-competition tests, and results from seven are posted on the Web site.

February 12th, 2009 at 3:01 am

Hi Jane, re Rafa, it’s not just right handed to left, that’s an example of what was probably extreme tennis coaching. Rafa’s on record as
saying Tony was “hard.” Tennis is littered with the bodies of young players whose parents/relatives were their coaches, it’s usually girls but I’m sure boys are effected as well. I personally think that relatives should never be the sole coach. It’s far too intense, there’s too much at stake and the pooor kid has no space, nowhere to hide.

February 12th, 2009 at 4:43 am

Milo:

I don’t think Canas should be dubbed: “Guillermo “The Juice” Canas. There are two sets of rules; one for the writers and one for the posters, which is very confusing. Csnss been reinststed back into tennis, and the names should be droped. my staements do not carry any weight whwsoever, so who cares what I have to say.

February 12th, 2009 at 4:43 am

Don’t worry…my statements carry no weight — they get deleted.

February 12th, 2009 at 4:59 am

Von/Milo:L’Illustre

February 12th, 2009 at 5:54 am

Mary:

We’ve joined the illustrious? Hot damn!!

February 12th, 2009 at 6:02 am

Hello, google the swiss magazine for this week’s issue. The full thing is not up but what is up, including the editorial– it’s funny and bitchy.

But yes we have all joined the illustrious.

February 12th, 2009 at 6:08 am

Oleg

“It’s nice how selective you can be in forming your arguments. It’s very easy to take a quotation out of context, and then make your argument fit around it…It’s pretty obvious you’re looking for any excuse to call Nadal arrogant and falsely modest. That makes your credibility highly suspect.”

Nope, not selective, just lazy. I picked up the quote from Eurosport, didn’t see any more of the interview. Couldn’t be bothered to look – so I am justly rapped on the knuckles for not being thorough.

Nevertheless, there was a different tone there, more of a self-justifying tenor than we are accustomed to seeing from Nadal, and I do suspect that is a sign of the times.

My “credibility” is, like yours, zero. I was not being dishonest in the way you imply, as I have explained, but I have no expertise. I just form judgements on character on the basis of observation. This is largely a matter of opinion. I have always thought Nadal to be somewhat arrogant and most certainly falsely modest. How much Uncle Toni has an input in the latter, I don’t know – quite a bit would be my (uninformed) guess.

At the end of the day, though, character judgements are pretty precarious. I expect Nadal – a definite charmer – is a nice enough guy outside of tennis, and has the usual complicated mix of qualities that is the lot of homo sapiens. I confine my judgements to his behaviour vis-a-vis tennis. It is MY judgement that his comments are often deliberately evasive and that as a matter of calculated strategy he pretends to a modesty he is far from feeling.

My judgement could be wrong, of course. So could yours.

February 12th, 2009 at 9:19 am

margot,

I know what you mean about the relative/coach thing. It’d be tough to fire your father or uncle if it wasn’t working out. And the father / daughter coaching scenario has been a constant in the WTA. Usually the relationships seemed strained or weird. I don’t know about Nadal and Uncle Tony because they are fairly quite, but one could see how Tony could be “hard.” There’s a stern demeanor there for sure.

February 12th, 2009 at 10:43 am

Serena Williams has spoken out on the new drug testing as well; she is against it, saying its “too much” and “invasive”.

Here’s the AFP link:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i2UztP1UKmw2YDhyamQS1CrxgYig

February 12th, 2009 at 5:33 pm

Down with the Thatchers – all of em! What a nitwit comment. I just read that “news” item now.

February 12th, 2009 at 9:12 pm

jane – wasn’t carol thatcher’s comment, typically silly(but hardly wicked) private? Does it really deserve a sacking? Wouldn’t one say this is political correctness gone mad? Isn’t there a worry when the BBC, once an internationally respected organ, simply operates on knee jerk – when it isn’t, miserably, doing the government’s bidding – but don’t let me get onto that one……

February 13th, 2009 at 6:19 am

Sean, why is it permitted for jane to condemn thatcher, but not for me to point out thatcher is silly but not wicked, was talking private, and bbc is knee jerk for sacking her? what’s going on?

February 13th, 2009 at 6:34 am

Re-instatement – or some mysterious computer glitch? or perhaps I didn’t press “back” enough? If the latter, my sincere apologies to Sean.

February 13th, 2009 at 9:56 am

The BBC received over 3,300 complaints concerning Thatchers comments. If we assume that no more than 1 out of 1000 people watching a program would bother complaining about something they find offensive, then the BBC was right to take the action they did.

Compare the BBC’s reaction to the Spanish Football Federation’s response to Luis Aragones racially insulting Thierry Henry in a “private” comment. British journalists were incensed, and shortly thereafter, a very large portion of baffoons at the Bernabeu racially abused the black footballers from England.

It’s one thing to be politically correct, but it’s another for an employee of one of the world’s largest broadcasters to insult something like a fifth of the world’s population with an extremely offensive remark.

Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from responsibility for the consequences of what you say. Nobody’s saying Thatcher should be jailed, but if you walked into your boss’s office and called his wife a slag, would you expect to be protected by freedom of speech from being fired?

So why should Thatcher be allowed to insult so many people so brazenly, without consequence? If tennis is to be opened up to a wider audience, than it has to be viewed as inclusive, and not the last bastion where racist comments and references are considered just “silly”. What’s next, people show up at a Tsonga match hoisting one of those dolls (in jest) for a camera to pick up?

I’m with the BBC on this one.

February 13th, 2009 at 10:56 am

grendel, I dunno about the BBC, its biases and reactions, and maybe they went too far in firing her.

BUT – to call Tsonga a golliwog, whether it was a private remark or not, is offensive! And it’s not private anymore. Margaret was equally offensive in her treatment of immigrants.

And no, condemning such remarks is not political correctness gone mad, imo. And I am someone who takes issue with that issue. (In fact, see Clint Eastwood’s little film Gran Torino; it will floor you with its political incorrectness, but its empathy and heart at the same time. He’s calls his neighbors all sundry of racist terms as a way to dehumanize them, but we learn why soon enough, and it doesn’t work, of course.)

————————————————-
BTW – this conversation between grendel and I was spurred by what Tennis X wrote – (a) about Black history month and (b) about Thatcher’s remark about Tsonga. So to delete our posts is not very liberal or diplomatic. Why start a topic if you won’t let folks discuss it.

Besides which, it’s no more inflammatory than discussing half naked women, and which one looks the best, is it?
————————————————-

February 13th, 2009 at 11:04 am

I agree MMT – “golliwog” is a term that has a long history connected to colonialism and slavery. It’s incredibly offensive. Carol can go commiserate with Margaret, the Baroness.

February 13th, 2009 at 11:10 am

Gran Torino is kind of like “Archie Bunker meets Dirty Harry”. Difference being that Archie Bunker was a cariacature and written as one. I actually found the movie refreshing. Not that I agree with the racial tones. Just the fact that this movie basically states that a persons words don’t mean near as much as their actions.

February 13th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

SG, I like your “description” of the film. I didn’t agree with the racial tones either, but the film seemed very true. The war subtext, how that worked to enforce those tones, how the dehumanization lingers long after historical events are over, was, imo, quite original and brilliant – and a different way of at least thinking about why people are the way they are. The evolution of the relationship between Eastwood and the neighbors is what I appreciated most about the film. And obviously, to revert to cliche, actions do speak louder than words.

Anyhow, probably WAY off topic now.

February 13th, 2009 at 1:30 pm

This is an excellent piece by Serena; people should watch it. It related to Black History month, struggles in making it in tennis, money pressures, pressure to succeed, etc. Very topical!! Serena is not my favorite player but this is enjoyable and interesting for anyone, imo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjzLNrk15oQ

February 13th, 2009 at 8:39 pm

I don’t foresee Murray winning Rotterdam. Nadal, will be the winner, unless Murray ups his game. He got a “gift” from Gicquel today, and, considering Gicquel is much older than Murray, ranked very low, not a fire-cracker of a player, and was playing injured, all I can say, Murray can kiss this one goodbye. By the same token, Nadal has not been playing rip-roaring tennis either. He’s been pushed to 3 sets in all of his matches, which says a lot about his form too. This is where Federer should be playing if he wanted to get revenge from both Nadal and Murray, simultaneously gaining some confidence.

Funny, reading Nadal’s remarks, I laughed to myself that for someone who’s not a great spokesperson, he has learnt very quickly how to deflect any criticisms thrown his way, while cleverly apprising all not to expect too much from him at Rotterdam because according to him “it’s (Rotterdam) one of the fastest courts he’s played on”. Translation: “If I lose it’s because the court is too fast, and it’s not due to my poor form.” Hello, Nadal, you’ve played on that court before in ’08, and lost to Seppi, so why do it a second time? Also, why play both doubles and singles? Unfortunately and unbeknownst to him, he’s sending out a loud and clear message that he’s not a good hard-court player. And, this from a guy who just won the AO. But wait a minute, the AO was a medium-paced hard-court. These word games are becoming very confusing and hilarious to me.

February 13th, 2009 at 9:43 pm

People who contact journals, broadcasters etc invariably do so to complain – that’s just how it goes, and proves very little. I am not familiar with the circumstances of the Spanish footballing incident, though I am not impressed by the spectacle of incensed journalists. I will say this, though. Racist chanting on the football terraces is an ugly phenomenon, but seems to be largely a thing of the past in England. Which is not to say, of course, that there are not those who would not like to resuscitate it. However, the current social ambience fortunately is not helpful to their cause. Nobody quite knows why, there are lots of conflicting theories, social movement is too complex to allow of simple answers. There are those who will tell you they know why something big has happened. Logically, they should then be able to tell you what will happen, but of course they never can. One perhaps small but interesting point: nowadays, many football clubs have three or more non-white players; makes it kind of hard for a football “supporter” to generate racial tension. It just seems silly,now – and that’s an important change.

If you know about the recent history of the BBC, you would think long and hard before saying they are right about anything on this venue, although you might want to argue (I don’t) that they have stumbled upon the correct solution inadvertantly. The sacking of Carol Thatcher has to be seen in the light of the recent failure by the BBC to sack Jonathan Ross, guilty of a far more egregious offence in many peoples’ eyes. Not that I think he should have been sacked – perhaps to cut his grotesquely inflated salary by half might have been appropriate.

But of course Jonathan Ross is a superstar and the BBC is terrified of losing him. Carol Thatcher, despite her provenance, is a rather sad eccentric who will be missed by few. To sack her was an easy thing to do, and will have gained the BBC plaudits from a certain highminded section in society, tiny in numbers but influential. This is important to the BBC, particularly given its shameful bending of the knee to Tony Blair when one of those endless Government sponsered “inquiries” into the provenance of British participation in the Iraq war exonerated (wait for it) the government from any blame. The BBC’s relatively liberal and honest Director General was thrown to the wolves, the BBc governors grovelled and Tony Blair was seen to smirk. Truth once more received a hammering from which the BBC in particular has not recovered.

I am not particularly concerned about Carol Thatcher. Despite an apparently difficult childhood, she is not lacking in financial resources, and will easily enough find other work. But the principle is bothersome in this age where extreme religious intolerance is in the ascendant, and where apparently the criterion as to whether something should be allowed or not is whether it causes offence. This is indeed a dangerous, slippery slope – which would have horrified the heroes of the Enlightenment, whose beneficiaries we are – and God knows where it will end.

The proper way to deal with people like Carol Thatcher when they talk silly, ignorant stuff is to laugh at them. It certainly is not, in my view, sensible to make grandiose statements about “insulting about a fifth of the world’s population”. Let’s get real here. In Africa (although not just in Africa of course) which I presume is what MMT had in mind, there is racism (and slavery) of a truly deadly sort. What the roots are it is not appropriate to theorise about here, nor to attach blame. Just to point out that millions upon millions of people have recently lived and still do in terrible fear. The magnitude of the pain and suffering endured by ordinary people, the sheer scale of the endless slaughters, is simply unimaginable for us in the cosseted West. Sorrow or perhaps despair seems the only possible response. Agonising over what one silly woman said is not.

February 13th, 2009 at 10:20 pm

“which would have horrified the heroes of the Enlightenment, whose beneficiaries we are” … interesting that you refer to the Enlightenment, since some have criticized this period, arguing that its legacy, its emphasis on the primacy of reason and rationalization, is darker than its name implies.

February 13th, 2009 at 11:14 pm

rationalisation? That’s what Federer indulges in! Typo for “rationalism”? You’ve caught me in many a typo, or worse. Well, the Enlightenment covered a very broad spectrum, and naturally had its share of nutters. But I should have thought, by and large, it was a positive product of our civilisation, if perhaps over optimistic. But David Hume – perhaps its greatest figure – wasn’t. He had a pretty sober appreciation of human limitations.

It was Hume, of course, who exposed the limitations of God based religion (curiously, many Buddhists have claimed him as one of theirs, and there are certain intriguing parallels). But Hume was always cautious, and respectful, in his utterances. He never actually admitted to being an atheist, although he obviously was. Religious bigotry was still a force in Britain, especially Scotland, and it behoved one to be careful.

Dr.Johnson, a deeply religious man – and himself a notable participant in The Enlightenment – had an entertaining exchange with Boswell concerning Hume’s attitude to death: “When we were alone [i.e.Boswell and Johnson], I introduced the subject of death, and endeavoured to maintain that the fear of it might be got over. I told him that David Hume said to me, he was no more uneasy to think he should NOT BE after this life, than that he HAD NOT BEEN before he began to exist. JOHNSON: “Sir, if he really thinks so, his perceptions are disturbed; he is mad: if he does not think so, he lies. He may tell you, he holds his finger in the flame of a candle, without feeling pain; would you believe him? When he dies, he at least gives up all he has.” BOSWELL;”Foote, Sir, told me that when he was very ill he was not afraid to die.” JOHNSON: “It is not true, Sir. Hold a pistol to Foote’s breast, or to Hume’s breast, and threaten to kill them, and you’ll see how they behave.” BOSWELL: “But may we not fortify our minds for the approach of death?” Here I am sensible I was in the wrong to bring before his view what he ever looked upon with horrour…. his thoughts upon this aweful change were in general full of dismal apprehensions…..I attempted to continue the conversation. He was so provoked, that he said, “Give me no more of this;” and was thrown into such a state of agitation, that he expressed himself in a way that alarmed and distressed me; shewed an impatience that I should leave him, and when I was going away, called to me sternly, “Don’t let us meet tomorrow”. Nevertheless, they did meet the next day, and Johnson was in a sunnier mood, speaking “unfavourably of a certain pretty voluminous author, saying,”He used to write anonymous books and then other books commending those books, in which there was something of rascality” “.

But Johnson was wrong. Hume faced death with the same calm lucidity and cheerfulness which had characterised his life – in this sense, he was as inspirational a figure as Socrates. It is important to appreciate that although Johnson was an unusual man in almost every way, his fear of “the afterlife” was simply the result of his great sincerity. He genuinely believed in the pronouncements of the Church, and despite his generosity of spirit – he was a great one for gathering waifs into his household – he was humble enough to believe he was a poor Christian and, being an honest man, was accordingly tormented by visions of hell- i.e. everlasting, unimaginable pain. Hume showed, in his writings and by personal example, what pernicious nonsense all this was. Today, if we are sceptically inclined, we tend to think of the idea of life after death as being a cowardly evasion. It was far from that for people of Johnson’s time, and this is hard for us to understand, although I daresay some Muslims will. Hume in particular, but others too from the Enlightenment liberated us from these terrifying thoughts. As if life isn’t difficult enough without the prospect of eternal torment to look forward to – one of the most genuinely evil doctrines, I would say, that curious creature man has ever devised.

February 14th, 2009 at 9:23 am

Okay rationalism. Guilty as typed.

But that fear of death or belief in the afterlife is no where near to gone is it? Look at the extent of plastic surgery for evidence of our desire to stave off the end. Victorians? Oh they liked to prop up their dead and take photos of em, as though they still lived. Hume or no Hume, we still don’t like endings. Denial of death, or its projection elsewhere, is still the norm.

Good things came out of the Enlightenment, of course. The tenants were positive ones – tolerance, study, liberty, democracy, etc. But I am with those who criticize the systematic rationalism and emphasis on science that were extensions of that period. Man has justified many an atrocity in the light of reason and science – from spitting to atom and making bombs to much worse even.

But just to, er, lighten things up, you must have seen the Black Adder with Johnson and his dictionary? Hilarious.

February 14th, 2009 at 12:08 pm

yes, death is certainly the great unmentionable. This has certain bizarre consequences. The overwhelming priority of modern medicine, for instance, is to keep the patient alive, regardless of quite what it is they are keeping alive. But you can’t overstate the liberating effect of not believing you are subject to eternal torment. Poor Dr.Johnson honestly believed this was a real possibility. With his tremendous imagination, can you imagine what that must have been like for him, and others like him?

Yes, I hold no brief for “scientism” – but I think there is a case for saying this has its roots in religion. Genesis, you recall, gave man dominion over nature – an absolutely disastrous doctrine.

Ultimately, it seems to me we don’t really know anything at a deep level. Black Adder may indeed represent reality as well as anything. It has sometimes been posited that we are the result of some demented scientist in a different universe, and are little more than lab rats from this perspective. But then, what if the demented scientist was, unbeknownst to himself, a lab rat of some other scientist in some other dimension? And then what if….. I like to think David Hume, an arch sceptic about everything, including the pretensions of science, (but only in his study; as he remarked, when out of it, he liked a game of billiards and a glass of wine like any other man) could accomodate all this fanciful thinking…..

February 14th, 2009 at 12:40 pm

grendel, I’m not sure if you had access to the excellent HBO series “Six Feet Under” over there (the series is since over, but available widely on DVD), but Alan Ball, its creator, said that his intention was to “bring death out of the closet.” I loved him for that.

Each episode begins with a death; the family around which the series evolves run a funeral parlor. It’s a truly brilliant body of work imho, and I suspect you’d enjoy it, or at the least appreciate its blatant honesty about our end. Full stop.

February 14th, 2009 at 2:33 pm

yes, I watched 6 feet under 2 or 3 years ago. agree, excellent, and generally enjoyable. The Americans do do these things very well.

February 14th, 2009 at 4:40 pm