ESPN hosted a spirited conference call today with tennis analysts and former pros, Mary Carillo and Patrick McEnroe, and we touched on many of the biggest controversies going into Wimbledon. Let’s spark up some debate, shall we?
1. Rafael Nadal’s Knees
Ripped. (Or Torn Up?) is the title of the lengthy profile on Rafael Nadal in this weekend’s New York Times Magazine. Appropriate title, since the biggest story in tennis right now is the state of Rafa’s tendinitis-plagued knees. Everyone’s dying to know: Will he be able to defend his Wimbledon title?
Patrick McEnroe isn’t buying it:
“I’m a little dumbfounded by all the talk on how bad his knees are. I think he pulled from Queen’s (a Wimbledon warm-up tournament) because he’s mentally spent. Last year at the US Open everyone was talking about how tired he was and he lost in the semis. Five days later I saw him practicing in Madrid (in the Davis Cup semis vs. U.S.A.) for four or five hours a day. I’m not exaggerating. . .I have a hard time believing he’s really that hurt.”
“I think he’ll be fine (at Wimbledon). It’s more of a mental battle for him in losing the French.”
With news that Rafa’s playing an exhibition match against Lleyton Hewitt on Thursday (click here), it would be shocking if he wasn’t ready to go on Centre Court this Monday. But whether Nadal loses in the first round or takes another bite off the trophy, his famous knees will be the main talking point of the tournament.
2. The Seeds
Wimbledon singles seedings were announced today. Wimbledon stayed true to the the tours’ rankings for the most part, making just a few not-so-controversial changes based on past grass court performance. (Click here for a refresher course on Wimbledon’s seeding process.) World No. 8 Fernando Verdasco is seeded 7th ahead of Gilles Simon, ‘08 semifinalist, Marat Safin, is seeded at 15 instead of 23, and Ivo Karlovic is seeded 23 though ranked 31. Maria Sharapova enjoyed the biggest bump on the WTA side, seeded 24 despite her ranking of 59. (via Express India)
The controversy comes, funnily enough, from Wimbledon’s decision not to fiddle at the top. World No. 1, Dinara Safina, is seeded No. 1, with Serena and Venus seeded No. 2 and No. 3, respective of their rankings. This seems fair enough, until you compare Venus’s Wimbledon record with Safina’s:
- Venus Williams: career Wimbledon record of 51 wins/8 losses, 5-time champion (and defending champ), 2-time finalist
- Dinara Safina: career Wimbledon record of 7 wins/6 losses, never been past the 3rd round (and never won a Major)
Mary Carillo says she’s surprised at the seeding committee’s decision: “I don’t think it’s right that Dinara Safina is the top seed at Wimbledon. Venus Williams has won it 5 times. The seeding committee can make tweaks and I think Venus should be seeded first.“
Depending on how Friday’s draw goes, the Williams sisters may meet in the semis, instead of the final. And don’t underestimate the power that the Williams sisters have in promoting the game – Mary Carillo admitted that deep into ESPN’s first week of French Open coverage, the highest television ratings came during an early round Williams sisters’ doubles match. Speaking of doubles, it will be interesting to see how the defending champs are seeded at Wimbledon.
3. Murray Mania.
This is not so much a controversy as a condition, and it will definitely be a hot topic at Wimbledon. Visit the tennis page at the London Times (click here) for a prime example of Murray Madness. If you knew nothing about tennis, you’d be forgiven for assuming that it’s Murray’s sport and we’re all just playing it.
A sampling of headlines cluttering the page: “(John) McEnroe bullish on Murray’s hopes,” “Murray bullish about Wimbledon prospects,” “Murray can win, says Borg,” “Henman: Murray my choice to win at SW19,” “Andy Murray evokes bygone era of style,” (referring to the hyped-up unveiling of his Fred Perry Wimbledon duds), “Murray hunts for success on hallowed turf,” “Andy Murray has grow up in public. Learn to love him” and, as a scolding to all the Murray-haters: “Best of Britain deserves United Kingdom.”
Oh and there’s this ad (via Off the Baseline):
So is the hype justified? Patrick McEnroe thinks not:
“I don’t think this is the time, no. He’s certainly getting closer. (Winning) Queen’s Club was a good result but let’s be honest: Nadal and Federer weren’t there. I still believe that Murray lacks a little bit of that aggressive physicality to win this tournament. The conditions have slowed a lot at Wimbledon but you have to be able to penetrate and put some juice on the ball. . .I don’t think he has enough of that to beat the top players when they’re playing well. And if he meets a Nadal or Federer at Wimbledon they’re going to be playing well. I’m not a true believer yet.“
Has he been talking to Roger (click here)?
4. GURRRRAHHHHHH!
Grunting has been a perennial topic at Wimbledon ever since Monica Seles grunted her way to the finals in 1992, facing so much ire that she lost to Steffi Graf while trying to muffle herself. With everyone and Martina Navratilova (click here) complaining about Maria Sharapova, Victoria Azarenka, and the screeching phenom, Michelle Larcher de Brito – who was given a wild card into the tournament – the ITF is looking into ways to officially quiet things down. But is real change possible or will grunting and grouching continue to be a Wimbledon tradition?:
“I hate it. It’s noise pollution to me.” Mary Carillo says. “On a practical level, I agree that it should stop. But how exactly would it work?” She imagined a scenario where Maria Sharapova grunts her way through a 28 stroke rally and is given a point penalty after hitting the winning shot. She prescribed prevention as the best cure: “You have to stop the kids from doing it in the 10 and unders.”
Do you dare disagree with us tennis purists? Click here to read Jon Wertheim’s take.
5. Roger Federer, man or G.O.A.T?
Is Roger man, G.O.A.T., both or neither? Reuters picks up the debate in an article titled: “Federer aims to win back his crown by being more of a man.” Here’s what the Man-Goat told reporters in London:
“I feel like I’ve definitely become more a man now than in the last few years since I’m not scared of five setters anymore. I can handle the pressure. I had to show my fighting spirit more than ever and it’s nice to have had a chance to show those qualities because before everybody was just used to my dominance. It’s good to know for myself that I can also do it differently.”
But is Roger man-enough? A French journalist was quoted in the NYTimes piece on Rafa: “Every tennis lover would like, someday, to play like Federer. But every man wants to be Rafael Nadal. Which is different.”
Okay, so Roger may or may not be (The) Man, according to current thinking, but what about the G.O.A.T. thing? Well. . .
“Nadal is being underserved in the G.O.A.T. discussion.” says Mary Carillo, after admitting she’s not a big fan of the debate. “If Nadal wins the U.S. Open, he will have a career slam and he’s only 23.”
“In the tennis I’ve seen in in my lifetime Federer is the most complete player” says Patrick McEnroe. “Irrespective of the numbers and from a pure technical standpoint, Roger is the best tennis player I’ve ever seen.“
But what really matters is what Federer thinks, and he thinks he’s ready to win Wimbledon (via Reuters):
“I do think I’m the favorite actually, with the success I’ve had. . .With no disrespect to the other players. . .I feel like I’ve got the game, I’ve got the mental approach and I’ve got the experience to win at Wimbledon many more times.”
Now that’s something no one can disagree with (right?)
Loading ...
Tags: ATP, Carillo, ESPN, Federer, McEnroe, Murray, Nadal, Safina, Serena, Sharapova, tennis, Venus, Wimbledon, WTA
RELATED ARTICLES ON GOTOTENNIS |
That’s a terrific round up, Freaky. Many thanks. When was the last time a Brit won Wimby?
I loved that ad and it appealed to my Scots ancestry. Fed and Rafa will continue to clean the court’s clocks, wherever they play. Murray is gloomy, difficult, driving and tooth impaired, just like me. I’d be fine with a Murray win. The last Brit won here when?
You haven’t been indoctrinated with Andy Murray lore, evidently, or you’d know the answer by heart: Fred Perry in 1936
Oh, and Bunny Austin was the last Brit to win at Queen’s in 1938.
Andy Murray has definitely done his part in teaching the world about British tennis history – Wimbledon title or not.
Thanks. I’m outta the loop fer sher. No wonder he’s modeling Perry’s stuff. And you and Andy have schooled me. Thanks!
I just think it’s funny how much I know about Bunny Austin now – just because of comparisons with Murray.
Federer has gone nuts with his ego. I used to be such a huge fan of his. What kind of idiotic statements does he give now. There isn’t an ounce of humility in him.
come on,you used to be a Roger fan?you are an idiot if you think i will fall for that crap.Those people who think Roger’s statements are idiotic are those who are non Fed Fans.and you are one of those hence you are bad mouthing Roger.Just concentrate on your idol of a loser if you please and leave Roger alone.
I like Murray’s tennis. I’ll admit it, I find his style of tennis more atrractive than Rafa’s for example. But living in the UK, and listening to all this hype, it’s getting to me.
Especially since more than anyone else, Roger’s my favourite player, and irregarless of a fan-bias, Roger has achieved heaps more than Murray probably ever will. How can you honestly ignore the fact that Roger Federer has completed a career grand slam and won Wimbledon five times, reaching six finals, where’s Murray’s best effort has been one semi-final last year, losing to the eventual winner. I’m inclined to agree with Patrick McEnroe.
And in response to comments about Roger’s arrogance, it isn’t arrogance, if it’s justified. His ego,\ is justified, if he says for example, I’m a favourite to win at Wimbledon, we all know he is, he won the damn thing five times. If a player cannot back their claims, then they have something to be ashamed about, Roger never makes statements that are grandoise and untrue. There’s such a thing as false modesty, and that is worse than being egoistic or arrogant.
LOL sabizak, very ballsy. Although – I don’t think Federer’s statements are egotistic or idiotic. He tells it like it is. You ask him who he thinks the favourite is, he’ll tell ya, and he’s got record-equalling results to back it up.
As for the Federer/Man issue, I could do a critical analysis of this and rant on about society’s distorted notion of hypermasculinity – to the ridiculous extent that we consider an athlete like Federer as “not man enough”. But then I’d be a loser.
I think Serena and Venus should’ve been seeded 1 and 2 respectively. But at the same time, I think we all should just lay off Safina for a bit. The poor girl’s come under so much crap lately for things entirely beyond her control, except for the “winning a slam” part. Give her a rest.
Hi Dootsiez!
I’m so with you on the man issue! One of the most annoying cliches in tennis right now is that Rafa is a hyper-macho stud and Roger is – uh- not. I don’t think this captures either of their personalities. And even if it did – I see nothing un-manly about Roger on the court – he looks good to me!
I don’t think the seeding controversy is a knock on Safina – it’s just the truth. I don’t blame her for it – Wimbledon has this seeding committee set up for the women’s game for a reason (I assume) for precisely this reason. It’s a very, very strange decision to me. Honestly, I think it’s a little insulting to the Williams sisters.
OH, and when you write your “rant about society’s distorted notion of hypermasculinity” please let me know! I want to read it!
I agree about the hypermasculinity issue! It’s ironic, because Rafa is the one who reads Isabel Allende and listens to Phantom of the Opera, and Roger only reads car magazines and watches James Bond. And those facts don’t say any more about their masculinity than Rafa’s muscles and Roger’s elegance. I guess it would be nice if we could like what we want to like and be whoever we want to be!
Well said, Liz! I did think that was hilarious when I read that Rafa listens to Phantom before matches.
“Every tennis lover would like, someday, to play like Federer. But every man wants to be Rafael Nadal. Which is different.”
Ha. Hahahahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.
I’m sorry, but – what?
The writer (or perhaps, the guy the writer quoted) really should explain this one, because I honestly don’t see why “every man wants to be Rafael Nadal” (unless they want to be super muscular or something). I’m not saying that it should be Federer instead, just so you know. I just don’t get that quote.
(I’ve read most of that NY Times article, by the way, and it is mindboggingly long for something that really doesn’t say anything new, to be honest.)
And I agree with the others, regarding Fed’s “arrogance” – it’s not arrogance most of the time, it’s brutal honesty. And I love that about him. There are a few times where I do think he’s being a bit arrogant, but as a fan, you should embrace his flaws as well.
Hi recessional!
Love this: “There are a few times where I do think he’s being a bit arrogant, but as a fan, you should embrace his flaws as well.”
Re: the NYTimes piece, I’m thinking it must be for casual tennis fans or tennis newbies. The kind of people who wouldn’t already have read the same anecdotes in Strokes of Genius. . .I always love reading about Uncle Toni – he is such a character!
Roger’s perceived arrogance by those obviously non-believers are just blinded by the fact that what Roger is saying is the awful truth and we all know that Truth really hurts, right Murray????Better stop the feelings of DENIAL and open your eyes and accept the inevitable that between Experience vs. Desire,the former is a much better weapon.
Hi y’all – I agree with those who think that Roger’s “arrogance” is more like “confidence” and “the truth.” Saying he’s the favorite for the tournament (probably when he’s been asked – “Are you the favorite?”) is not being egotistical. He’s coming off a major victory at the French and returning to his favorite tournament which he’s won 5 times. The defending champ is injured. No one else in the field has ever won it. So. . . .Roger’s the favorite! Not really a shocker.
(oh oh, my “captcha” is “Superior Scotsmen” – I guess my website disagrees with me!)
What’s wrong with Roger having a little bit of confidence? It’s something that has been missing ever since 2009 began. But when Murray says he can beat Nadal and Federer at Wimbledon people don’t perceive this as arrogance. I’m confused?
I wouldn’t mind a bit of false humility now and then. Mohammad Ali or whatever other boxer or some WWE wrestler MAY also win after shooting off his mouth, but that doesn’t make them right in doing it. They come across as idiots whether they win or lose.
For Ms. hyper Cindy who obviously seems to think she is the sole propreiter of Federer fandom should go to my blog and see my Federer posts there. I think criticizing your player when he does something wrong is also a form of love. I feel disappointed in Federer because I expect better from him. So far Federer has not managed to be as gracious about Rafa as he has always been about Federer, often refusing to celebrate too loudly after defeating Fed so as not to hurt his feeling.
And the Fedo-files, please shut up and get some sense into your head for a change. Don’t turn everything personal!
Blah blah blah….just concentrate on your blogsite then if you please and rant and rave about Federer’s arrogance and Nadal’s graciousness.???ha!!
Hey Freakyfrites, what’s up? Great synopsis of the conference call! I think I pretty much agree with everything McEnroe and Carillo said. I guess the only thing I might kind of disagree with is the Williams seeding controversy, which is funny because I made a stink about Andy Roddick’s spot on my blog! I just think those top two spots are kind of hard to mess around with, despite a player’s record at the event. I saw somewhere that McEnroe said you kind of have to take into account Venus’ record elsewhere this year (maybe it was the wire version of the story?), which I think is a good point. And if you want to go into any other seeding controversy, should Roger have been ahead of Rafa?
As for Fed’s statements going in, I don’t think he was being arrogant, just truthful.
Hi Van! Yes, you’re right, Patrick did think that Venus’s performance this year hasn’t justified giving her the top seeding. But hasn’t this been the case many times? Didn’t she win it while seeded 17 or something like that? And she is ranked No. 3 now and has won a title or two this year so it’s not like she’s had a completely miserable year.
I just don’t think you can justify giving Dinara the top seeding when there is a special committee formed to make sure that the women’s seeds reflect grass court prowess. What’s the point of the committee? Dinara has a career record of 7 wins/6 losses at Wimby and the next two down have won it multiple times and played each other in last year’s final. . .so I just don’t see it.
On the other hand, Patrick also said that he didn’t think the seeding mattered much anyway, when it came to Venus and They are the only two who came into Wimbledon really, truly believing they could win the tournament. I agree with him – but it will just be a pity if they end up on the same side of the draw (which we’ll know very soon!)
I’m going to go check out your Andy Roddick story now! I was reading the New York times tennis reporters forum today an dI think many people agree with you!
yes, and he was also a tad too truthful while saying that Rafa’s injury didn’t seem like much to him. He should learn to stay quiet at some moments.
omg you guys cant be serious!. nadals game wont let him go on later he will probably burn himself out like hewwit at a young age (he already has knee problems) not to take anything away from him he is a fabulous player.. and murray has NO CHANCE at wimbledon mark my words he will lose before semis.