I said I would refrain from reading Rafael Nadal’s tealeaves until next season, but Peter Bodo at tennis.com offered this provocative analysis after this weekend’s Shanghai final:

So the real issue, looking to Nadal’s future, is: To what degree can he recapture the form and aura he enjoyed until a few weeks after the Australian Open?  Maybe his fate is inextricably linked to that of his great rival, Federer. Maybe one without the other diminishes the abilities of both (although Federer shot holes in that one at Wimbledon). Maybe we were just lucky these past few years to enjoy a whole – the rivalry – that was more than a sum of its parts. Maybe the glory days of Roger vs. Rafa are over, and a new chapter begins.

Federer is now coated with the Teflon of his career and accomplishments; whatever comes next for him may be dramatic, gut-wrenching or glorious. But it can only enhance his legacy; there is no down-side for Federer. Nadal, being younger, is the more interesting case. For it’s beginning to look as if having Federer out of the way doesn’t necessarily mean anything when it comes to Nadal’s own fortunes. The combined effects of frequent injury and the fact that Federer has for all intents and purposes run his race, leaves Nadal in new territory. He has a new set of questions to which he’ll have to come up with original answers on any given day.

Click here to read the entire piece.

To add a more fuel to the debate,  Andre Agassi recently predicted the end of the Federer/Nadal era:

“Now we have possibly the changing of the guard. You have those top two who are now losing ground to the likes of (Novak) Djokovic and Murray and (Juan Martin) del Potro.”

And Agassi thinks Rafa’s knee tendinitis may be a career-changer: “If you’re struggling with your knee, it tends to be recurring and not to be easy to do, so I got to believe he’ll struggle with it probably for his career.” (quotes via AP)

Well, Roger and Rafa still won 3 out of 4 majors this season, and 4 out of 4 in 2006 and 2007. So declaring “the Kings are dead!” seems a little presumptuous (right, Mrs. Djokovic?) Of course, if Roger retired tomorrow (God forbid) he’d still hold the all-time record for career Majors and be considered the G.O.A.T. If Rafa’s career should peter out at 23 or 24 years old – a scenario that both Bodo and Agassi are deeming possible by including him in this “end of the glory days” talk – Rafa’s will be a story of U.P.: unfulfilled potential.

I’m still sipping my tea until next season. Remember when Roger Federer smashed his racquet in Miami and the Fed-pocalypse was nigh?  If I’ve learned one thing this year, it is to never underestimate a Champion.

With Roger’s big win(s) in Cincinnati this weekend, it’s getting crowded on the Federer Express. Next stop, US Open. Here are some choice quotes:

Jon Wertheim of Sports Illustrated sums it up:

Was it really about three months ago that the Fed Express appeared to be sputtering, as the eponym was lacking a single title in 2009, losing to lesser lights and resisting calls to hire a coach, change rackets, consult a psychic and go macrobiotic? . . .Now, he’s poised to win the U.S. Open for the sixth (!) straight time, which, you could argue, might cement his best year yet.

The New York Times headlined its piece: Advantage to the Men with Federer on His Game:

But Federer’s drive is greater even than his genius, which is true of relatively few sports superstars, among them Tiger Woods and Kobe Bryant, Michael Phelps and Candace Parker  . . .Because Federer, 28, has shown no signs of complacency after spending 245 nonsuccessive weeks at No. 1, his challengers cannot afford to rest. . .Federer is the reason the depth and quality of the men’s game has never been better. Everybody is forced to raise his effort to match his. When his opponents speak, as Djokovic did Sunday, of the pressure Federer applies, they are not speaking strictly about on the court.

Even the macho Peter Bodo, who in a single article accused Roger Federer of emulating Brideshead Revisted, Big Bill Tilden (wink, wink), and a “cruise ship host” from a “campy television show” (sample line: “What next, lipstick and mom’s pumps?”) has changed his tune (via ESPN):

Federer is the man; anyone who hopes to take his measure will need help from an unreliable source — Federer himself. Nobody swinging a racket today can get the job done without Federer sabotaging himself.

The London Times admits Roger Federer gave Andy Murray “a masterclass”:

Imperious is a word that has been used many times to describe Roger Federer but such was the measure of his authority that even though Murray exhorted himself to contest the climax of their semi-final last night, the world No 1 laid down a massive marker with the US Open little more than a week away that a hat-trick of Grand Slam titles this year is well within his reach.

Brad Gilbert thinks Federer has all the answers:

Any time you see the top 4 together a little more then a week before the US Open a lot questions are gonna be asked, and the answer came back a resounding FED, as Roger Federer came up with convincing wins against Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic to win his first hard-court title of ‘09. Federer is moving the best on hard court that I have seen him in quite some time.

I’m not sure if all this Federer-love in the media is sincere or contrition for writing him off after Australia. Do you believe the hype?

Robin Soderling has competition – Chair Umpire Mohamed Lahyani may be the best thing going in Swedish tennis right now. Tennis nuts have often remarked on Mo’s cheerful, yet decisive, style: he’s charming with the players and shows no fear on the overrules. Brad Gilbert and Darren Cahill of ESPN have started calling him “Number One” and players like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and the always discerning Ivan Ljubicic agree: MoLa’s star is rising!

Here’s a feature on the Swedish “No. 1″, including interviews. It’s in Swedish, with some subtitles. Enjoy!

He’s definitely my favorite – who is yours?

Friday was quarterfinals day in Montreal, with Andy Murray advancing over Nikolay Davydenko,  del Potro showing Rafael Nadal the door and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga winning a game of choking chicken against Roger Federer. Sure, Roger’s loss was a shocker, but the result that really struck me was Andy Roddick’s straight set win over Novak Djokovic: 6-4, 7-6(4).

It wasn’t so much the loss, but the inevitable, routine nature of it that made me wonder: What the heck’s wrong with Novak Djokovic?

The Djoker “yoked” earlier this week that he was “born in the wrong era.” Right now, he could mean the Andy Roddick Era, since he’s lost all three of their meetings this year. But most armchair pundits look back further to pinpoint when the stripping Serbian started to slide. Like all the way back to the 2008 clay court season, when Novak failed to beat Nadal in Hamburg or Roland Garros, therefore losing two chances to overtake the Spainiard as World No. 2. He lost to Rafa again in the Queens Club final that year before crashing out to Safin in the second round of Wimbledon.

Some say Nole’s never been the same since last summer’s Beijing Olympics, when Nadal beat him in the semifinals. Nole lost the three set match, 6-4, 1-6, 6-4, flubbing an easy overhead on the final point. He left the court in tears.

Ironically, it could be one of Djokovic’s most impressive stretches of play that eventually broke him down. It came during this year’s clay court season, when after losing to Nadal in back-to-back Masters finals in Monte Carlo and Rome, he played the match of his life against Rafa in the Madrid semis. He held three match points. And he still lost 7-6 (9) in the third set after over four hours on court. Starting to see a pattern here?

Oh, and in the midst of his red hot ride on the red stuff, Nole lost the No. 3 ranking to Andy “hard court demon” Murray, a spot he’d held for 81 weeks. Djokovic still went into Roland Garros as the second favorite, but was upset by Philipp Kohlschreiber in the third round. Then he lost to Tommy Haas twice in a row – in the finals of Halle and the quarters of Wimbledon.

Geeze, now I’m starting to feel depressed. . .

I’m also thinking Nadal better watch his back (and his knees) when he takes the court with his new doubles partner** next week in Cincy (click here). After what he’s done to Nole’s career and confidence over the past two years, Rafa would be wise to keep his distance from the guy – by staying on opposite sides of the net!

**Maybe Rafa has taken my advice – it appears the Rafa/Nole dream team is a no-go in Cincy. (Updated 8/16)

But Nole and his fans shouldn’t despair. Just think of Andy “The Real No. 4″ Roddick or Roger “Crybaby-turned-GOAT” Federer. Nowadays, a slump is just a harbinger of great things to come.

It’s Andy Murray vs. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Andy Roddick vs Juan Martin del Potro on Saturday in the Montreal semis. Click here for the TV schedule.

Sam Querrey beat Tommy Haas on Saturday evening at the LA Tennis Open, 6-3, 7-5. The towering American was surprisingly fleet of foot, hit serves consistently in the 130s and rushed the net when he could. It was a great win for Sam, who is now in his third straight ATP final, having played Sundays at both Newport and Indianapolis this summer. He’ll play a surprise finalist, qualifier Carsten Ball, in the final this Sunday.

It was not so great of a night for Tommy Haas, the No. 1 seed and a two time champion in LA (2004 and 2006.) Sam’s big shots kept Tommy pinned near the fence for much of the match – Haas was angry when the line judges got in his way. He failed to convert any of the 5 break opportunities he had. And the on-court conditions were driving Haas nuts – he complained after Friday’s quarterfinal that the balls were flying and he couldn’t get a good feel on the ball.

The conditions got a hell of a lot worse on Saturday.

I’m talking about Sam Querrey’s rowdy fan club, the “Samurai”, a group of his high school buddies who have been busting eardrums all summer. The Indianapolis tournament even flew them out last week in a questionable effort to boost its unpopulated tournament. The Samurai rallied Saturday night at UCLA for Querrey’s match against Haas, commandeering a corner of the small stadium. They cheered, cajoled and beat their painted chests after every point. They used a drum during changeovers.

An example of the Samurai effect: 1st set, Sam’s up 4-3 on serve. Tommy’s serving and down 30-40. The Samurai – always on their feet – link arms, sway and start a slow and steady chant before Haas steps to the line: “BREAK! BREAK! BREAK! BREAK!”

It works. Sam gets his break and serves out the first set, hitting two aces and sprinting up to a feathery drop shot on set point that Haas obviously thought he couldn’t touch.

“They were awesome.” Sam said of his Samurai after the match. “You couldn’t ask for a better group of friends and a bunch of guys who support me.  They get me through a lot of the Love-40 downers and (keep me) fired up on set points.”

Tommy Haas did not find the Samurai awesome, saying the group had “no class” and behaved inappropriately: “It’s up to Sam to take control of the situation. This was not the fifth set of a US Open.“

Sam disagreed: “I think they’re pretty considerate considering none of them play tennis. They’re just fired up. It’s a home match. It’s the semifinals. It’s a night match. Yeah they get fired up, but it’s not my fault.”

To complain that the Samurai have “no class” is just stating the obvious. We’re talking about a swaggering gang of shirtless dudes in bodypaint – just add kegger. And Sam (or his intern) has obviously trained them on a few etiquette basics. I was sitting two rows away – lucky me! – and observed the group applauding Tommy’s winners every now and then. They kept their mouths shut during the points and between first and second serves. Sure, they cheered Haas’s errors, but nowadays even the players fist pump when their opponents’ double fault.

Sarah Foster, Haas’s fiance, warned ESPN’s Pam Shriver that there would be blood if the Samurai didn’t behave. I’m sure she was sharpening her knife to a deadly point all match long.

But what did the ticket-buying “neutrals” in the crowd think of Sam’s Club? I disagree with Querrey’s own appraisal that “99% of the people in (the stadium) think that they’re awesome.” A couple feisty kids and their mom got into it with the Samurai, and I detected a few sighs and shaking heads around me. Personally, the dudes got on my nerves. My ideal tennis crowd is energized, balanced in its support and respectful of the game’s sporting traditions. Like at Wimbledon. But the LA Tennis Open ain’t SW19. (Talk about stating the obvious!) And I admit that I’m a curmudgeonly tennis snob who likes her players classy and the fans wearing shirts.

“That’s why (tennis) isn’t more popular.” said Sam, reacting to the criticism. “I think if you had a group like (the Samurai) in every stadium tennis would be more popular.”

Well, what do you think?

Here are some photos of some of the action on Saturday night:

 

It’s not easy choosing the G.O.A.T. Like American Lit exams, it’s more essay question than multiple choice. And even if you’re tennis’s answer to Mark Twain, those snarky Sartre-types can always blow smoke in your eyes and snarl: “What a futile exercise. It’s obvious that the G.O.A.T. is a media construct and not reality.”

Can you pick a G.O.A.T. from the choices below?:

1. Big Bill Tilden: He dominated like no other player ever has or maybe ever will. (Yeah, back when players wore pants and sipped brandy between games!)
2. Rod Laver: He won the Grand Slam twice – as an amateur in 1962 and as a pro in 1969 (But 3 of the 4 Majors were on grass! How many would Roger or Pete have won if the surfaces hadn’t changed?)
3. Bjorn Borg: He won six French Open and five consecutive Wimbledon titles. (But he bolted as soon as McEnroe reared his curly head! And he couldn’t master New York, either.)
4. Pete Sampras: He held 14 major titles and was year end No. 1 for six consecutive years – an open era record that Roger will likely never break (The operative word is “held” as in Roger now holds a record 15 major titles – including one at the French Open. The best Pete ever did in Paris was the semi-finals – once.)
5. Roger Federer: 15 majors and counting, career slam, best hair in history. (Oh, and that crappy 7-13 head-to-head against Rafael Nadal.)

Here’s a question to keep those philosophy majors smoking clove cigarettes past their bedtimes:  How can Roger Federer be the greatest of all time, if he isn’t the (undeniable) greatest of his era?

Pete Sampras, who has praised Roger’s accomplishments, was recently asked about the Roger-Rafa G.O.A.T. conundrum. And I think he’s stumped:

“I do understand the argument as far as being the best ever. You have to be the man of your generation. He (Roger) has come up short against Nadal. I can see the point. It’s hard to answer that. I don’t know how to answer it. You know, it’s not done yet.  Roger’s career isn’t done yet. He’s going to play Nadal a number of times over the next number of years, and he has to beat him. He has to beat him in the finals of majors. To be considered the greatest ever, he certainly in my book is (already that). But he has to figure this kid out. . .It would have bothered me if I had a losing record against Andre in majors.” (via tennis.com)

Just for the record: Sampras was 20-14 over Agassi, including a 6-3 head-to-head in slams.

Okay, maybe Pete’s on to something – maybe it’s just a matter of time before Roger turns that head-to-head around, dominates Rafa from the clay of Monte Carlo to the Cincinnati hard courts and treats his Spanish rival like Lleyton Hewitt in the US Open final. Or – and this seems more likely – things will continue more as less as they have been, with Roger winning some and losing more (and more) as he enters his twilight years on tour. And who knows how many majors Rafa will win before he’s forced to replace his knees with ball bearings? Few could argue Rafa’s G.O.A.T.ness if (still a big IF) he surpasses Roger’s trophy count.

This is about the time when I bum a cig and go brood in the corner. G.O.A.T., schmoat, as Descartes would say.

What do you think?

G.O.A.T. line up: Getty Images via the Sydney Morning Herald.

Maria Sharapova made an all-too-brief return to the WTA tour today at Indian Wells after a seven month injury layoff. She and Russian partner, Elena Vesnina, lost their first round doubles match: 6-2, 4-6, 10-7 to Ekaterina Makarova and Tatiana Poutchek.

The upcoming Miami tournament is likely NOT on her schedule, at least for singles play. Here are some remarks from Sharapova’s post match presser:

“The hump I have to get over now is to get through playing two of three set matches, seven or eight days in a row or two weeks in a row and feeling 100%. Now I can do that three or four days and have to take it easy on the fifth. That’s not the way to go about a tournament in singles. Whenever that comes, that’s when I’ll be playing singles.“

“I’m done with setting a timetable for myself. Those days are over.”

Right now she says she’s in the two steps forward one step back phase, which does not sound too promising for the immediate future. But Maria has a downright sunny outlook on it all:

“I’m blessed to have the opportunity to be here again walking around. In the players’ lounge, I see some people who don’t look very happy and I’m thinking you are just so lucky to be here, you don’t know how fortunate you are just to be able to step on court and play. I looked at the doubles prize money and its pretty good. With so many people suffering, we’re very fortunate that this year that players are paid so much prize money. It’s just awesome.”

I don’t know what to make of this. It sounds like her attitude is exactly where it should be: hopefully optimistic. But that’s the troubling part – there’s still a level of hope in the comeback equation. Random rant: I think the media has been remarkably understated in its reaction to all this – imagine if Roger or Rafa was out for over half a year with injury and telling everyone that there was “no timetable” to his return? Perhaps Maria’s off court stardom makes people forget that she has a day job. But to the many of us who admire the grit and drama she brings to the tour, her absence from the big matches and big stages is becoming painfully obvious.

So what say you, Maria fans? Are you in panic mode yet or are you confident that Maria will return to top form eventually? I’m really starting to wonder. . .but maybe I’m transferring my hypochondriac fears onto Maria.

And did anyone catch her match?

Sources: tennisreporters.net/CBS Sports

Photo: REUTERS/Michael Fiala

A recent Newsday article (click here) about the upcoming BNP Paribas Showdown for the Billie Jean King Cup in Madison Square Garden had some intriguing news about the growing interest in exhibition tennis as a marketing tool for our sport. Jerry Solomon – organizer of the BJK Cup and last year’s Sampras vs. Federer exo in NYC – has plans for an annual tennis spectacular that would bring “all the Grand Slam winners, men and women, to the Garden in (the March) time slot every year and have a two-day celebration in New York of the sport. The tennis industry seems to be interested in that.”

Peter Bodo, also interviewed for the article, was also enthusiastic on the subject of exhibitions. He thinks the regular tennis season should end after the U.S. Open and be followed by three months of touring exo tennis:

“I’ve always argued that exhibitions are great for the sport, that you ought to close the season down after the U.S. Open and send guys like [Andy] Roddick and Federer on a 20-day tour around the country. Have your stars play the majors and a couple of other tournaments and then let them do what they want — evangelize for tennis. That’s how the game was built years ago.”

What say you? Are you pro or con tennis exhibitions?

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Personally, I HATE ‘em. For me, tennis matches are all about the competition, the idea that something real is on the line and that both players are doing everything possible to win. In exhibition-land, it’s all “hit and giggle” in the end, even if the players are doing their best to fake it. But in Bodo’s defense, I was inspired to start blogging because of an exhibition match: one of my very first posts came after watching a Sampras vs. Courier exo at the Home Depot Center in Carson a few years back. At the time, I was easing back into the game after a long spell of missing Pete Sampras, and I remember being really excited about watching my hero play again. Now, of course, I’m a tennis snob and accept only real sweat and tears. But that exo match was my “gateway drug” to full-fledged tennis addiction, which proves Peter Bodo’s point. So I guess I’m voting for option number two. . .

The Billie Jean King Cup will be shown on Monday, March 2 at 7:30 p.m. (EST), LIVE on HBO.

Serena beat Ana Ivanovic 6-4, 6-4 in the quarter finals of Dubai today, setting up a semi final match with her sister Venus Williams. This is what she had to say about the all-Williams match-up:

“We are both the best players on the tour right now.”

I wish Serena was right  – that would mean that she and Venus would be meeting in the finals of these big tournaments. I love Serena and I love Venus – they’re both spectacular athletes and can beat anyone, anyday. And obviously Serena is correct when she says that she, herself, is the best player on tour right now – her No. 1 ranking more than confirms this. But her sister just isn’t consistent enough and hasn’t played enough to merit Serena’s praise. She went out to Carla Suarez Navarro in the second round of the Australian Open, for goodness sakes!

No Serena, Elena Dementieva is the other “best” player on tour “right now.” She’s won two titles this year (Auckland, defeating Vesnina in the final, and Sydney, defeating Safina), was the runner up last week in Paris (Serena withdrew from their semifinal match with a knee injury), helped her team win their Fed Cup tie a couple weeks ago (even though they’d have been fine without her), and lost to Serena in the Australian Open semis. In my mind, all of this makes her consistently better than anyone else in 2009 but Serena Williams. Yes, she lost to Venus in straights today, but she’s also played a hell of a lot more tennis than Venus has this year.

Serena could counter that Venus is the only player who can really threaten her when she plays her best tennis: Venus can out-power Serena, out-move Serena and out-tough Serena and I don’t think any other player can do all three things at the same time against either Williams. I’m sure Serena would also say that Venus is the only player on tour who she worries about losing to. (And the great thing about Serena, is that you know she really does worry about it!)

Okay, then, I’ll meet you half way Serena – you and Venus aren’t the two best players on tour right now, but you are the two best players on tour, period. You agree with me, right?

Let’s see if Serena proves me wrong tomorrow! Serena vs. Venus will be on at 7pm Dubai time on Friday (that’s 10am EST.) Click here for live streaming.

Photo: Xinhua

I felt a little sorry for the poor suckers in the crowd last night who paid good money to watch the sublime Serena dismantle Safina 6-0. 6-3 in the championship match of the Australian Open. It probably took everyone present about twice as long to take the tram to Rod Laver arena, buy a coldie and find their seat as it did to sit through the match (including the awards presentation.)

About twenty minutes into the match (roughly when the second set was starting) an idea floated through my tennis-crazed mind: The women should play best-of-five finals at the Majors.

The final result probably would have been the same if the ladies had played another set, but at least 1. the match would have lasted as long as an episode of Desperate Housewives and 2. Dinara would have had a few more pokes at Serena’s ironclad game.

I’m not pushing for pure equality between the men and women – the way things are trending on both tours, the guys will start playing best of three in the majors before the women go the distance (perish the thought!!!). But I do think that this one change could make a positive difference in how the women’s finals unfold.

What do you think? Would my big idea make the finals more competitive or just more humiliating for the loser?