Oz: Parting Shots.

 

 

 

 

1) The best two players in both draws won. And it’s kinda difficult to complain about that.

 

2) Li Na and Hubby, Jiang Shan,  just became my favourite tennis couple ever.

 

They just seem hopelessly attached to one another. He stares down at her from the players box with a glint in his eye, like she’s his pride and joy – often whilst serving as a backboard for her outbursts. Not that you should doubt her affection – she left her country’s national team in 2002 (re-joined later) because sports officials “barred” her from courting him, and it was Li herself that popped the question on Valentine’s day in 2005 with a box of chocolates.

 

 

"It doesn't matter if you are fat or skinny, handsome or ugly, I will always follow you, always love you."

 

Like I said, best tennis couple ever.

 

3) Can we retire the phrase “knocking on the door” please? It wasn’t a particularly attractive description in the first place and it’s certainly not true of Djokovic now.

 

4) Big 3?

 

The bigwig discussion? Again?

 

My criteria remains unchanged: dominating the rest of the field and regular  (though not necessarily frequent) wins over existing (higher-ranked) bigwigs including, but not limited to, Fedal, makes you a bigwig.

 

According to that criteria, both Djoko and Murray have  already been bigwigs for some time (If we further restrict it to Slam winners, we must exclude Murray which seems unnecessarily harsh given his wins over Fedal and the rest of the field).

 

5) As is to be expected, Muzz will likely be mauled for weeks to come by the Brit tennis press. I hope he goes nowhere near a newspaper.

 

 

 

No words necessary.

 

He’s spoken of a spell away from tennis, which actually sounds like a sensible idea if he uses it to throw himself into something completely different (hint: not playstationing).

 

Some of the criticism will be deserved; most of the censure, however, will be a mixture of callous tradition and (worse) casual drive by journos finding it necessary to feign an interest in tennis for all of two or three weeks a year.

 

6) Speaking of casual, drive-by journalism, some of it (perhaps understandably) started during the match.

 

Let’s be clear. Snark is a healthy and necessary part of a functioning,free-thinking tennis fanbase. I have no time for snooty puritans dressed in pringle jumpers that find it distasteful.

 

The British press have, in turn, turned heaping abuse on our sporting failures from a quaint village tradition that dates back centuries into its current incarnation as an advanced discipline that David Cameron will ensure you have no hope of being funded to study for.

 

All, except the part about student fees, sort of acceptable, on some level.

 

It’s getting a bit much though when the snark is coming from people with no interest in the game. What I saw on twitter yesteday, from British (non-tennis) journos almost had the air of a medieval paegant, at which you might stop by to hurl rotting fruit at the unfortunate soul trussed up for our amusement – in this case Andy Murray.

 

Maybe they’d like to be disembowelled for our amusement too? Just like “the good old days”. Quid pro quo.

 

7) The women outplayed the men.

 

From beginning to end. Right up to and including the final.

 

Fed v Gilles was something special, TooMuch earnt the right to be talked of for the right reasons and Dolgo is just plain good news.

 

But up until the semis (when all hell broke loose), for the most part, the men’s event was a remarkably demure, upset-free event, played in the best of spirits. BORING.

 

All the while, the WTA gave us a soul enriching symphony comprised of breakthroughs (Petko), comebacks (Aga), heartbreak (Venus), talent-fests (Sveta/Henin), re-retirements and of course:

 

8) The best WTA match ever played.

 

Is that an exaggeration? I don’t think it is.

 

What else do you call the longest match in GS history, which, in stark contrast to Isnut, was a sustained exhibition of quality from beginning to end. Ok, perhaps that’s not quite right – but are you really going to pretend that that one middle set (that Fran won 6-1) takes anything away from the totality of the match?

 

In any case, I’d like to hear what you think is the best match ever played, if not this.

 

9) Marián Vajda and Novak Djokovic is one of the best partnerships in tennis.

 

I don’t know Vajda personally and no one can claim to be privy to the internal dynamics of a relationship that goes back over 4 years.

 

 

What I do admire (from afar) is Vajda’s mixture of calm, low-key, responsive, respectful, disciplined focus towards his charge and, given the way Novak’s developed technically, his tennis input too.

 

Djokovic, for his part, is always very keen to recognise his involvement, over and above the usual nod to coach and team we usually see.

 

It seems, in other words, to be an enduring, robust, mutually respectful, mutually beneficial, highly successful partnership that neither party seems to want to end. Why would they?

 

10) Let there be no illusions about this: Novak’s straight sets dismissal of Fed was the single most emphatic, most significant, most telling defeat Fed has suffered in years.

 

This was no (mostly muscle based) drive-by rout the way Sod and Berd did for Fed last year – Nole emerged the better player playing the same bold, brash brand of tennis full of the explosive movement he exhibited when he burst on the scene four years ago.

 

I’d have to see some improvements at the net before I buy into the “players’ player” label I’ve seen being bandied about. But it almost doesn’t matter.

 

All that said and done, I’m not quite ready to change any guards just yet – not unless you’re prepared to change them right back again when Rafa wins RG and Fed wins one of Wimby and the USO again.

 

11) Halfway through the set-that-must-not-be-named, Sarah Churchwell began tweeting the men's final.

 

Confession: I always tend to get a euphoric pang of glee whenever my sport gets wider recognition or, better still, is mentioned (in an informed, non-condescending way) by well-respected figures outside of tennis.

 

"The pleasure I take in watching perfect stretches of tennis ... is both a mimetic pleasure in bodily accuracy, a dramatic pleasure in controlled success ... and an aesthetic pleasure of my own in the patterns made by dancing feet, floating or whipped, or stunned balls in air or on a hard surface, and a sense of the mapping and remapping of the cube of air and the rectangle of earth."

AS Byatt in the Sunday Telegraph Magazine, October 26, 2003

 

Churchwell seems well-versed in the game, and was, like the rest of us, criticising Muzz for his vacuous performance in that period, whilst complimenting Djoko’s movement and defence.

 

Part of me (the previously mentioned euphoric part) was busy affirming how tennis-loving literature academics are #GoodForTennis.

 

 

The other part, however, was desperately wringing its hands in embarrassment at the spectacle being played out.

 

It was like having that very “proper” girl two years above you at Uni, you always wanted to impress, inadvertently stray into the JCR and discover you all dishevelled, telling loud, uncouth jokes and in various states of undress.

 

One assumes she knows enough tennis not to be discouraged. All the same, I can’t help wishing she’d dropped by another day. We’re better than this. Honest.

 

12) Wozniacki can win a Slam. Yeah, I said it.

 

Within hours of the conclusion of the final, tired old questions were once again raging around the legitimacy of Woz’s #1 ranking (boring) and her style of play (still boring).

 

Wertheim weighed in thus: "There's a lot to like about her game. But it's hard to see a player so lacking in weaponry winning a Slam."

 

I would say the exact opposite: Not a lot to like about her game, but with so many retirements pending in 2012, hard NOT to see her winning a Slam.

 

I would also say Woz’s defence is her “thing” the way Serena’s serve or Juju’s backhand or Ferru’s fitness and intensity is theirs. She’ll never be “about the winners”, but amongst other things, this makes her the best defender in the game.

 

Not only is this commendable in its own right, it will, in all likelihood, make her best placed to take advantage of the Slam vacuum left by the Williamses and Kim when they do finally call it quits (generally agreed to be around the time of the 2012 Olympics).

 

Ditto Bepa, Vika, and even JJ (I still believe), who all have it within them to go 7 out of 7 matches in that post-Williamses, post-Clijsters, post-2012 environment. It’s not even a stretch to bet on a new face, a relative unknown having the breakthrough of her life.

 

Even so,  I’m more interested in how well Sveta will fare – no reason she shouldn’t, in principle, flourish as one of the most experienced, most talented women of this new era.

 

13) Djokos winner’s speech

 

He mentioned his coach, his team, the multicultural feel of the event, the victims of the Queensland floods, and of course his homeland. All without ceremony, when that, in fact, was precisely what this was.

 

10 out of 10.

 

A post-tennis Serbian presidency beckons…

 

14) Anyone calling for Venus’s retirement should be exiled to a Siberian gulag

 

It’s one thing to gently suggest that her best days are behind her or not to want to see her embarrass herself – need I remind you that we’re hardly there yet.

 

Venus may never win another Slam (though this too is far from certain), but deserves to go out with dignity and on her own terms.

 

15) I miss Serena. That is all.

Oz: Triumph & Disaster

 

 

 

 

Depending on whether you think of Murray as a brilliant tactician, too passive for his own good, too grumpy for his own good (or indeed, all three), and on your tennis philosophy in general, you’ll regard his membership of all the above groups as being “in good company” or the worst of all possible worlds.

 

 

 

My own view:

 

Set 1) So close you could smell the BO. Just like your fellow bystander on London Underground.

 

And just like London Underground, people responded to it with either Monday-Morning grouchiness, snoozing in the hope of waking up to better things, forbearance in the face of a necessary evil, or a mixture of amusement and incredulity at not knowing where it was headed and at it not AT ALL feeling like  a GS final.

 

I started off agreeing: lengthy, no-pace rallies that were less about craft and rather more to do with no one wanting (or being able) to pull the trigger were hardly the stuff GS finals.

 

At a certain point though, it simply became snark for the sake of snark. And not particularly inventive snark.

 

 

How many times have we seen a raucous high-intensity semi followed up by a Fedal castration of a finalist crippled by “the aura” and the sense of occasion? Is that meant to be preferable?

 

Listening to some of the comments, you’d think two juniors had turned up.

 

This was simply a different look of tennis, it was closely fought and when the break came at 4-4 it was to prove decisive. Nole was playing too well not to take his chances.

 

 

Set 2) A complete disaster. Scorched earth and the end of life as we and Andy knew it.

 

I’m talking apocalyptic carnage. Twisted, knotted metal and the musty smell of singed hair hanging heavily in the air. Perhaps even the odd flesh-craving zombie wandering about.

 

 

Almost redundant having a discussion about how “passive play” might have ruined his chances (it did and we should be having that discussion even though it’s all been said many times over).

 

Far more relevant, I feel, is how badly Murray reacted to going 2-0 down. Playing two or even three dud games in the middle of a match is dangerous but strikingly common even from the likes of Fed. What distinguishes “the better man(or woman)” is in their acceptance of poor form and how confidently they weather out the storm.

 

My guy didn’t react so well: 2 swiftly became 3, which in turn rapidly haemorrhaged into 4 and, before we know it, he  was  5-0 down and we were having all those sorry-ass discussions about “poor body language” again.

 

As with their initial breakthroughs, Djoko appears to have been the first to mature in this respect too. Their results tell no other story.

 

Set 3) The fight back (or something like it) begins. And ends very quickly.

 

It wasn’t quite “too little too late” – some of the best tennis of the match was played in this set – but Nole was, by now, comfortably in his element and playing the type of tennis that saw off Fed and made him the best player in the draw.

 

 

The forehand with all the depth and bite that has been AWOL for over two years; the serve, so often recently blighted by either a change of equipment or an irritatingly hysterical javelin-throwers action, now a goto weapon of choice to dig him out of trouble.

 

Then there’s the movement. And in this, he’s in a class by himself. It’s certainly not as effortless as Fed, and I really don’t know whether it makes him the best defender in the game – no want of contenders there in any case.

 

Though where I think Djoko distinguishes himself is in his agility and flexibility. No one, but no one, twists and contorts his hips and back the way he does. Combined with his speed, it means he’s able to dig himself out of all sorts of impossible jams, (usually when he’s being run ragged on the baseline), work his way back into points after being stretched out impossibly wide, switch defence into offence in the blink of an eye and end up winning a rally he had no right to even be part of.

 

I remember it back in 2007 when he first broke through – what’s different now is a slightly heavier more developed body and a markedly more mature tennis brain which manifests itself as nuance in the most unlikely, underrated, low-profile of places.

Oz: History vs. Destiny

 

 

For my part, I thought the way Li Na played the final was a mirror of the way she played her semi final versus Caro….but just like the mirror everything appeared inverted.

 

 

She started off rip-roaring well and seemed to be up a set before my eyes had adjusted to the morning light (8am on a Sat morning…a little understanding, please) – not that different to the way she closed out Caro.

 

Kim, all the while, seemed thrown off, jittery, confused.

 

And then midway through the second set – just two or three games away from the biggest win of her life and actually making history – Li started to give way. Not all at once, but with subtlety, piece by piece, layer by layer, it all unravelled leaving a completely different flavour of match.

 

Most of the dysfunction began with her volleying – or to be clear her drive-volleying.

 

To be fair, I actually think Li volleys, not completely adeptly, but well enough. And she’s at her best when she doesn’t think. She said so herself. That probably flies in the face of convention  – but it seems to work for her.

 

 

Which makes it all the more surprising, that she seemed almost to be overthinking some of those drive-volleys: it got to the point where you’d find yourself pleading for her to put away a conventional volley badly, rather than her preferred drive-volley right back in the path of Kim who didn’t need a second invite.

 

No secret it’s not the result I was looking for (certainly not the bigger story), but is on some level at least, the right result.

 

Kim came into the event being touted the favourite (rightly). And once it all began, was, like Djokovic, the best player in the draw.

 

Within minutes of her win, there was talk of her already being halfway to a Rafa-Slam (far be it for them to be dissuaded by inconvenient facts like that not actually having happened yet) – talk which I’m finding all rather difficult.

 

Leaving aside the fact that neither of the Williamses are done just yet, for all her gifts, Kim is still prone to inexplicable episodes of jitteriness – it was there in a lesser form this fortnight with seemingly spontaneous mini-streaks of double faults and UFEs. Not all that sure that translates to winning 7 out of 7 matches on either grass or clay – not her most effective surfaces as the best of times.

 

Earlier in the week, she signalled this might be her last full year on tour: that doesn’t give her many more chances.

 

For now however, she’s rightfully (Serena’s injury not withstanding) considered the best player on the planet and will, in all likelihood, capture the #1 ranking at some point this year.

 

Something tells me that might be enough for her.

Djokovic Dominates Murray To Win Australian Open

Getty

More exhibition than Grand Slam final. Andy Murray competed for about half of the first set, but once Novak Djokovic took it on a break of serve, the match was all but over. Even with a minor lapse in the second set when Djokovic slapped a forehand long on a set point to deliver a bagel followed by a loose game to drop serve, he was never in any trouble. 6-4, 6-2, 6-3.

It's been a long time since a women's final eclipsed a men's final for overall quality, drama, and competitiveness, but here we are. Both finals featured the same number of games, but Li Na, despite losing her focus, still played with some passion and fight.

Murray, on the other hand, becomes the first player in the Open Era to lose nine consecutive sets in Slam finals. I'm not going to say it again, but you can no longer consider me a fool for believing it. (For the record, Dinara Safina has also contested three Slam finals without winning a set...) Some of the pundits are now beginning to wonder if we should be talking about the Big Three instead of the Big Four.

Humph.

Djokovic has taken his game to a new level. Focused, precise, efficient. And what incredible defense to offense. There were a few points where I felt like I was watching Serena Williams in full flight. He admitted that winning Davis Cup was a strong wind in his back, and he delivered in spades.

Am I becoming a fan? Maybe. Maybe not. Not sure I can get over a lot of his history, but what I do admire is that he didn't let the premature expectations of being the "Future of Tennis" derail him. (He also proved me wrong. He stopped tanking and talking shit, showing far more respect for the sport.) He slumped. He recovered. He regrouped. He improved. That takes an inner toughness not always seen in the upper echelons of tennis.

And he can play on clay. While no one touts him as the next man capable of winning four Slams in a row, not yet anyhow, wouldn't it be interesting if he found a way to win Roland Garros this spring?


Getty

Face Of The Day

AP

Ana Ivanovic of Serbia sits n the supporters box of compatriot Novak Djokovic for his match against Britain's Andy Murray in the men's singles final at the Australian Open tennis championships in Melbourne, Australia, Sunday, Jan. 30, 2011.

Oz: Noticeboard (Day fourteen)

 

 

With Henin, Pova,Venus, Vika and Sveta out, and Franny maimed and limping into the quarters, it's fair to say things haven’t quite gone to plan.

 

I’ve disbanded my dysfunctional prayer circle of heretics, deviants and delinquents in favour of a War Room and realigned myself around Fran, Bepa, Li and Petra.

 

Muzz for the men.

 

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

We can still do it.

 

Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Ferru	Muzz	Djoko	Fed

Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Woz	LiNa	Kim	Bepa

 

LEGEND

Top Guns

Hot Stuff

Young & Restless

Sympathy Vote

 

PICK OF THE DAY

 

 

Rod Laver	Hisense	MCA
11am
7:30pm Andy Murray(GBR)[5] vs. Novak Djokovic(SRB)[3]

Australian Open 2011 Men's Final Preview

BY MAD PROFESSAH

Here is my prediction for the 2011 Australian Open men's final. I previously predicted the men's semifinals (2 of 2 correctly) and the men's quarterfinals (3 of 4 correctly).


Getty

Andy Murray GBR (5) vs. Novak Djokovic SRB (3). This is not the final everyone expected (or wanted) to see this year. However, everyone has been predicting for years that eventually these two would be competing for major titles. Djokovic and Murray were born one week apart in May 1987 and the two were on the junior circuit contemporaneously, with Murray arguably having the more successful career (winning the 2004 US Open junior title) then. However, Djokovic has had the more successful career on the adult tour so far, winning the 2008 Australian Open and losing two US Open finals (2007 to Roger Federer, 2010 to Rafael Nadal). Murray has only been to two major finals, losing to Federer both times (2008 US Open and 2010 Australian Open). The two have the same number of Masters Series titles (six), with Djokovic's including the end-of-season Masters Cup title in 2008. Djokovic has 18 ATP Tour titles overall to Murray's 16. They have played each other 7 times, with Djokovic leading 4-3 in the career head-to-head. The two times they played in finals, Murray has won, but the last time they played each other was in March 2009. They have split 3-3 the 6 hard court matches they've contested

Okay, so that is how the two have played against each other in the past, but the question everyone wants answered is how will they play against each other in their next match, the 2011 Australian Open men's final? Well, right now Djokovic's results in the tournament to date indicate he has been playing better tennis. His stunning straight-sets dismissal of defending champion Roger Federer in the semifinals demonstrated his ability to take his tennis to stratospheric levels. Similarly, Murray's two 4-set wins in the quarterfinal (over Aleksandr Dolgopolov) and semifinal (over David Ferrer) are indications of the opposite. There's no question that Djokovic will pose much more probing questions to Murray than any of his previous opponents, and the Scot has already illustrated that his games sometimes gets wobbly in those situations, although ultimately he did prevail.

I am not one of the naysayers that says that Murray will never win a major title, (he has too many outstanding aspects of his game to not breakthrough sometime) however I am fairly confident he will not win this one.

PREDICTION: Djokovic (in 4 sets).

Clijsters Beats Li For Australian Open Title

Getty

I'd love to post a long, insightful write up about this final, but it's not necessary. Kim Clijsters' experience and Li Na's lack of the same propelled the Aussie's favorite adopted daughter to the title 3-6, 6-3, 6-3.

Despite waking up with a stiff neck and dropping the first set behind a rash of errors, Clijsters rallied against the unraveling first-time Slam finalist who let everything but the night sky distract her from focusing on the finish line.

Technically, these two mature-in-age tennis players player a similar game. But Li should never ever take a ball out of the air. Never. In umpteen attempts to put the ball away before letting it bounce, she won a mere two points. (Or was it three?) She gets low marks for overheads/swinging volleys, high marks for stubbornness. One of her amateurish attempts came on set point in the second set when she hit a timid swinging backhand volley right back to Clijsters who blasted it down the line to seal the set. To add insult to injury, the floater she struck was sailing wide.

We all knew what the outcome would be from there, and so it was.

At least Li made Clijsters serve for it, and serve for it she did. She hit three first serves and three groundstroke winners to earn three match points. She missed a first serve on her first one, but Li missed a forehand to give Clijsters her fourth major title and first outside New York.

Oz: Destiny

 

1 day…..20 hrs…….32 mins…….43 seconds.

 

THAT……is when this Slam……..will end.

 

 

126 matches of professional tennis, most of which you won’t ever see, can’t ever prove were even played out, and for all you know probably only existed in a transient tangential Donnie-Darko type corrective universe.

 

One that will cease to exist the second after Li Na and Andy Murray fulfil their destiny.

 

I never did get round to blogging that Li/Caro match. It made for difficult viewing. It also made for incredibly inspiring viewing once Li came alive in the closing moments of that 2nd set.

 

 

Li’s groundies are dynamite. Technically perfect dynamite.  Caro still struggles to keep the ball in court on the rare occasion she tries to crack a winner. Tell me something new.

 

My own little theory for why she was in Murray’s box during his semi final today:

 

Muzz: “So, I saw you in my players’ box today [grins dorkishly] - it felt cool.”

 

*steamy music*

 

Caro: “Well….[breaths deeply]….I’m not normally the kind of girl that does this sort of thing…”

 

Muzz: “Go on….”

 

Caro: "[sighs]…even now I’m not comfortable asking you this [flutters eyelashes]…”

 

Muzz: “GO ON…”

 

*record scratching noise*

 

Caro[deadpan]:  “For a guy that isn’t [airquotes with fingers] ‘about the winners’, you win, like, a lot of matches – I need to know how that works…”

 

Muzz: …

 

 

Caro’ll never be “all about the winners” the way Li and other WTA big guns are – that’ll never be “her thing”.

 

 

But with a retirement bloodbath less than 20 months away (Venus, Serena, Roger, ARod, Kolya, Kim, amongst others – I’m doing ‘denial’ right now so I’m at ‘acceptance/hope’ in time for the 2012 Olympics) and with the players left to fill the void, you’ve got to think “her thing” will probably be enough to win a Slam….at some point.

 

I can see I’d better define what precisely“her thing” is: quite simply, being the best defender in the game (JJ used to be that once remember? That didn’t stop us from predicting a Slam for her).

 

And even though that’s (clearly) not quite what we expect or even desire from a world #1, it’s not half bad an asset. Besides, I’m kinda tired of the grinder storyline. She is what she is.

 

But back to Li.

 

 

Let there be no illusions about just how big this would be if she does manage to pull this off. Your expression tells me you already know that. Ok then.

 

And yeeaaahhh, alright – she’s probably not playing for “king and country” in much the same way as Muzz is claiming it to be more of a “personal glory” thing too. (Good luck selling that to the papers)

 

I have to say, I don’t completely believe either of them. Not that they haven’t likely successfully convinced themselves of what they’re saying.

 

I just don’t think you can, in Li’s case at least, completely blot out the hopes, desires and fears of 1.3 billion people that have never had a player even contest the finals of one of these gigs before.

 

We already know something of her love for them with the charity work she does – that has to leave some kinda carbon footprint on your psyche.

 

You can try and play it down, you can try and shake it off. You can’t pretend it’s not there.

 

 

Glass half empty:

 

If she plays as dissolute a match as she played against Caro in the semis, Kim mows her, or rather she mows herself down. In straights.

 

Glass half full:

 

Li’s been astonishingly accurate since the season began which, as we all know, is astonishingly out of character for her. Maybe this really does have a sense of “destiny” to it the way Fran did at RG last year – I have to say I didn’t really see it when people were suggesting it earlier on this week.

 

Maybe a more contained, less error-prone version of Li will only continue to exist for the span of time it takes to win this thing before collapsing in on itself the way Donnie’s tangential universe did – but only after allowing him to set things right for everyone (assuming at least some of you have seen the film?), in this case over 1.3 BILLION PEOPLE.

 

If the Caro semi-final was her one dud – then I’d say she’s got it out of her system.

Australian Open 2011 Women's Final Preview

BY MAD PROFESSAH


Getty

Front pages of newspapers in Beijing on January 28, 2011 show Chinese tennis player Li Na celebrating her win over world number one Caroline Wozniacki in the Australian Open semifinals on in three tough sets. China's tennis chief Sun Jinfang hailed Li Na, the first Asian woman to reach a Grand Slam final, as a 'pioneer' and national sports hero on a par with NBA great Yao Ming and star hurdler Liu Xiang.


AP

Belgium's Kim Clijsters answers questions at a press conference at the Australian Open tennis championships in Melbourne, Australia, Friday, Jan. 28, 2011.

::

Li Na CHN (9) vs. Kim Clijsters BEL (3). This is an historic match: the first time a player from Asia has competed for a major title in singles. There are potentially 1.3 billion people in China who will be personally invested in the result of this match and learn the name of their compatriot: Li Na. In some sense this can be considered performance pressure that no other player has ever experienced. However, Li is used to being a trailblazer so perhaps she will not be overly affected. Clijsters is in her 8th career major final (losing the first four and winning the last three!) and her second consecutive major final following her 2010 US Open title. The two have played 6 times, with Clijsters winning 4 times, including twice in grand slams. However, Li Na won the last match they played, the final of the Sydney International, exactly two weeks to the day before the 2011 Australian Open women's final will be completed. Li Na made history there by becoming the first Chinese player to win a top Tier title on the women's tour; she beat Clijsters 7-6(3) 6-3 despite the fact that the Belgian was up 5-0 in the first set.

I find it hard to believe that Clijsters will blow a lead of 5-0 in the final (and also hard to believe that Li Na will be in such a large hole). The two play similar styles but the 3-time US Champion does everything better than the 1st-time finalist. They both have huge forehands, dangerous backhands and are excellent movers. Additionally, Clijsters is quite good at the net (although Li is not afraid of approaching the net she is not very effective when she gets there) and has a serve that should win her some free points.

The only hope for Li is if Clijsters goes through one of her patches of bad play, or for some reason gets nervous as she nears winning her first major title outside of New York.

PREDICTION: Clijsters.

Australian Open 2011 Men's Semifinals Preview

BY MAD PROFESSAH

Here are my predictions for the 2011 Australian Open men's semifinals. I had previously correctly predicted 2 of 4 men's quarterfinals.

Rafael Nadal ESP (1) David Ferrer ESP (7) vs. Andy Murray GBR (5). Everyone expected a Murray-Nadal semifinal, and many many tennis fans were salivating at the prospect of seeing a match of the same caliber as their superlative ATP World Tour Championships semifinal in London. Murray did his piece first, by dispatching the extremely talented Aleksandr Dolgopolov of Ukraine who had eliminated Robin Soderling and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in 5-set matches by coming from behind to win those contests. Dolgopolov plays in an unorthodox fashion, with quick, whip-like strokes, but this generates tremendous (and surprising) power on both wings; he also has a truly unusual serve which allows him to get several free points, even from someone as good at returning serve as Andy Murray.

In the first set the younger player had 12 aces to Murray's two and was hitting winners into both corners of the court. Essentially, he was "out-Murraying" Murray. Unfortunately for Dolgopolov his quirky style is sometimes combined with an almost laissez-faire approach to finishing a point which resulted in errors instead of winners on balls that MadProfessah could have put away. These lapses enabled Murray to eke out the first set 7-5 (after blowing a 4-1 lead). The second set featured tremendous serving from Murray, losing only two points on his serve for a 6-3 win. The third set Murray should have closed out the match, but Dogopolov was able to climb back to win the 3rd in a tiebreaker 7-3 after horrendous play by Murray in the decider. The final set was never much in doubt with Murray winning the first fourteen points and the Dogopolov errors accumulating until he was at a total of 77 for the match compared to a showy 57 winners. Murray had a more sedate 33 winners and 34 errors and won the final set 6-3.

The drama of the Murray-Dolgopolov quarterfinal was quickly eclipsed when the two Spaniards took the court. After a quick service hold by Ferrer to start the match, Nadal's first service game lasted 17 minutes and consisted of 22 points with 7 deuces. Ferrer was playing very aggressively, especially with his forehand and service return; he was running down shots which would have been winners against almost anyone else. Eventually Ferrer was able to get the break, which he then immediately gave back through strong play by Nadal. On the changeover it became clear something was very wrong with Nadal, and he left the court to take an injury time out and receive treatment. It looked very much like he would retire at various points in the first set after that. Amazingly he had retired in a match played exactly a year before, in the men's quarterfinal of 2010 against Murray, also played on Australia Day, January 26. However, Nadal soldiered on and Ferrer continued his style of aggressive play, taking advantage of Nadal's clearly limited movement to his forehand side (Nadal's left thigh was heavily strapped) and maintained his composure to complete the stunning 6-4 6-2 6-3 straight sets win over the defending Roland Garros, Wimbledon and US Open champion.

Rafa's quest to be the first man in a generation (or two) to simultaneously hold all 4 major titles was over. The reason I have spent so much time reviewing the quarterfinal matches instead of previewing the semifinal match is because there is not much to say. Head-to-head Ferrer and Murray have met 5 times, (never in a Grand Slam) with Murray winning all their hard court matches relatively easily and Ferrer winning the clay court matches. Murray was able to reach the final last year, and he is playing even better one year later. Ferrer is also playing better, but, barring an injury, the result of their next hard court match will not be any different from the other three they have played before. PREDICTION: Murray in 4 sets.

Roger Federer SUI (2). vs. Novak Djokovic SRB (3). This semifinal match-up is a reprise of the four celebrated grand slam semifinals these two have competed: the 2010 US Open semifinal won by Djokovic after saving two match points in the 5th set; the 2009 US Open semifinal won by Federer which featured the amazing tweener shot by the Swiss great on the penultimate point of the match; the 2008 US Open semifinal won in straight sets by Federer despite trailing in the first two; and the 2008 Australian Open semifinal won by Djokovic on his way to winning his first major title. So, despite Federer's impressive 13-6 head-to-head edge overall, the two have actually split the four hard-court major semifinals they have played in their careers. Bizarrely, they have never played at Wimbledon or at Roland Garros. It should be noted that Federer has won the last three times they have played, and has apparently taken energy from his defeat in New York last year. Djokovic is also playing inspired tennis, having achieved one of his career goals by anchoring his country to a Davis Cup title (something Federer has not done despite having someone as talented as Stan Wawrinka on his team). Of the four players left remaining in the tournament, Djokovic and Murray have both only dropped one tie-break set each. Djokovic in particular has looked the most impressive, taking out the #6 (Tomas Berdych), #14(Nicolas Almagro) and #29 seeds. The highest seed that Federer has had to face was Wawrinka at #19 but Gilles Simon in the first round was playing like a Top 10 player when he stretched the World #2 to 5 sets. To determine my pick, I'm going to try an do some math. There are three possibilities, which I will assume are equally likely to occur (3-set, 4-set and 5-set match with 33% probabilities). If only 3 sets of tennis are played I give Federer a 25-8 edge. In a 4-set match I give Djokovic a 17-16 edge. In a 5-set match I give Djokovic a 25-8 edge. So overall, Djokovic has a 50-49 edge. I split the last point equally and this gets Djokovic slightly ahead to reach his second Australian Open final, and second consecutive major final. PREDICTION: Djokovic (has a 50.5% chance to win).

Oz: Triumph and Disaster…

 

 

The last male Brit to win a Slam was Fred Perry in 1936.

 

Rudyard Kipling died that same year.

 

Murray was, somewhat portentously, quoting Kipling in the aftermath of the Rafa loss.

 

Draw your conclusions.

Oz: Stealing Thunder

 

 

I said ‘calm before the STORM’, not the Great Red Spot of Jupiter.

 

 

Djokovic d. Federer 76 75 64

 

You know what I think? I think the ATP Universe got wind of the fact that people were beginning to suggest that the women were outplaying the men and stealing much, if not all, of the show. With Henin already, rather astonishingly, being accused of stealing Australian thunder(?) they figured if they didn’t get in on the action fast, there’d be nothing left to steal.

 

 

» Top two seeds (best players to have ever played the game) out before the finals IN STRAIGHT SETS. Thunder being stolen.

 

» Djokovic playing his best tennis since 2008 (the last time he won here also beating Fed at this stage), outplaying a fighting-fit Federer in straight sets. Thunder being stolen.

 

» Federer not in possession of an active Slam for the first time since 2003. Thunder being stolen.

 

» A non Fedal Slam winner for only the third time in the last 23 Slams. Thunder being stolen.

 

» Andy Murray with a very real shot at winning his first Slam title (not, incidentally, going through Fedal*) – would make him the first Brit to win a major since 1936. Thunder being stolen.

 

 

Changing of the guards?

 

Nadal unfit/viral and Fed with no events to defend until the summer.

 

Like the man said, ask again in six months.

 

 

* – What are you doing down here? Don’t you know what an asterisk means in the context of a Grand Slam?

Video: Li Na Is Really Funny

See the end of the match and the hilarious on-court interview after rallying to defeat the computer's world No. 1 and become the first Asian player in history to advance to the singles final of a Grand Slam.

Authentic humor. And she doesn't even appear to be trying.

Grace

by Craig Hickman


Getty

The Rafa Slam will not come to pass.

Imagine my surprise at the scoreline that flashed on the television when I awoke today. Didn't get to see any of the match until the reply on ESPN late this afternoon. Because of my onging love affair with cooking, I was right out straight all day. Had to cook a lunch for 25 people for my community soup kitchen (roasted chicken, beans, kale, salad, homemade biscuits, and marble cake) and cater a private dinner for 9 at my farm (scallops with fennel buerre blanc, organic carrot ginger soup, organic farm-raised roasted leg of lamb with sour cream and leek mashed potatoes and haricot vert, and Hazelle's Mississippi sweet potato pecan pie with homemade vanilla ice cream), and now I'm beat. But I've sat down for the first time all day to write this drive by.

From what I saw of the match in the background, David Ferrer ran the world No. 1 ragged. Rafa's first service game took forever. And in that forever, he injured himself.

He finished the match.

To his credit, he tried not to make any excuses. Tried not to diminish his compatriot's excellent tennis. Tried not to magnify the loss as he expressed gratitude for all he has won.

In the brief bit of his interview I was able to catch, I was reminded of the Rudyard Kipling quote that appears over the player's entrance to Wimbledon's Centre Court:

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

It takes grace to achieve that. And grace is what I saw in Rafael Nadal today.

Oz: No Rafa Slam

 

 

Haven’t much time to chalk up the Rafa loss, suffice to say that I didn’t think a Rafa Slam was going to happen.

 

 

I can’t entirely explain this; it just felt like it represented a level of perfection that ought to remain beyond us, at least for a while. And it seems the universe agrees with me.

 

Even Fed’s awesome 23 Slam SF streak came to an end.

 

If it hadn’t been a hamstring it would have been something else – like maybe losing to a better player on the day.

 

We certainly ought to be thankful it wasn’t a knee complaint. I wish him well.

 

Ferru of course enters the semis by rights. I’m very happy for him – he has a better chance against Muzz than most appear prepared to give him.

 

And if Djoko somehow gets past Fed (I certainly don’t expect a repeat of Flushing), we’ll have a Ferru v Djoko final.

 

I don’t care to speculate beyond that other than to reiterate my support for Muzz.

 

One other thing. The point scoring that occurs every time something like this happens is beginning to grate.

 

Injuries are part and parcel of the game now more than ever. It’s good to recognise instances of class and sportsmanship whenever they occur as they did in this case with Rafa refusing to throw in the towel and the very reflective presser he gave.

 

I respect both Nadal and Fed for their achievements and their comportment over the years – we’ll miss it when its gone.

 

I can do without the Rafaelite street parades celebrating how classy Rafa is every time this happens – it is after all something we already know. Just as I can do without the touchy, pre-emptive shoring-up of their man by an overly defensive Federnation

 

Sometimes an injury is just an injury.

More on Henin

 

 

 

More on Nadal later.

 

Still reeling.

 

Immediate (mixed, uncut, rather disorganised) thoughts :

 

1) This is not #GoodForTennis, which benefits from varied styles of play. The WTA is poorer for it, whatever you might have thought of her and whatever difficulties you might have thought she would face in a very different environment from her first career outing.

 

2) Needless to say, women’s tennis is not in need of saving from anything or anyone. Anyone that saw the WTA tennis on offer this fortnight knows that’s just a loada hooey.

 

3) Corollary: If a mini-era of Clijsters domination were to happen (not at all certain btw), Justine wouldn’t have been the one to stop it. Sad, but true.

 

4) There’s been a lot of talk about how she was finding it difficult to re-establish herself in her second career – that’s probably true.

 

I also think, however, that she was incredibly unlucky.

 

Since coming back in 2010 she made the finals of Brisbane (losing to Kim), final of Oz (losing to Serena), semis of Miami (losing to Kim), won Stuttgart, made the R16 in RG and won s’Hertogenbosch before suffering that ill-fated fall in the R16 at Wimbledon (again against Kim).

 

For a player returning after a 20 month outage, those are impressive results.

 

None of this is to say what coulda-shoulda-woulda been, just that a fair assessment demands recognising what an unfortunately decisive role that torn elbow ligament played in what was, after all, only a smallish 15 month window.

 

5) Henin’s competitive instinct was legendary – sometimes to her own detriment. This sometimes made her difficult to warm up to (witness vast number of twi-butes beginning with “Never a great fan BUT,…”). 

 

Easy sometimes, though, to lose sight of the fact that tennis players are people first and foremost; and people tend, for the most part, to be built differently. Each to their own of course (she wasn’t my favourite player either), though it’s worth remembering we account for this in life too, do we not?

 

6) Less easy to understand is a prevalent tendency to base an entire character assessment on two of her least finest moments. Both those incidents (no need to reiterate them) were problematic on all sorts of levels.

They were also (both) a very long time ago. Most people I know believe in 2nd chances. They also believe in letting go.

 

7) All that said and done the decision to retire sounds permanent. Given the medical consultations she has undergone, the fact that she was playing with pain right through Oz and that she would very likely have called it quits at the London Olympics 2012 anyway, that would appear to be the right one.

 

She was never one to hang around if she felt she couldn’t meet (in this case through a physical ailment) her own very high standards.

 

8) Just in the last day or so, Dementieva asked to have her name removed from the rankings. Guess that makes it official too.

 

I was always far more invested in Elena, though any perma-feature of the noughties – and Henin was always far more than that – was always bound to induce at least some wistful reminiscing. It’ll be the same when ARod quits. Oh yes, 2012 will be a bloodbath of retirements.

 

9) We’ve all mused over and over about her aesthetically-pleasing, feature-rich, multi-dimensional game. Well that’s history now.

 

I expect Suarez-Navarro will over the coming weeks find her practice sessions frequented by an unusually large number of disillusioned, nostalgic Juju fans, but the truth is, there doesn’t appear (at least for the moment) to be anyone

with a remotely similar style of play.

 

That’s not always the tragedy it’s drummed up to be – talent has always evolved in different ways and there’s plenty of exciting developments to look forward to – but is still a little sad.

 

I’ll always remember her for her being one half of her (sometimes contentious) rivalry with Serena Williams – a rivalry that spanned the better part of a  decade, a rivalry that was what it was because of both of them.

 

Best of luck Juju in whatever you do.

Justine Henin retires from tennis. Again.

 

 

 

Dear all,

I address my letter to you because this is currently the best way to express meself, I now experience very difficult times. I have unfortunately not good news. I spent the last days undergoing  various  medical tests and they have confirmed that my elbow has been damaged by my adventure in Australia.

After my crash at Wimbledon in June, I knew it would be difficult to come back. But I had decided to keep playing and to give everything to overcome the injury. In these recent months I have rarely been spared from the pain, those last months were very hard. Time has passed, and the doubts have grown, and only return to the courts would give me answers. Not the answer I was hoping for... unfortunately. I suffered a lot the last week and every day gave me more and more pain, but I believed that my will would take the upper hand. Today, the examinations are clearly and and the doctors formally, my elbow is too fragile and hurt so that my passion and my profession at high level cannot continue to exist.

I'm in shock, of course, even with the work of these past seven months I had to understand that there might be a reason for all this. After having well considered and following the advice of doctors, it is now clear and I accept that my career here ... ... finally ends. Even though it's hard, very hard, while I came back with a tremendous fighting spirit.

I'm sorry ... I had hoped for a different return and dreamed of a different ending. I will need time to process all this, but I remain convinced that even with little progress, my level with my return did not meet my expectations, despite everything I've learned a lot over the past 15 months.

I turn, and this time, an incredible page of my life ... What a wonderful trip, I have experience during all these years. Today I'm calmer and I can create a positive and rewarding look back on this experience in my life.

I would never have reached this level all alone, and I insist to thank all persons who sticked with me during adventures. My coach and my friend Carlos, my family, my friends, my whole team, all those who helped me when it was hard and have shared in my joy. Thank you to my partners for the confidence they have given me, for their support in all circumstances. Thanks to my medical staff who, these last months, were always available and always with great professionalism  there for me.

Finally and most importantly, thanks everyone. Thanks for standing by my side during all these years. I will never forget your support and your loyalty. And if I only regret one thing, this would be that I've protected myself too hard and that I couldn’t stand closer to you.

I hope you will forgive me my clumsiness and a wonderful reminder of shared emotions will keep them together.

On the way to new adventures ...

See you soon, anywhere ...

Justine

 

 

JUST. WOW.

 

And after all the overnight Rafa shenanigans.

 

Watch this space.

Australian Open 2011 Women's Semifinals Preview

Here are my predictions for the women's semifinals at the Australian Open this year. I correctly predicted 3 of 4 women's quarterfinals.

AP

Caroline Wozniacki DEN (1) vs. Li Na CHN (9). Wozniacki is the #1 ranked player in the world despite not having reached a single major final in 2010 and only once in her brief career (2009 US Open). The nubile, flaxen-haired 20-year-old from Denmark is sometimes called the "Golden Retriever" by some tennis observers due to her style of play resembling a human backboard. Wozniacki is in her first Australian Open semifinal while her opponent has reached this far in the tournament for the second consecutive year. In fact Li has won the first 10 matches she has played in 2011 and is surfing a wave of confidence while Wozniacki is hearing an increasingly louder chorus of whispers doubting her ability to ever win a major title. Li on the other hand is hearing the call of history: can she become the first player from China to compete for (and win) a major title, especially the grand slam of Asia/Pacific, the Australian Open? I say, yes, and probably this week. The match-up between the two players is interesting: Li has great power on both wings and is also an excellent mover; Wozniacki has the ability to frustrate her opponents by forcing them to "win" a point several times through relentless defense. Head-to-head Li leads 2-1 and beat Wozniacki in the fourth round here last year in straight sets as well as a few weeks before in Sydney. A year later I see no reason why the result should be any different. PREDICTION: Li.

Reuters

Vera Zvonareva RUS (2) Petra Kvitova CZE (25) vs. Kim Clijsters BEL (3). I expected Kvitova to come through this match just like she had against #5 Samantha Stosur whom she dismissed easily in straight sets in front of a hometown crowd. However, Zvonareva showed incredible defense and consistency to eliminate the Czech lefty 6-2 6-4. Zvonareva has always been one of my favorite players to watch and her rise to the #2 ranking in the world via two consecutive major final finishes is a delight. Clijsters has been the clear favorite to win this year's title since Serena Willliams announced she would not be defending her 2010 Australian Open title. She is the only player of the final four remaining in the tournament who has won a major title; Clijsters has 3 US Open titles (2005, 2009, 2010). With Elena Dementieva's retirement Zvonareva is probably the best player on tour not to have won a major. Head-to-head Clijsters leads 6-3 but 5 of these wins were before Clijsters' "retirement" in May 2007. The two played 4 times in 2010 and Zvonareva won 3 of those matches, losing the most important one in a rout: the 2010 US Open women's final (6-1 6-2). None of those matches were finals, where the mental pressure is a larger factor and this poses a disadvantage to the more mentally fragile player. In a semifinal the mental pressure is less which should help Vera play some of her best tennis. It is also true that Clijsters does have a tendency to go through bad patches which complicates what should be easy wins. I suspect something like that will happen in this match as well, but in the end, Clijsters will find a way to prevail. PREDICTION: Clijsters.