Indian Wells: Hit for ‘Hatey’

Shame that a single moment of madness overshadowed what was otherwise a successful event.

Sequels aren’t usually half as good as the original, and this was never going to capture Oz’s uncut feel.

Pete was as Pete is and Pistols usually are – as singular and sober as ever.

Rafa appeared in awe of everything and everyone around him – funny so many are intent on putting this down to language difficulties, you don’t need me to reiterate that this wasn’t the case in Oz.

Fed pitched in nicely, and made things as pleasant as he was allowed to.

Then there was Andre , who I thought was rather over-animated from the get go.

Nothing wrong with that considering this was for Haiti and that philanthropy rather runs in his blood. Except when you try too hard and for too long, bad things sometimes happen.

I never thought the valet tipping revelations in ‘Open’ were that great an idea, or even remotely appropriate.

The book had already garnered enough shock appeal from his revelations about drug use. Ending it with what seemed a callous and cheap shot at someone as decorated and illustrious as Sampras – an opponent he shared a decades worth of defining tennis history with -- only seemed acceptable after I’d convinced myself he’d been in touch with Pete’s people about it’s inclusion prior to publication.

Not so, as Pete’s disappointment would soon reveal.

Reiterating the episode as a ‘joke’ in front of 16,000 people assembled at a charity event however, would have to be said to represent the poorest of taste - an obvious miscalculation perhaps – but still in the poorest of taste: Andre should indeed have known better.

I’m less keen however, in the suppositions of those anxious to make more of this spat than it allows.

The opportunity to see (and hear) Fed emitting mock Rafa-Growls with a baseball cap worn backwards has got to be worth a million alone.

Was Andre really stoned off his head when he came to play last night? Rumours abound about his bloodshot eyes. Rumours I don’t much care for frankly – though he did look like a pile of nerves when Gimelstob attempted to smooth over those ruffled feathers in the changeover that followed that stinger which Pete had fired directly at him.

To think that James LaRosa thought it would be Henin’s first round outage that would make things awkward.

Play nicely next time boys.

Sampras Lists Multimillion-Dollar Home

LOS ANGELES -- Tennis great Pete Sampras and his wife, actress Bridgette Wilson-Sampras, have listed their newly built compound in Lake Sherwood for $25 million.

The gated contemporary north of Los Angeles sits on 20 hilltop acres with 360-degree views, a north-south tennis court and a swimming pool. The more than 13,000-square-foot main house has a combined theater and game room. Including the 1,200-square-foot guesthouse and the 2,000-square-foot detached gym, the property has seven bedrooms and 11 1/2 bathrooms.

(...)

The couple offered no reason for selling, but Sampras does have an impressive real estate record, having sold a Beverly Hills mansion in 2008 for $23 million as well as other homes in Los Angeles' Benedict Canyon and Beverly Hills since 2003, according to Los Angeles Times reports.

Nice work if you can get it.

Oz Withdrawal Symptoms: The Time Traveller's Tennis Partner.

You know you watch too much tennis when……Pete Sampras offers you tennis advice in a dream.

We play a set of tennis on a broken-up gravelly court in surroundings I know I should remember all too well from the early nineties. Only I don’t.

It’s a dream, right - so I can return his serve, and am able to keep him from visiting the net too often.

He doesn’t look like the legend I remember from TV – just an overgrown kid in his early twenties; his hair is a lot shorter than it should be and for some peculiar reason his eyebrows meet in the middle(?). As warped as you might expect a dream to be.

I don’t remember who won. The script writer of my dreams doesn’t seem to consider this significant.The stage manager meanwhile, has gone and painted the sky a pale red - like those surface shots of Mars Nasa released many years back.

All I remember is that afterwards, Warped-Pete is extremely sweaty and mildly irritated.

He’s also scathing about my groundies.

He mimics my shortened back swing which according to him demonstrates “a blinkered view of how I might use the court - a most unsatisfactory want of form and variety”.

I’m somewhat taken aback by this slightly abrasive assessment, not least because it’s simply not true.

For one thing, I didn’t have a shortened backswing back then - to be honest, it was more like Dinara Safina’s; and I used to wield a Dunlop Max 200G for maximum effect (you don’t get any better than Steffi Graf’s racquet) - the way you might wield a cricket bat held in one hand (was I, am I Robin Soderling?).

Only in the last four or five years (since my switch to Babolat) have I shortened the backswing and, funnily enough, begun packing more topspin into every forehand than I ever thought possible or productive. It works a treat against most club players, though I say it myself.

I protest my case with mannerisms I’m not meant to have developed yet – not the only bothersome incongruity in this netherworld of sensory displacement.

Still, Warped-Pete doesn’t like it.

His moodiness doesn’t subside as we down cans of Dr Pepper and Cherry Coke (very big during that period) and discuss Oz, in a landscape chequered with other nostalgic motifs.

***

Me: So, awe-inspiring work from Federman?

Warped-Pete: I gotta say, as thrilled as I was witnessing the toppling of my record last year (one which I truly believed would stand the test of time), and as swoon-worthy as his performance opposite Murray was this time round, you do sometimes feel that such a pronounced difference in class, is something we ought to be seeing a little less of in this age of supposed parity.

The way I see it, there’s currently only two guys at the top that have proven that they have what it takes to test him in the final of a Slam.

Me: Nadal and Delpo…?

Warped-Pete: Quite - except one of them is injured (perhaps chronically), and it’s not at all certain yet that Delpo will follow up against a Federman in this form.

Me: So….not that awe-inspiring then?

Warped-Pete: Oh it very much was…but let’s not forget that the prevailing theme coming into this event was…?

Me: The state of British/Aussie/American tennis?

Warped-Pete: No you galoot!

Me: French tennis? Serbian Soap Operas? I dunno!

Warped-Pete: *#&***”£$£&^*&####!!!

Me: …

Warped-Pete: Parity!

Me: Parity, sure.

Warped-Pete: Parity was the name of the game, parity was what it was all meant to be about.

Me: And…what, it didn’t happen?

Warped-Pete: What do you think?

Me: Well….

Warped-Pete: Let me enumerate: del Potro our US Open Champion, goes out to Marin – the only guy other than Murray, playing seriously enough to mount a credible challenge, who then plays himself to the point of extinction, in a total of three five setters.

Me: But…

Warped-Pete: …lemee finish – Big Rob, purveyor of seismic upsets, the “It-Man” of 2009 – exits unimpressively in the opening round. Djoko continues to raise doubts about his fitness - pukes his guts out in fact, though not nearly as impressively as I once did…

Me: …

Warped-Pete: Murray, we all know what happened there…and Davydenko, of whom we all had such high hopes – arrives, and then promptly departs, as flat as a pancake. Sound like parity to you?

Me: No.

Warped-Pete: Still not convinced?

Me: I just think that…

Warped-Pete: Three words: Jo-Willy-Blowout.

Me: You had me at Jo…

Warped-Pete: I’m with your buddy, what’s his name?

Me: ?

Warped-Pete: The fella that shares your blog?

Me: 2Hander?

Warped-Pete: Right.

Me: This is all a little uncomfortable, I’m not meant to know him yet.

Warped-Pete: What?

Me: I’m scheduled to meet with him around the time of my finals, which judging by your tennis gear, is still around 4-5 years away, and….what’s a blog anyway?

Warped-Pete: You’re also not meant to be hitting with a Babolat – they’re still string manufacturers at this stage of the game – we’re not meant to have the faintest idea who Roger Federer is, over half your readership won’t have heard of Netscape Navigator (or Mosaic for the more archaically inclined) which is what we’ve only just begun surfing that curiosity known as the internet with, and we sure as hell shouldn’t be discussing the 2010 Aussie Open!

Me: Fair enough. (Smart a**).

Warped-Pete: So like I was saying…what?

Me: Nothing.

Warped-Pete: Your buddy was a little underwhelmed by it all, and said something about tennis having come “full circle”.

Me: Not good?

Warped-Pete: It’s not a question of good or bad, and it’s not Federman’s fault he’s a cut above the rest – but 2Hander has it spot on. 2004-2007 was full of that kinda stuff.

Me: Academy Award nominated beatdowns?

Warped-Pete: Right. Call it “the age of enlightenment”, call it whatever the hell you like. The point is we’ve been there and done that.

Me: And now?

Warped-Pete: This is meant to be a Post-Modern era. One with “at least five possible contenders” at each Slam, remember? One where parity -- not Fed, Rafa or anyone else -- reigns supreme.

Me: I dunno….surely it’s a good thing that Federer displays this intimidating form in what’s likely the last act of his career – his passion and ambition clearly undiminished by age, by parenthood -- maybe even a chance to answer those critics that continue to peddle variants of the ‘weak era’ theory, in an era which is anything but - no?

Warped-Pete: …..No.

Me: No?

Warped-Pete: No.

Me: Care to elaborate?

Warped-Pete: Not without parity.

Me: Why’s that now?

Warped-Pete: Federer has only ever played five five-setters over the course of twenty-two Slam finals.

Me: So?

Warped-Pete: Three were against Nadal – you’ll remember he lost two of those. Then there was that epic with A-Rod at Wimbledon last year and of course that infamous loss to Delpo at the US Open.

Me: I’ve been very patient up till now – but would you kindly get to the point?

Warped-Pete: It’s very simple – we need more matches of that calibre in Slam finals.

Me: So…hang on, we’re moving the goalposts again, is that it? 16 Slams – on all surfaces - still doesn’t quite cut it?

Warped-Pete: Doesn’t cut what? This has nothing to do with Fed – we already crowned him GOAT last year – at my expense remember? We’ve been there and done that too, despite having shown it to be nothing more than a philosophical construct.

Me: Then?

Warped-Pete: Parity.

Me: What is that!? Your middle name?

Warped-Pete: If we are to believe we really are in an age now where there’s four or five legitimate contenders at every Slam – then finals like last Sunday’s should be a thing of the past.

Me: What makes you think they’re not in the past? Don’t forget that in the finals of both the previous two Slams, Federer was pushed to five – one of which didn’t end so happily for him.

Warped-Pete: His fans would argue ‘Federman’ didn’t show up.

Me: And he did here?

Warped-Pete: The haters will argue the competition didn’t show up.

Me: Bulls**t!

Warped-Pete: Language Timothy! I’m just doing that devils advocate thing. And besides it’s only a dream.

Me: Already in this ‘dream’ of yours…

Warped-Pete: Mine?

Me: …ok mine, already in this dream of mine, we’ve engaged in a ‘Lawrencian’ set of tennis, indulged in a caustic appraisal of my game and now you won’t even dignify this debate by committing to a position.

Warped-Pete: Just who the hell do you think you are!? This is a dream you muppet, you don’t get to define the rules. I don’t remember Alice complaining half as much during her little trip to Wonderland! And for our set of tennis to be truly ‘Lawrencian’, it would have to be indoors in a stately room in front of a fireplace - we’d also have to be butt naked! Hey what a great idea for an exho! But we’ll not go there.

Me: She called it ‘the stupidest tea party she ever was at in all her life’ – but we’ll let that one slide – just what exactly are you saying?

Warped-Pete: Compare the final of Wimbledon last year with what we saw the previous Sunday. Which did you enjoy more?

Me: A better match, I get it, but…

Warped-Pete: Which of Federer’s two performances were you more convinced by?

Me: Pile not thick enough for you…? I get it.

Warped-Pete: Which do you suppose the haters were more convinced by?

Me: ALRIGHT-ALRIGHT! But you yourself conceded that ‘Federman’ wasn’t maybe at that Wimbledon final – that he truly fought his way to victory that day by applying his shoulder to the wheel.

Warped-Pete: And that’s my point, I could do with a little less razzle-dazzle from Federman, if it means we get to witness more evenly contested five set Slam finals.

Me: Who’s to say those finals won’t be ‘evenly contested’ because it’s Fed-Long-Shanks and not Federman that turns up to play?

Warped-Pete: Who’s to say the final in Oz wasn’t so unevenly contested because Murray’s game – though much revamped – still has some way to go before it’s capable of smothering the Federman genie before it gets out of the bottle?

Me: So Fed looked good because Murray allowed him to – is that it?

Warped-Pete: Not at all – Murray gave it his all and for once, as you yourself observed, came armed with the right weapons – he’s just not sufficiently travelled down that road yet.

But it’s an interesting question is it not? And not one upon which we’re all ever likely to agree. I mean who’s to say Goliath wasn’t suffering from a rather unsavoury hangover when he faced off with young David?

Me: There’ll always be fans willing to explain away all of Fed’s losses just as there’ll always be haters claiming every one of his wins are down to the lack of competition.

Warped-Pete: Indeed, and it’s not our job to persuade everyone. The truth probably lies somewhere indeterminably in between. In the meantime, can we not just agree that it makes for better tennis?

Me: What does?

Warped-Pete: Parity.

Me: *Rolls eyes*

Call that a TV schedule? LA Edition

What's with LA?

No seriously.

For one thing, it's the most charisma-laden tier-two field of psychotic ne'er-do-wells I've seen in a while.

And before your eyes have had a chance to adjust to the luminescence of the awesomeness, they've started winning matches.

Safin, Gulbis, and Baghdatis have all posted impressive wins in the past 48 hours and I'm sure Haas will follow suit as he takes to court opposite wildcard homeboy Jesse Levine.

Noteworthy I think, as the guys they took out (Robby Ginepri, Lu Yen-Hsun and Frank Dancevic respectively) weren't the usual breed of also-rans, you make special time and take special care to ignore.

"Robby is playing really well," the mercurial Russian said. "He is a tough player and it was a well-played match from both of us. I was able to go up a break at the beginning of the second set and that helped me to turn the match around."

(Yahoo! Sports)

Robby, in case you didn't know it, won Indianapolis last week. That may or may not have had a bearing. But in any case, such well-constructed, genteel, debonair analysis from Mr Mercury is a bit like witnessing a rainstorm of frogs and fishes. Just as rare, and maybe a little freakier.

"Now what sort of a Safin post would this be without a pic of him losing his racquet?"
(Photo by Stephen Dunn/Getty Images)

Something in the air?

He might still be on a wave of feel-good comeliness after that reenactment of the 2000 US Open final with Sampras, the organisers thought they'd put on to tickle our senses. Safin came out on top in that one too. Frilly nonsense, but also a lot of fun.

"Pete took the loss with good humour, and took a moment to auction off some of those '14' shirts"

(Photo: AFP)

But what about Ernie's win over Lu? Remember Lu at the Olympics last year? One of only a few players able to hand Andy Murray a straight sets loss during a period that saw Murray rampaging through top ten players like they were ranked outside of the top fifty.

Is Ernie's win also frilly nonsense, or a much anticipated start of something bigger and better? Dude's got a horde of fans worldwide relying on him, locked in a collective global seance aimed at jumpstarting his rise to the top. Don't disappoint'em Ernie.

And what of Baggy's win over Dancevic?

(Photo: Stephen Dunn/Getty Images)

'Baggy' as in Marcos' nickname; not Franks shorts.

That 'look' might have been at the root of Frank's problems. That's dire, that is. That's what comes of an unrestrained love affair with oversized shorts. Which are to gangly legs, what garlic-infused-belches are to witty conversation.

Not to mention the camera angle makes it looks a little like what's left, when Bjorn Borg throws up over Nadia Petrova's wardrobe.

But Dancevic is no slouch (as we all know); in fact, when he's not pratting about in skirts, I'd say he's rather talented. I had him earmarked for much success after first seeing him play in 2007. That it hasn't happened, in no way detracts from the importance of Baggy's win.

The last time I remember watching Marcos, he was being stretchered off court at the Ordina Open in Holland, his face contorted in pain. He's dropped to #146 in the rankings which is simply not on, whether you're a fan of his or not.

But more to the point Marcos, like Ernie and Marat, is that rare blend of charm and organically certified talent. With the US Open Series still in it's early stages, there's rich pickings to be had, and a chance to build up some confidence and much needed ranking points. It's "nice work if you can get it" - and with their gifts, I'd say they should almost certainly try.

Marat takes on Ernie next.

Families around the world have been issued with desensitising goggles, and have been advised to relocate their teenage daughters into one of many specially built bunkers resistant to the awesomeness radiating from LA. Worries persist however, that many may not make it in time and risk not surviving the climactic charisma overload.

This GOAT's beginning to get me Gruff...

Aaaah! Just when you thought that the question of GOAThood had been put to bed, or had made your peace with the entire philosophical intractability of it all, Pete Sampras had to go and upend your hard-earned new found coziness.

"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. He has to beat him. He's lost to him a number of times. You know, you got to be the man of your generation. He certainly is the man of his generation; he just has to figure out Nadal."
...

"Well, God, you're giving it some thought, huh (laughter)? It would have bothered me if I had a losing record against Andre in majors. It wouldn't have sat well with me. Did it mean I was the greatest or not the greatest? I don't know. It's the debate of greatest of all time. We so badly want to pin it on someone. With the numbers you have to give it to Roger. His record against Nadal, okay, you might not give it to him.

"I mean, if I was 7-15 against Andre and I was done, it's hard to say I was the player of my generation - just because he got the best of me. Like I said, the story's not over yet. We have another probably three, four years of these two guys competing against each other. If anything, I think Nadal is going to be hungrier now, seeing Roger getting back to No. 1. It's hard to give you a definitive answer when it's not done yet. I think Roger knows he's got to figure out this kid. It's a tough, tough matchup. Nadal is one of the few guys that believes in himself that he's better than Roger."

...

"Well, I think one thing Roger doesn't see on grass the last number of years is really a true serve-and- volleyer, someone that's willing to come in and put the pressure on and make him pass, make him return these big serves. I don't think anyone really scares him. I think my game would make Roger a little bit more uncomfortable. I would obviously come in on both serves and put the pressure on his backhand, sort of go from there. . . I would sort of dictate the play. But, you know, he'd be a tough guy to break, especially when he's hitting 50 aces like he did (in the recent Wimbledon final). It would have been a great matchup.

"If I would beat him? If I felt my best on grass, I did feel unbeatable, especially in the mid '90s. I was a tough guy to break, played well from the back court to have chances, and I moved well enough. It's a flattering comment. Do I think I could have beaten Roger in my prime? Sure. I don't think anyone could beat me in my prime on grass. I felt as Roger does now - he feels unbeatable."

(Source: Tennis.com)

Wow.

Talk about a Cluster****!

Though I do think the entire conference call has a slightly contrived feel to it.

As if Sampras' post-Wimbledon proclamation of Roger's GOATness, kind of pooped on someone's picnic blanket.


Well I'll not be drawn into it again.

What I will say is that anyone that thinks that Nadal with his 6 Slams, is in GOAT contention -- as great a player and sportsman as he is -- should be hooded, cuffed and carted off to LALALand.

I've also gotta disagree with this assertion that Federer will be thinking of Djoko in as affectionate terms as Sampras does of Marat:

"Marat and I always got along very well when we were playing. He's a really nice guy, great player, showed what he could do especially at the US Open the one year, he tuned me up pretty good. He's an expressive guy on the court, shows emotion. Off the court, he's a happy-go-lucky guy. I was pretty reserved when I was playing, to myself. For whatever reason, he and I seemed to get on really well. We practiced quite a bit together.

"You know, he's a champion. He got to No. 1. He won a major, I think two majors. It's sad to see him go because I think he brought a lot to the sport. Haven't sort of kept in contact with him. But certainly when I see him, we'll talk about some of our matches. When Paul (Annacone) was coaching (Tim) Henman, Marat would ask Paul, How is Pete doing? He was always just a personable guy, really nice guy, and someone that I've always gotten along really well with."

One day, Federer will be talking about guys - Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic, maybe even Nadal - just like this, just like the tired warrior that he will no doubt have become.

Is there room on that aforementioned cart? We have another customer.

For the record, I continue to believe, Federer needs to get the betterer of Nadal in Slam finals - it's what I was screaming all the way through the French Open. 2Hander even had the cheek to call me up on it!

For those interested, here's what I had to say on the topic right after the French Open, in which I touch on Sampras, Nadal and of course his-right-honourable-GOATness-himself. It's the point at which I considered the case to be well and truly closed.

2Hander's Take: The Semis...

Well, there was definitely a lot of high quality stuff played today. No 5-set thrillers but still worthy of Slam semis...

Haas V Federer

As I had thought, Haas tested Federer, but never really threatened him. Don't get me wrong, Haas played very well and did not run out of steam. Just that he was unfortunate enough to meet a Federer who is nearly back to his best, I say nearly because I believe his best is yet to come and that will be when he plays a fully fit Nadal...WITHOUT the choking this time, please God.

The highlight of the game had to be the Slam Dunk at matchpoint...one for Pete, no doubt!!
7-6 7-5 6-3 is not a scoreline to ashamed of when playing the GOAT on a roll (or should that be on a graze?!) in his house/field...whatever! Come on, he did a darn sight better than Jonas Bjorkman did a couple of years ago!! So, einfach klasse, Herr Tommy! Du hast gespielen sehr Schön!! He can leave with his head held high...

(Did anybody else see Mirka rolling her eyes when Frau Haas was cheering her man on?! I am assuming it is his wife...)

Murray V Roddick

Another very even match for the first three sets. Roddick snatched a cheeky break at 5-4 in the 1st set, Muzza broke him fairly early on in the 2nd and held serve then onwards to take the set. Murray got broken early in the 3rd, then broke back, forced a tie-break and lost it 9-7. The 4th set was deadlocked all the way to the breaker and one could see towards the end of that set that Muzza was running out of steam. Roddick was also getting tired, but he noticably had more of a spring in his step and movement. So all in all, a very high standard of tennis by both, just that it had reached the point where it became more of a mental game. Roddick showed emotion and great humility when he won. He didn't triumphantly raise his arms, he clapped and I think he even apologised to the crowd!!!

One thing I did get rather sick of (not sick) was Muzza and Mumzy continuously shouting fist pumping. The former shouting 'come on' at points such as going 15-0 up in a game! I must say it peeved me off to the point that I found myself wishing for 1 of 2 things. The first being that he gets beat right here, right now! The second being that he gets OWNED by Fed should he get through to the final!! One would have loved to see the expression on the face of Mother Dearest...

The fact of the matter also remains is that none of these two are as good as Federer when it comes to volleying. Having said that, Murray did some fantastic punching from the net and so did Roddick today. Although Agassi and Nadal proved otherwise, one rather needs to volley to win Wimby. And Roddick also smacked a fair few 79-87mph second serves just to prove my point that he will not win Wimby serving like that - thanks A-Rod!

As for the final, taking into account all we have on paper, past history, current form etc (I guess what Dootsie might call 'rationality'), I think we ALL know who the clear favourite is. That said, on the day, what can happen on the court can upset even the safest prediction. Now, since 2005, Roddick has given his game more depth, he has a stronger net game, a bit more touch etc but surely not enough to threaten Fed! Looking back at their 2007 US Open encounter, which was 7-6 7-6 6-2, losing the first 2 sets on breakers and the prospect of having to take 3 sets off one such as Fed is an arduous task for anyone except probably Nadal, who gets fazed by nothing!

So, let the finals begin...