May 4, 2011

Fiasco

Madrid Masters 1000, First and Second Rounds

It is a testament to the rankings trout-farm between 10 and, say, 30, that so few of today’s ostensible upsets were surprising. The betting market was a shambles, which should have been a given, given that so few of the results were. In hindsight we might pretend otherwise, but the fact is that the merely lucky cleaned up, and the astute were left for dead, a configuration beloved by bookies. Anyway, it’s all in the past, and hindsight can be permitted its frolics. Five of Sunday’s finalists returned to action, but only three of them won.

Speaking of frolicking, Feliciano Lopez apparently survived the meat-grinder of Belgrade more or less psychically intact, perhaps satisfied at having pushed the preordained victor to a tiebreak on sludge. Today he was too much for Milos Raonic, whose tiredness has progressed from his limbs to his brain, inspiring a baffling tactical adjustment following an excellent first set. Thereafter he retreated, inviting the attacking Lopez to step in, a bad move in fast conditions. What ensued wasn’t quite real tennis, but it was enough to earn Lopez a date with Federer. It is debatable what consolation his close chum Fernando Verdasco will draw from this, although he certainly needs consoling. His psychic lacerations following a shellacking in Estoril are clearly profound, and saw him succumb in arguably the upset of the year, going down in straights to Yen-Hsun Lu. It was the latter’s first tour victory on clay in about seven decades, or years, I forget which. To put this result in perspective, Lu’s last match on clay was in the first round of qualifying in Belgrade, where he lost 6/0 6/4 to Ervin Eleskovic, ranked 441. It was not an upset. It’s about time Verdasco lost the watermelon pink t-shirt, but only because I don’t like it. He should probably do something about his tennis, too.

Hitching a temporary ride on the debacle wagon was David Ferrer, who traded bagels with Adrian Mannarino, and Juan Martin del Potro, who stuffed his hip, was told by the physio not to continue, and then continued to beat Mikhail Youzhny. How he’ll pull up is the vexing issue, especially if you love or loathe Rafael Nadal. To the merely sane, it’s merely interesting. The burbling of seeds tumbling like a brook over rocks continued steadily as Florian Mayer overcome Viktor Troicki in an unlovely match, and as Gael Monfils, for a change, retired injured.

Nikolay Davydenko, fresh from titling in Munich – they gave him a car, don’t you know – contrived to lose to Marcel Granollers, who at No.50 is the 65th ranked Spaniard, and whose technique is so awkward that he almost flies to pieces with each groundstroke. But you never quite know when the Russian’s worst effort is coming these days, although you know it’s never far away. Today he failed to earn a single break point. What a mess.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

May 2, 2011

A Confluence of Cock-Ups

BMW Open Munich, Final

Davydenko d. Mayer, 6/3 3/6 6/1

Estoril Open Portugal, Final

Del Potro d. Verdasco, 6/2 6/2

There isn’t a single good reason why Nikolay Davydenko and Juan Martin del Potro are closely linked in my mind, but there are any number of facile ones. It’s strange how that happens. The connection began forming, or congealing, at the World Tour Finals in 2009, when both progressed to the final, proving themselves the only men up to beating Roger Federer at the O2 Arena, a distinction they still hold. The final itself was the match that inspired del Potro’s noteworthy comparison of Davydenko to a Playstation set to hard mode, by which he probably just meant that the Russian ran everything down and got everything back. However, there really is a touch of game-like hyperreality in Davydenko’s capacity to take the ball so absurdly early, though one suspects that a tennis game in which players struck the ball like Davydenko at his best would be widely condemned for a lack of realism.

As I say, the connections between the two are not solid. Wrist injuries ensured a lousy 2010 for both, although Davydenko’s appeared not to be as bad. Both are now back, although their returns have coincided in neither timing nor manner. Del Potro already looks inexorable, even as his fans maintain a softly-softly exuberance, and mutter hopefully of the US Summer to come. Davydenko is playing some of his very best tennis, but never for a whole set, and it invariably gives way to his very worst tennis, which can look pretty bad, indeed. Often he saves it for a winning position, but sometimes he rolls it out at the get-go, just for a lark.

Both men boast truly stellar records in finals. In winning Munich, Davydenko has moved to 21-6. Del Potro, the Estoril champion, is now 9-3. Their opponents today, by comparison, are predisposed to save their very worst for last. Florian Mayer fought sternly if nervously, but now stands at 0-4 in his career. At 27 there is still reason to believe he’ll pick up a title somewhere, but the belief is fast becoming a quaint hope. Fernando Verdasco, on the other hand, is the proud owner of five titles, although that isn’t an amazing return from fifteen finals. (Is it just me, or has Verdasco grown swarthier since returning to Europe. Otherwise he seems unchanged – the haircut remains impenetrably sculptural and his outfit still looks like a cruel dare – but following the match his face looked dark enough to match his mood, as he brooded over the confluence of cock-ups that had led him unswervingly to a bad day in Portugal.)

In winning titles today, both Davydenko and Del Potro have seen their rankings leap encouragingly, to the point where both will be seeded for the French Open, as they should be. Where they are seeded will depend largely on how they perform in Madrid and Rome, where they have no points to defend, every reason to be tired, and the capacity to wreck a marquee player’s week.

The Estoril final can be downloaded here, from the ever-excellent El Rincon del Tenis.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Tagged as , , ,

May 1, 2011

Weeks Like This

The biggest problem with weeks like this, in which three concurrent 250 tournaments have snuck in just as the clay season hits its stride in Madrid, is that for the most part the events are disposable. Understandably, players are unwilling to risk aggravating even a niggle with two Masters and a major in the next month. Consequently, weeks like this invariably witness a record number of withdrawals, retirements and walkovers, mostly precautionary. So it has proven again today, with all three events seeing a finalist progress when their opponent pulled out.

BMW Open Munich, Semifinals

Davydenko d. Stepanek, 6/4 4/0 ret.

Mayer d. Petzschner, 6/3 6/4

The sporadically-engaging late career of Nikolay Davydenko continues its surge and sputter from week to week. Last week he choked away a lead in Barcelona, and now he’s into the final in Munich, courtesy of some vintage play and Radek Stepanek’s vintage hamstring. The Russian will have a lot to gain – mostly money, but also some pride – but not as much as his opponent – Florian Mayer – who will be chasing that elusive maiden ATP title. Despite both Mayer and Petzschner hailing from Bayreuth, their semifinal wasn’t especially Wagnerian, except insofar as it recalled Rossini’s opinion that Wagner boasted wonderful moments, but awful quarters of an hour. The interesting bits were interesting, but they didn’t come around very often. Still, Mayer will take it. He’s through to his first final of the season, and his first since Stockholm last October, where he fell to Federer. I suspect he’ll fancy his chances rather more tomorrow.

Serbia Open Belgrade, Semifinals

Djokovic d. Tipsarevic, W/O

Of the three events played this week, Belgrade has by a considerable margin been the least interesting, partially through being the worst attended, but mostly because Novak Djokovic is a shoe-in for the title. Djokovic’s family of course owns the event, and so his attendance is virtually guaranteed, which is fortunate since his profile is the only thing elevating the tournament above, say, Johannesburg, or even the oft-derided Newport. However, as with Nadal elsewhere, inevitability merely deflates the vibe. Djokovic’s spot in the final was so certain that the tournament might as well have re-instituted a ‘challenge round’, although it has kind of worked out that way on its own. Djokovic has so far faced Blaz Kavcic, ranked 85, and Adrian Ungur, ranked 175, and he is one match from the title. The other half of the draw was essentially a conveyor belt leading to a meat grinder, upon which hapless lambs fought for the privilege of being minced. Feliciano Lopez is the lucky lamb.

Estoril Open Portugal, Semifinal

Verdasco d. Raonic, 6/4 ret.

The most eagerly anticipated match of the moment has not been Nadal and Djokovic on clay, nor even a new installment of the Fedal tussle, but the first clay-court encounter between Milos Raonic and Fernando Verdasco. Ever since the Spaniard’s ill-chosen words in Memphis – the infamous ‘real tennis’ barb – breath has been collectively baited to see how the Canadian would fare on the dirt. So far he’s fared very well indeed: a respectable 9-2 record, counting Davis Cup.

Unfortunately, Estoril’s schedule having been buggered by the weather, the last of those wins occurred only a few hours before his semifinal, a debilitating grind over Gilles Simon. Early in the first set against Verdasco, Raonic received treatment on his back, and subsequently called it a day before the second commenced. He wasn’t exactly crippled, but he is due to face Lopez in Madrid in a couple of days. There’s no good reason to kill yourself at a 250 event in Portugal, even with a niggle.

As for Verdasco, it counts as a win, but not as revenge.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

April 30, 2011

No Quarters Given

BMW Open Munich, Quarterfinals

Mayer d. Dimitrov, 7/6 3/6 6/4

Stepanek d. Kohlschreiber, 6/4 6/0

If Marcos Baghdatis’ effort a few days ago was the kind that loses fans, then Grigor Dimitrov’s today was the kind that wins them. Behind for much of the third set, the Bulgarian went down swinging. The temptation must have been strong to going down throwing haymakers, but he demonstrated maturity in maintaining the deft jabs, stern uppercuts and solid blows to the ribs that had kept Florian Mayer on his heels for the first two sets. Defeat is a tough thing to swallow, but maintaining your composure whilst it happens will conceivably lead to victories later on, when things break your way. For a young guy on the make, keeping your head is paramount. The chances will come.

As it stands, Dimitrov’s game is sufficiently attractive that a respectable fan-base is only a big upset away. When in full flight, he resembles Roger Federer in full flight, which is not a coincidence. The technical debt is plain, and has been amply remarked upon. There will always those eager to swear eternal fealty to a beautiful game played beautifully, and it’s a hard bias to begrudge. But a gorgeous groundstroke repertoire will only get you so far, as Philip Kohlschreiber later demonstrated in going down four and zilch to Radek Stepanek. His shots weren’t landing in, but the authority with which they were struck was hard to dispute, and the backhand remained a delight even if it couldn’t find the court. He is a lovely player who can’t or won’t win ugly, and the cult-like dimensions of his fan-base reflect it. They understand that their man isn’t going to win a major, but the sporadic and commanding upsets over the Andy Roddicks or Novak Djokovics make it all worthwhile, since they’re so uncompromising in their virtuosity. That’s fine for Kohlschreiber, but it’s fair to say Dimitrov’s ambitions are higher. The way he lost today suggests they might be just be realistic.

Following the 2009 Wimbledon final, Roddick was at pains to remind everyone that Federer rarely receives adequate credit for toughing it out, and winning ugly when he needs to. It’s not the standard word on the Swiss, despite being the correct one. Even in the years of his dominance he scored most of his victories that way. (It is not unlike the irrepressible cliché that Rafael Nadal wins his matches deep in the final set tiebreaker through sheer will and brawn – the myth of the unstoppable warrior. But Nadal usually wins in straight sets.) By modelling his game so closely on Federer’s, Dimitrov has inevitably tapped into the discourse of the genius at work, no matter that the discourse is misleading. Anyone truly modelling their game on Federer would do better to emulate his generally glossed-over fighting qualities. If you simply attempt to mimic, say, the 2006 Masters Cup final, you don’t end up with Federer, you end up with Kohlschreiber. Even Federer at his peak rarely played like that for long, so it’s a stretch to think his disciples can.

But enough of this: on to the match, which was excellent. Mayer’s notoriety for having yet to claim a maiden title is second only to Janko Tipsarevic’s, and by moving through to his third semifinal of the season, he has once again put himself in a position to rectify that. In contrast to his opponent, his is not an attractive game. It is an intriguing one, although the resemblance to Fabrice Santoro’s is mostly over-stated, and mostly limited to a tendency towards playfulness when you don’t expect it. He didn’t look especially playful today, especially not as the third set wore on, and a determined Dimitrov looked set to erase the German’s lead. As a Dimitrov forehand pass flashed by and in, Mayer half-turned, hefted his racquet as though faking to smash it, and then actually smashed it, repeatedly and with precise and frightening efficiency. It was the first time I’ve ever seen Mayer erupt, and it recalled Fernando Gonzalez not only in its thoroughness, but in the immediate catharsis it brought. He went on to hold a tight game, and then to close out a tight match.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Tagged as , ,

April 28, 2011

Fated To Be

BMW Open Munich, Second Round

Dimitrov d. Baghdatis, 3/6 7/6 6/2

It is now over twelve months since Marcos Baghdatis defeated Roger Federer after the latter held match points, thereby introducing a jagged Shostakovich-tinged tune that was fated to become a leitmotif of the Swiss master’s year. Federer was to reprise this achievement three more times before 2010 became history, and this new-found capacity to wrench defeat from the jaws of victory has grown into a key theme in the essentially fugal discourse of his decline. For fans of Federer, especially the zealots, Baghdatis has a lot to answer for.

Well, what goes around comes around as they say – I’m pretty sure they say it in the Bible, somewhere near the back – and the pious entreaties of the Federer faithful have been answered. For the second time in as many tournaments, Baghdatis has fallen after holding match points. Last time it was in Monte Carlo, to Radek Stepanek, while today it came against Grigor Dimitrov, in Munich; the omega and alpha of both tour experience and facial structure. The depressing aspect, if you’re Baghdatis, is that he was clearly the stronger player for the first couple of sets. Until 6-4 in the second set tiebreak, Dimitrov had hardly made a return. Given his inexperience, victory seemed unlikely, regardless of what the idiotic commentator thought. Nonetheless, the Bulgarian hit out with calm assurance on those two matchpoints, and it was the more credentialled Cypriot that conjured the errors. The first only missed by a few inches, but that’s tennis: inches are what it’s a game of. Dimitrov took the next three points, and the set, and Baghdatis checked out. That third set looked exactly like hard work, and he looked exactly like someone who doesn’t go in for that sort of thing.

Much has been made of Baghdatis’ fitness – remember that training video the ATP inflicted on us, showcasing the sit-up regime he submitted to in the off-season? – but I’m not convinced his body is what is holding him back. He was fit enough against Federer in Indian Wells last year, and against Rafael Nadal in Cincinnati. What was missing today was the belief that once the first batch of opportunities went begging, that creating another batch was worth the effort. Blowing matchpoints is a crying shame, but it’s just one of those things, and something that besets everyone from time to time. His third set – and he was down 1/5 – was a far more serious matter, for it demonstrated a perfect willingness to lose. It’s the kind of behaviour that will lose him fans, who are willing to put up with a lot, but not seeing their man give up.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Tagged as ,

April 26, 2011

Structural Reforms

Barcelona Open Banc Sabadell, Final

Nadal d. Ferrer, 6/2 6/4

There’s not much to say about the Barcelona final that wasn’t said about the Monte Carlo final. Rafael Nadal sliced David Ferrer to ribbons in both, although we might say that the Barcelona match was less painful, insofar as a fresh razor blade hurts less than a rusty one. Nadal played better, Ferrer played about the same, and the result was about the same: it felt uncannily like watching a replay, right down to knowing the result ahead of time. For those few who had predicted victory for Ferrer – poor fools lying groaningly prone in an emergency department somewhere – Nadal took only an hour and a half to set them straight. Dominance need not be dull, but, honestly, this is. So far it has been a clay court season only a true fan could love.

It has also reinforced my view that Monte Carlo could be safely demoted, and the entire clay swing shifted forward a week, with Barcelona and Monte Carlo running as concurrent 500 events. It would probably be the only way Nadal will stop winning both events, though with careful scheduling he would be the one to pull it off. In any case, that’s not really the point. The point is that these few weeks feel decidedly lightweight, and that it would free up a week after Roland Garros for a grass court Masters in the lead up to Wimbledon. It’s not going to happen, but I’d like it to.

On the topic of resounding structural changes to the tour, arguably the most controversial point to emerge from Barcelona this week has been Nadal revisiting the idea of a two-year ranking system, something that seems to have gone unmentioned since his No.1 ranking was last under serious threat, back in 2009. I am reminded of the tendency of opposition parties to militate for sweeping parliamentary reform, only for it to slip off the agenda once they gain office. In other words, it is self-interest, since a two year system of almost any variety makes it harder for lower players to rise through the ranks, and harder for the top players to fall. To take just one example, under a two year system, Milos Raonic would still be  mired outside the top fifty. As it stands, the rankings often only bear a passing relationship to form or ability, and extending the system as Nadal suggests would only alienate them further.

His stated reason for bringing it up is that it would help alleviate wear-and-tear on player’s bodies, though it’s hard to see how that would happen. Those inclined to play a lot still would, merely with diminished returns, and the top players can afford to take longer and more frequent breaks as it is. Nadal himself only played for 22 weeks in 2010, while Federer in his years of utter dominance played between 15-17 tournaments each year. There are plenty of things awry with the system, but this isn’t one of them, and Nadal certainly has the luxury of playing less.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Tagged as ,

April 23, 2011

Those Bedroom Thighs

Barcelona Open Banc Sabadell, Semifinals

Nadal d. Dodig, 6/3 6/2

Ferrer d. Almagro, 6/3 6/4

Sadly, RFET’s Davis Cup kerfuffle has dominated tennis headlines, and has thus easily claimed line honours as Bummer of the Week. Although somewhat overshadowed, there has actually been a reasonably meaty tournament going on in Barcelona: the Open Banc Sabadell. The reigning champion is Fernando Verdasco, although he isn’t the defending champion, having thrown a hissy-fit at some perceived slight, and taken his balls home. It hardly mattered either way: Rafael Nadal turned up, and no one else will be winning.

The world No.1 is through to the final, having somehow emerged from his toughest match of the week, a routine 6/3 6/2 win over Ivan Dodig, who I’ll come to shortly. The important point is that this was Nadal’s 500th tour level victory, and that at 24 years and 10 months he is the second youngest man to achieve this milestone (Bjorn Borg achieved it at 23 years 7 months, which may never be topped). Reminded of it afterwards, Nadal was less than fascinated, noting with wry bemusement that he had been on the tour for nine years. His eyes have assumed the horizon-bound glaze of those whose business is with history, by whose perspective 500 wins is no more useful than 499, since so many players have gotten there already, including Roddick, Hewitt, and Federer. Unless he manages to surpass the latter’s major haul – and doing so is not beyond reason – his path to even fleeting immortality is made of clay, and mostly Parisian. His immediate goal, of course, is Roland Garros. As for Barcelona, winning it is a minor step towards that, like, say, Pete Sampras winning the first round at Wimbledon. It has to be done, but you don’t need to dwell on it.

For Ivan Dodig, however, it has been a bigger deal. Prior to this week he had barely won a tour-level match on clay, but he is a fighter, and has proved more than capable of battling through a wide-open quarter. His win over Milos Raonic was reasonably hard-fought, although the latter was not at his best. No one is quite certain what Raonic’s best even looks like, but there’s broad consensus that it involves lots of very big serves, and his numbers against Dodig were well down. A bigger test awaited Dodig in Feliciano Lopez, who of all the Spaniards is the least virtuosic on clay, although it is essential to keep this in perspective. He is still Spanish. He’s also a smouldering dreamboat, which meant his encounter with the Croatian provided rich contrasts from both stylistic and visual perspectives. With his flowing locks, manly jaw and bedroom thighs, Lopez was sharply at odds with Dodig, who looks like an unmade bed. Nevertheless, Dodig fought his way through that, too, and has entered the top 50.

Speaking of entering top anythings – and vain Spaniards with a surfeit of testosterone – as predicted Nicolas Almagro has made it to No.10, which was a cherished goal of his, and is a frankly stellar achievement for Spain’s third best claycourter. Unfortunately he encountered the world’s second best claycourter in the semifinal – David Ferrer – and went down in short order. Prior to that however, he’d pushed through some interesting matches, although the interest lay mainly with his opponents. If we accept for the moment that Almagro is a genuine top ten player – and the evidence is overwhelming, consisting of a 10 next to his name on the ATP website – then one would have to concede that Nikolay Davydenko still has the ability to rank somewhere above that. Until he stepped up to serve for the first set, he was clearly a better tennis player than Almagro, even on the latter’s preferred surface. The question of why he choked from then on is the real issue. Jason Goodall went on a bit about his having switched racquets, though the Dunlop was good enough to get him to 5/4, ripping the ball gorgeously from both sides. Someone else proffered the explanation that his issues are ‘psychological’. This is almost certainly correct, and even more certainly useless. We might as well say the Titanic sank due to the ocean, when we really know it was Leonardo DiCaprio’s fault.

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Tagged as , , , , , ,

April 22, 2011

A Waste of Time

As anticipated, and hoped for, the ITF has shown sense, and dismissed the Spanish Tennis Federation’s (RFET) appeal regarding the surface for the upcoming Davis Cup tie with the United States. Common sense of course isn’t, but in this case, for a wonder, it prevailed. The Davis Cup Committee’s ruling stated that the proposed Indoor Hard Premiere surface is readily categorised as a generic acrylic hardcourt, and is thus used in over 30 ATP events and at both Grand Slams.

Given that it is so generic, it makes you wonder at RFET’s continuing assertions that it is completely unknown to them. Here is Albert Costa after the ruling was handed down: ‘What worries me most is not knowing exactly what the proposed court is. We must know what to expect. However, it is essential that the ITF takes it seriously and not allow irregularities.’ If that’s what worries him most, then he doesn’t have much to worry about. Presumably a great many pundits are contacting him already, inquiring after jobs in an advisorial capacity, eager to impart the top secret intelligence that the Austin tie will be conducted on a very fast, low-bouncing hardcourt. Given that even within the same segments of the season court speeds change markedly from week to week – think Tokyo to Shanghai – it is a conceit to imagine that players cannot adapt readily to small variations. Let’s spell it out: the Americans will be serving really big, and returning their serves won’t be easy. In Nadal-parlance, it will be almost impossible. The low-bounce will also be designed to negate Nadal’s spin, and to protect Roddick’s junky backhand as much as possible.

Regarding the speed, the Spanish are not to be denied the last word, even if that word is as petty as all the ones that preceded it. Here is Nadal, trying to teach the ITF to suck eggs:

‘The most important and the main thing is to see the court and see how it is. The fastest [courts] I’ve played on are in Tokyo and Montreal. If the Austin court is faster than these, then you have grounds for complaint, because it is illegal. But I know that the ITF has equipment to measure speed the ball and not allow it to violate the limits. However, we all know that when we play away, they always put in the fastest courts they can.’

First of all, being faster than Montreal and Tokyo is not illegal, since while those courts are fast, neither is at the upper permissible limit. I might be wrong, but I suspect the Paris Masters was faster last year (although sadly not in the years preceding). In any case, the Davis Cup Committee ruling already stipulated that the surface must adhere to  Rule 38 (b) (“Court Pace Rating (CPR)”), and that the speed of the court will be tested by the rather impressive-sounding ITF Science and Technical Department. It’s hard to see Nadal’s insistence as anything but gamesmanship. He might as well insist that the tie is umpired fairly. It must be presumed by all parties that it will be, and to make a point of it would be to imply it might not be. Coming from the world No.1, all it does is undermine the sport’s governing body, a bad business.

This idiotic affair has largely run its course, although its leavings will inevitably soil the ether for a few more days. The upshot is that nothing has changed, and no one has emerged better for it; in every sense, a waste of time.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Davis Cup

April 21, 2011

A Slow Week

The story of a slow week has been a fast court. For those not following this relative non-event, which has required all the media oxygen it can get, Spain has formally complained to the ITF over the USTA’s choice of surface for their upcoming Davis Cup quarterfinal. The issue boils down a rule whereby no tie can be held on a surface that hasn’t been used either at a Grand Slam, or at three or more ATP level tournaments. If we boil it down further, to a bitter paste-like reduction, it’s hard not to interpret this as (at best) quibbling for its own sake, or (more likely) a cynical ploy by the Spanish to limit just how lightning-slick the court will play. If it’s just quibbling, they’d best tread cautiously, since in Andy Roddick they’re up against a world class hair-splitter, boasting near-infinite stamina in the art of aimless carping.

The surface in question is a pre-fabricated hardcourt called Indoor Hard Premiere, manufactured by Premier Services in Baltimore. The US has used it in any number of home ties, and it is the surface that was used at the SAP Open in San Jose a couple of months ago, the event where Milos Raonic served his way to a maiden ATP title, and where Fernando Verdasco’s sustained and profound slump commenced. It’s a stretch to blame the surface for that particular outcome, and based on current form it’s unlikely Verdasco will be picked for anything more strenuous than cheerleading, but nonetheless, it’s not a court conducive to the ‘real tennis’ preferred by four out of five Spanish men.

The reality is that Indoor Hard Premiere is not radically unlike any other hardcourt surface, and appears to be identical to Latex-ite, also made in Baltimore, which is allowed by the ITF. Like other hardcourts, Indoor Hard Premiere can be calibrated for speed and bounce by altering the paint and sand quantities in the top layer. The only thing that might be remotely new to the Spanish players is the name of the product, but even that isn’t likely, since it was used in the tie between the US and Spain in 2007 (which the Americans won). Certainly, Nadal’s claims that the court is ‘completely unknown’ to him and his team mates is disingenuous.

Given that the surface has already seen such prevalent use, for the ITF to rule in Spain’s favour would let the proverbial cat out of the can of worms. Not only that, but the Davis Cup final last December was played on RuKortHard, an indoor hardcourt manufactured by Concept 90, and which is only currently used by one ATP event (Zagreb). If Spain’s current petition was to prove successful, can you imagine the quibbling the French might bring to bear?

Leave a Comment

Filed under Davis Cup

April 19, 2011

All Bets Are Off

Monte Carlo Masters 1000, Final

Nadal d. Ferrer, 6/4 7/5

I am proud to declare, without a trace of deceit, that I picked Rafael Nadal to win the Monte Carlo Masters. Impressive, I know, but quell your awe. Stay your adulation. Given that his chances of not winning were roughly the same as my chances of surviving a thermonuclear strike to the face, it hardly ranks as a classic act of prognostication. Still, so certain was I of Nadal’s eventual triumph that I would have put money on it, had that been feasible. Sadly, the odds were so poor that even a $10 wager on Nadal would have resulted in rugged men storming my home and beating up one of my dogs – presumably the one I like – just to teach me not to be a smart-arse. It was right there in the terms and conditions. Speaking of which, placing a bet on any clay tournament at the moment yields this delightful warning, displayed not in the fine print, but bolded front and centre: ‘This market will be void if Rafael Nadal is a non runner’. In other words, without Nadal, all bets are off.

I can hardly imagine a more succinct summary of the current clay season, or indeed every clay court season for the last six years. Nadal right now defines the limits of the surface, and the easiest way to delineate events is between those he graces and those he doesn’t, which rather tarnishes the so-called Golden Swing. Monte Carlo has demonstrated that form isn’t even a factor. Nadal was frankly sub-par in the final, and so cautious that his few flashes of aggression are easily recalled and quickly recounted, such as the forehand winner on the second last point. Yet he dispatched David Ferrer in straight sets. Indeed, Nadal dropped only one set all week, which became a story in itself, though he was in no danger of losing.

Nadal won’t win Monte Carlo for ever, but he may do so long enough to see it brought low, or at least lower. For those lobbying to see the event demoted to 500 status, seeing the Spaniard claim it for the 73rd time is only further proof that it doesn’t warrant Masters 1000 status. For all that it doesn’t make a great deal of sense, I can kind of see their point: the predictability of the outcome lends the whole affair a vaguely deflated vibe, draining excitement as surely as the prevailing country-club atmosphere. Even Robbie Koenig and Jason Goodall didn’t bother to show up. Still, of all the arguments in favour of demoting Monte Carlo, this is about the weakest. A better argument is that no Grand Slam requires three Masters events in the lead-up, and that there really should be one on grass.

It is possible to be seduced into thinking something will last for ever, merely because it feels like it is. Viewed from within, the interminable looks just like the eternal. Nadal will obviously lose another match on clay at some point, although no one can quite say to whom. Talk of Novak Djokovic (who has never beaten Nadal on clay) has lately given way to Nadal’s knees (which have). The world No.1 is in Barcelona this week, determined to revisit the exact schedule that so effectively derailed his 2009. Last year he skipped Barcelona, and won everything that mattered. The lesson seems clear enough, especially for his fans, whose howls of disapproval are set to lift the roof. Then again, they were the ones who predicted that a second set let-down against Murray indicated a sure win for Ferrer in the final. If they were so sure, they should have put money on it. The odds were excellent.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Tagged as ,