Tennis Frontier

Blog

  • Maria Sharapova Withdraws from US Open

    Maria Sharapova Withdraws from US Open

    Maria Sharapova, the No. 3 ranked women’s tennis player in the world, has withdrawn from the US Open, citing bursitis in her left shoulder.

    David Brewer, U.S. Open tournament director, said in a statement:  “Maria has informed us that she will be unable to compete at the U.S. Open this year due to a right shoulder bursitis and has withdrawn from the tournament.  We wish her a speedy recovery and look forward to her return to New York next year.”

    [divider]

    Click here to discuss Sharapova’s withdrawal in our discussion forum.

    [divider]

    Credits: Cover Photo:  ChrisGampat (Creative Commons License)

  • Houston, We Have A Problem: The State of American Men’s Tennis

    Houston, We Have A Problem: The State of American Men’s Tennis

    Preamble

    Mardy Fish retiring from the US Open got me thinking about the state of American men’s tennis. Here is a current list of the American men in the top 100, with their age in parentheses:

    #14 John Isner (28)

    #29 Sam Querrey (25)

    #87 Jack Sock (20)

    #92 Michael Russell (35)

    #97 Ryan Harrison (21)

    #100 James Blake (33)

    From looking at that list, the near future of men’s tennis looks bleak. Blake and Russell have seen their best days. Isner is probably as good as he’s going to get. Querrey is an interesting case because five years ago he looked quite promising, finishing 2008 (age 21) at #39, but he was injured and has stagnated since, seemingly establishing himself as a #20-30 type player.

    If Jack Sock and Ryan Harrison are the hope of American men’s tennis then, quite frankly, “Houston, we have a problem.” There are a few other players outside of the top 100 that have some promise, but none stand out as the next great American tennis player.

    The focus of this blog is on statistics and historical trends, so I won’t speculate too much as to the why of this, but by looking at historical trends we can begin to get a sense of whether the current lack of top American talent is part of a cycle, or whether it’s something new and potentially lasting.

    One speculative idea I do want to put forth is the question of how popular tennis is in the United States compared to prior decades, and whether or not this relates to how good the top American players are. Without having any proof other than anecdotal (which obviously doesn’t constitute proof), it is my sense that tennis is less popular today in the United States than it was during the hey-day of American tennis in the early 90s when you had Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, and Jim Courier dominating the game. But not only is this just a guess, but correlation does not equal causation, and if there is causation it may be two-way – in other words, it could be that the game is less popular in the United States partially because there are no elite American players, and there are no elite American players partially because the game isn’t as popular as it once was.

    Let us return to the historical trends. The question I want to answer is this: How dominant have American players been in men’s tennis over the years, and how does 2013 compare to prior years? To do this I looked at the year-end rankings for the entirety of ATP history, from 1973 to 2013, with a focus on American players. What I found was quite astonishing to me. What follows is a chart that depicts the way American rankings have changed over the last four decades, with some explanation and discussion.

    [divider]

    You can discuss this post and more in our tennis forums

    [divider]

    A Few Notes on Tennis Statistics

    The ATP website has a strange lack of rankings from 1980-82; I’m not sure exactly why it is. I can’t find any other source on the internet that has year-end rankings, so while I could find the top 10 rankings, the rest of the rankings will be empty for those years. But it doesn’t make that much of a difference for this study as the years just before and after that span were very similar.

    Secondly, due to the lack of a good database for tennis statistics (although Tennis Abstract looks promising), I reserve the right to make errors! Hopefully they’ll be small, but chances are there will be one or two, hopefully small, errors along the way, but it wouldn’t change the overall weight of the statistics.

    A briefer note on Ivan Lendl: Lendl became an American citizen on July 7 of 1992. Some records denote American status for earlier years because he lived in the United from 1981 on, for the sake of this study I’m considering him as a Czech for his entire career up to but not including 1992. I feel that it’s both kinder to the Czech Republic (then Czechoslovakia) to do so, but also considering that he was born and raised in the former Czechoslovakia, it’s more accurate to consider him as a Czech for the sake of this study.

     

    American Rankings in ATP History

    So let’s look at the rankings. The following chart depicts the number of American men in the year-end ATP top 100, 50, 20 and 10 over 41 years of ATP history (In the case of 1980-82, I just continued from 1979 for 80-81, and made 1982 the same as 1983).

    20130821110703

    (Please click on it to see a larger, more clear view)

    When I put together this chart I was stunned by the results. I was expecting a drop off in recent years, but not to this extent. What I found particularly interesting is that the drop-off didn’t begin recently but actually back in the mid ‘80s and speeding up in the ‘90s.

    I was also intrigued to find a rise in the mid-70s. Unfortunately we don’t have rankings before 1973, but if you think of the great names of the 1960s and before, few of them were American. Americans rose to prominence with Arthur Ashe and Stan Smith in the late 1960s and early ‘70s, but it was Jimmy Connors who became the first truly dominant American men’s tennis player, at least in the Open Era, and since the earlier greats of the 1940s and ‘50s: Tony Trabert, Jack Kramer, and Pancho Gonzales, and before them Don Budge, Bobby Riggs, Ellsworth Vines, and Bill Tilden. The Australians dominated men’s tennis in the 1960s, with names such as Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad, Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, and John Newcombe.

    Jimmy Connors changed that, ushering a new era of American tennis (with the help of Smith and Ashe). The baton (or racket, if you will) of men’s tennis was passed from Connors to John McEnroe, and then for a brief time to Jim Courier, then to Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi. And then from Andre and Pete to…Andy Roddick? James Blake? Robby Ginepri?

    The decline in the number of American men in the top 100 has been relatively minor since 1995, but what has changed is the presence of a truly great American men’s player. Pete Sampras started declining in 1999 and then retired in 2002, and when Agassi retired a few years later we lost the last truly great American player. Roddick and James Blake carried the baton as best they could, but although Roddick finished 2002 as the #1 player, his reign was short-lived as he was surpassed by superior players Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, and become one of the “best of the rest” in the field of the Aughties.

    Andy Roddick is the last American man to have won a Slam, and also to have been #1. What may even more disturbing is that the only active American man to have been in the top 5 is James Blake, who is 33 years old and ranked #100 in the world. A couple years ago Mardy Fish – of the same generation as Roddick and a couple years younger than Blake – seemed to be a late bloomer, ranking as high as #7 in August of 2011, but a heart condition in the following year limited his play and he seems close to retirement.

    With his big serve, John Isner remains a dark-horse candidate at many tournaments and has reached as high as #9 in the rankings in April of 2012. But at age 28 he is unlikely to improve.

     

    Final Thoughts

    American men’s tennis is in dire straits and there is no clear end in sight. American men’s tennis rose in the mid-70s, peaked in the late 70s to early 80s, but then began a long decline in the late ‘80s, with a startling drop in the mid-90s and continued slow decline since. We can hope that, like the Once and Future King (which is, ironically enough, of the British cultural mythos), a new great young player will rise up. But who he is, or will be, remains to be seen. The highest ranked American teenager is Christian Harrison, younger brother to Ryan, who is currently #389. The highest ranked American junior is #16, Macedonia-born Stefan Kozlov, who made it to the quarterfinals of the 2013 Boys’ Wimbledon at the tender age of 15.

    Certainly, we are amidst a long winter in American men’s tennis.

    Credits: Cover Photo: Mike McCune, (Creative Commons License)

  • One More Time, With Feeling

    One More Time, With Feeling

    The Western & Southern Open ATP Final, 2013

    Rafael Nadal [3] def. John Isner 7-6 (8), 7-6(3)

    Three tournaments, three crowns: With his 7-6, 7-6 win over John Isner in the final of the Western & Southern Open in Cincinnati, Rafael Nadal remains unbeaten on North American hard tennis courts in 2013. The Spaniard also reclaims the No. 2 world-ranking; earns his 26th career Masters title, the second in as many weeks; and gets to take home a floral-themed vessel adorned with an earthier-than-ever-before glaze palette of burgundy and green. (I am not making that last bit up.) Indeed, there is talk of crowning him King of Concrete, or, at the very least, considering him as a favorite to win the US Open.

    Last week, in the Montreal final, Nadal demolished his 6’ 5” Canadian opponent, Milos Raonic, 6-2, 6-2. Raonic’s performance was decidedly muted, and Nadal calibrated his victory celebration accordingly. (It involved little more than warm, heartfelt smiles and a a few thankyouverymucheverybodys.) Today, at the Lindner Family Tennis Center in Mason, Ohio, Rafael Nadal again faced a native son. But unlike Raonic in Canada, the 6’ 10” American played a fantastic final.

    Although, from my perspective, today’s two tiebreak-sets still weren’t as thrilling as the first two sets of Nadal’s quarterfinal victory over Roger Federer on Friday evening. (Read about it here.) Gargantuan serves like Isner’s are more fun for me to see in person than on TV. (In fact, they are almost impossible to see on TV, because although they are beastly in size, they are also avoidant creatures, and tend to scurry off the television frame before you can get a good look at them.) Nadal earned exactly zero break points in twelve Isner service games. John managed to get three break points of his own, but converted none. Isner’s forehand was tremendous, which was both enjoyable and visible, but his return let him down at crucial moments, most notably at 3-5 in the second set tiebreaker.

    It’s possible Nadal was every bit as good in the Cincinnati final as he was against Federer in the quarters, but with Isner on the other side of the net, the conversation wasn’t half as eloquent. Which isn’t to say it wasn’t deep and meaningful—Isner’s presence in the final means Americans who have heard of tennis can tell foreigners that we once again have a top twenty player in the ATP computer rankings. It will be good for our collective sense of numerical self-worth. It should also be good for John Isner’s sense of his tennis self as he prepares to enter the US Open with the weight of American expectations on his broad shoulders.

    Speaking of American pride, the U.S. crowd was with Isner from first point to last. Yet Nadal had a fair measure of support from the stands, and no small amount of their admiration. After all, he has put together a highly entertaining two weeks of tennis. And, like any great big-stage performer, when it came time—on his first of three available match points— for Rafa to bury his final forehand winner of the tournament down the line, he sensed the moment had arrived to let loose his inner celebratory animal.

    After collapsing flat onto his back (with impressive alacrity), the Spaniard screamed, tensing all his muscles, thereby paradoxically releasing all the tension accumulated during two taut hours of competition. Then, beaming like a ray of tennis-ball-colored sunshine, Nadal jogged to the net, shook the American’s proffered hand (resting his head briefly on Isner’s vast midsection) before going on delightedly screaming and jumping around the court. Oh, and he also wagged his No. 1 finger at the sky—just as he did after defeating Novak Djokovic in the Montreal semifinals.

    Given that finger-wagging was officially trademarked by RF, Inc. during the spring of 2011, Nadal’s infringement on copyright has not gone unnoticed—or unanalyzed. For my part, it was the finger-wag more than the third straight hardcourt title that reminded me of Mark Antony’s famous lines in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: “I thrice presented him a kingly crown, Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?”

    Antony goes on to say that Brutus, an honorable man, did indeed think Caesar was a hair ambitious and ought therefore to be stabbed to death by a group of his buddies, making a mess of at least a dozen nice togas in the process. (I believe similar suggestions for summary execution have been put forth many-a-time on twitter in regards to Nadal, Federer, and also Gilles Simon.) But the reason Caesar had to be got rid of wasn’t because of his ambition; it was to do with how he applied it. Caesar sought to raise himself above the rules of the game, and to do so secretly— indirectly. Romans did not want to be ruled by a king (not when they could be gently guided by the classic democratic principles of bribery and corruption!). But tennis? Tennis craves kings. Every year—every week, even— tennis chooses the guy with the No. 1 finger.

    So, the thing I enjoyed most about this tournament—besides watching James Blake catch fire in his second round match against Jerzy Janowicz, of course—was seeing Rafael Nadal execute his tennis game with such clarity. He almost looked, well, entitled, out there. If I had a quarter for every time I saw Nadal move inside the baseline to hit groundstrokes, and go for winners, I could park my car at a meter in Oakland for long enough to do my grocery shopping and get a coffee. (For instance, during his semifinal match against Berdych, Nadal hit 19 forehand winners, 38 overall. That’s $9.50 for me, which roughly comes out to 11 minutes and 28 seconds of metered parking. See? Perfect.)

    One of the points from the final that sticks with me now was, I believe, the very first point of the second set tiebreaker. Nadal not only hit a winning forehand down the line, he managed to bend it so the ball struck the line as if it were an inside-out forehand hit from his backhand corner. Jim Courier, who was in the CBS booth, exclaimed, “Explain to me, how do you create an angle when you hit down-the-line?!” Then he told Mary Carillo how to do it. But even if Mary knows how to do it, that doesn’t mean she could. Which is why it is such a pleasure to watch a player capable of so much play so near that capacity.

    Without losing contact with his defensive skills, Nadal has spent the last two weeks executing the aggressive aspects of his game with remarkable openness. It’s refreshing; and it’s time.

    Not to play favorites for the Open, but if this is ambition—I like it.

    [divider]

    Discuss this article and the match on our tennis forums.

  • We Might Run Out Of Words

    We Might Run Out Of Words

    Cincinnati Masters, Final

    (4) Nadal d. Isner, 7-6(8), 7-6(3)

    Rafael Nadal has won the Cincinnati Masters, defeating John Isner to claim his second Masters event in two weeks, and his third hardcourt Masters of the year. Prolonged domination by a single player presents a writer with peculiar difficulties, assuming the writer is at all disinclined to repeat themself. This was a real problem in 2011, when Novak Djokovic refused to stop winning. I was not writing about tennis at the time, but I assume it must have been an issue in 2005 and 2006, when Roger Federer was nearly unbeatable, and very nearly unbeaten. Wimbledon aside, so it is proving this season with Nadal. I’d suggest there’s no higher compliment than to concede that if he keeps going on like this, we might run out of words.

    For example, there was little that could usefully be said after Nadal’s Rome triumph that hadn’t been said following the Madrid final a week earlier. His new Swiss opponent had greater pedigree, but won even fewer games. Similarly, today’s victory over a towering North American with a frightening serve and maneuverability on par with the Exxon Valdez more or less reprised last week’s. Last week it was local favourite Milos Raonic, whose trip to the Montreal final propelled him into the top ten. This week it was local favourite John Isner, whose passage to the final was if anything more impressive, and had the laudable effect of ensuring the United States has a man inside the top twenty for their home Grand Slam. Both giants progressed to the final after defeating Juan Martin del Potro in memorable fashion. Raonic, you will recall, generating fleeting controversy by delivering a series of roundhouse kicks to the net while cackling that he was “above the law.” Meanwhile Isner, more conventionally, saved a match point in a marathon. Isner also beat Raonic this week. The similarities mount, but ultimately amount to little. What really matters is that Nadal beat everyone. Again.

    Today’s final wasn’t the most memorable example we’ve witnessed this year, or even today, given that it was entirely upstaged by the women’s final that followed. Had it been a quarterfinal it would have already faded into the sepia backdrop of general forgetting: yet another example of a monstrous serve guaranteeing tiebreakers, which were then decided by the better player’s superior fortitude and technique. But it was a final, and so gains some luster by default, and thus bears recounting.

    If for no other reason, it was an interesting study in how two sets can be numerically similar yet end up feeling totally different. The first set was quite exciting, featuring multiple set points for both men, mostly in the fraught tiebreaker. Isner saved those he faced with typically muscular points on serve, but failed utterly to impose himself on return. Mark Petchey was correct in commentary when he remarked on the strange contrast that Isner presents us with. On serve he has an “all-American attacking game,” yet on return is “negative and pushy.” He did get an impressive number of Nadal’s serves back, yet they never had much on them, and thereafter he won very few points. It didn’t help that he facing one of the most punishing baseliners ever to heft a racquet. Nadal finally got a set point on his own serve, and duly took it.

    The second set, on the other hand, was frankly dull. If the first set demonstrated that tiebreakers are considerably more interesting when their arrival isn’t necessarily inevitable, the second set proved the corollary. Both men continued to serve magnificently, and return ineffectively. Nadal was more or less guaranteed a point whenever he switched up his serve wide to the deuce court, since the undeniable lethality of the American’s forehand requires that his feet are set. Nadal lifted and played a smart tiebreaker, and never looked in trouble. After victory he collapsed onto his back, and generally made it apparent just what winning Cincinnati means to him. It seems this tournament had featured on more bucket-lists than Serena Williams’s. The strange vase that Cincinnati passes off as a trophy proved every bit as awkward to bite as Montreal’s silverware had been.

    This was, of course, Nadal’s first strange vase. One can essay complicated reasons why he has never won this title before, including surface speed and bounce, opponents, balls, proximity to the US Open, and the misfortune a couple of years ago to combine with Fernando Verdasco to thrash out one of the worst tennis matches in living memory. All of these factors have merit, and combined meant that no one was surprised at his lack of success here (as opposed to Federer’s oddly dismal record at Bercy until 2011). Nadal characteristically offered the simpler explanation that he’d simply never played well in Cincinnati, and that this week he did. It was a salutary reminder that complicated rationales aren’t necessarily wrong so much as unnecessary, and that elite athletes generally operate with a savant-like eschewal of nuance. This is how Roger Rasheed can function effectively as a coach while employing the discursive range of an inspirational fridge magnet. The manner of Nadal’s progress this week certainly bore his contention out. There was no match in which he wasn’t the clear favourite – including the quarterfinal against the defending champion Federer – in which playing to his strengths would more than likely ensure victory. He just had to play well.

    This isn’t to suggest he didn’t have his difficulties. Federer came within a couple of games of winning, and Grigor Dimitrov boldly grabbed a set when Nadal allowed his focus to waver. However, this meant that in addition to savouring their hero’s triumph, the more martially-inclined portions of Nadal’s fan base could indulge themselves in their most cherished conceit, which is that of the Spaniard as el guerrero imparable. After what amounted to a fairly unremarkable defeat of Dimitrov there was no shortage of chest-beating proclamations that Nadal had not been at his best, yet had “found a way to win.” Insofar as the “way” consisted of “being better than his opponent at nearly every aspect of tennis,” I suppose it’s not inaccurate. What’s false is the emphasis. He didn’t win because of his warrior spirit, but because he’s a very good tennis player.

    Indeed, anyone still insisting Nadal isn’t the very best tennis player in the world right now sounds increasingly deluded. He will arrive in New York determined to become the first man to sweep the US summer since Andy Roddick ten years ago, and only the third man to do so ever (Pat Rafter also managed it in 1998, to Pete Sampras’s unstinting disgust). He will return to the number two ranking tomorrow, and could well return to number one if he sustains his current form for a few weeks in New York. Although the bookmakers in their wisdom have retained Djokovic and Andy Murray as US Open favourites ahead of the Spaniard, it will take a reckless punter to bet against him.

    But that’s all in the future. For now, Nadal has won twenty-six Masters 1000 titles, including a record-equalling five this season. It’s an accomplishment that is only enhanced by recalling that none of the five were Monte Carlo, which otherwise exists only that he might augment his tally by one each year. Aside from that, the only other Masters event Nadal hasn’t won this year was Miami, which he didn’t play. In order to break the record, which was only set two years ago by Djokovic, Nadal will have to win either Shanghai or Paris. History suggests that he is unlikely to do so. Then again, the Spaniard has already spent the season showing history just where it can shove its suggestions.

    [divider]

    Discuss this article, the match and lots more with fellow tennis fans in the forums.

  • Azarenka Upsets Serena in Cincinnati

    Azarenka Upsets Serena in Cincinnati

    Victoria Azarenka won the Western & Southern Open in Cincinnati, beating Serena Williams 2-6, 6-2, 7-6(6).

    Williams went up a double break in the first set, before serving it out at love. Azarenka held to open the second set, then finally broke the American’s serve after a long second game.

    And then came the sixth game of the second set. Serving at 1-4, after nearly 20 minutes, and 13 deuces, Serena held serve to take it to 2-4. In the next game Azarenka held serve, after going down 0-40, then broke Serena to tale the set 2-6.

    The players exchanged breaks in the third set, before taking it to an appropriate third set tiebreak. Azarenka finally won after Serena netted a forehand.

    [divider]

    Click here to discuss the Serena Williams/Azarenka final in our discussion forum.

  • Nadal Wins Cincinnati Masters

    Nadal Wins Cincinnati Masters

    The Spaniard Rafael Nadal beat the American John Isner 7-6(8), 7-6(3) in the final of the Western & Southern Open in Cincinnati.

    It was Nadal’s 26th Masters Series win, breaking his own record.

    The first set was a standard Isner affair: both players holding serve, before going to a tiebreak. It almost wasn’t so. Serving at 5-6, 15-40, Nadal saved two set points. But that only held off the inevitable. They exchanged mini-breaks late in the tiebreak, and each saved a couple of sets points, until Isner missed a volley setting up Nadal’s third set point. After Isner netted the ball, the Spaniard won the first set 7-6(8).

    The second set followed the same narrative. Other than Nadal having to save a break point when serving at 3-3, they held serve, taking the second set to a tiebreak. After Isner committed a few errors, they exchanged sides of the net with Nadal up 5-1. Isner tried to hold off the Spaniard, but when serving down 3-6, Nadal hit a forehand winner, converting on his first championship point, getting the set 7-6(3).

    It was Nadal’s first final in Cincinnati, the only Masters Series final he had never been in before. With today’s win, he enters into a three-way tie with Roger Federer and Andre Agassi for having won 7 out of the 9 different Masters Series. (Novak Djokovic has won 8 of 9. Ironically, the only one missing from his collection is Cincinnati.)

    [divider]

    Click here to discuss the Nadal/Isner final in our discussion forum.

  • Cincinnati Western & Southern ATP/WTA Finals

    Cincinnati Western & Southern ATP/WTA Finals

    [Scores added as known.]

    Center Court – Start 12:30 P.M.

    (4) Rafael Nadal (ESP) d John Isner (USA) — 7-6(8), 7-6(3)

    Not Before 4:00 P.M.

    (2) Victoria Azarenka (BLR) d (1) Serena Williams (USA) — 2-6, 6-2, 7-6(6)

    [divider]

    GRANDSTAND — Start 2:00 P.M.

    (3) Su-Wei Hsieh (TPE) / Shuai Peng (CHN) d (6) Anna-Lena Groenefeld (GER) / Kveta Peschke (CZE) — 2-6, 6-3, 12-10

    Not Before 3:00 P.M.

    (1) Bob Bryan (USA) / Mike Bryan (USA) d (2) Marcel Granollers (ESP) / Marc Lopez (ESP) — 6-4, 4-6, 10-4

    [divider]

    Click here to discuss the Nadal/Isner final in our discussion forum.

    Click here to discuss the Serena Williams/Azarenka final in our discussion forum.

  • Cincinnati Western & Southern ATP/WTA Semifinals: Saturday, August 17

    Cincinnati Western & Southern ATP/WTA Semifinals: Saturday, August 17

    [Scores added as known.]

    Center Court – Start 1:00 P.M.

    John Isner (USA) d (7) Juan Martin Del Potro (ARG) — 6-7(5), 7-6(9), 6-3

    Not Before 2:30 P.M.
    (4) Rafael Nadal (ESP) d (6) Tomas Berdych (CZE) — 7-5, 7-6(4)

    Not Before 7:00 P.M.
    (1) Serena Williams (USA) d (5) Na Li (CHN) — 7-5, 7-5
    (2) Victoria Azarenka (BLR) d (14) Jelena Jankovic (SRB) — 4-6, 6-2, 6-3

    [divider]

    Grandstand – Start 3:00 P.M.

    (2) Marcel Granollers (ESP) / Marc Lopez (ESP) d (8) Rohan Bopanna (IND) / Edouard Roger-Vasselin (FRA) — 7-5, 6-2

    Not Before 4:30 P.M.
    (1) Bob Bryan (USA) / Mike Bryan (USA) d Santiago Gonzalez (MEX) / Scott Lipsky (USA) — 4-6, 7-6(6), 10-6

    [divider]

    Click here to discuss the Nadal/Berdych semifinal in our discussion forum.

    Click here to discuss the Del Potro/Isner semifinal in our discussion forum.

    Click here to discuss the Serena Williams/Li Na semifinal in our discussion forum.

    Click here to discuss the Azarenka/Jankovic semifinal in our discussion forum.

  • The Curious Case of Rafael Nadal’s Absence and Incredible Comeback Continues

    The Curious Case of Rafael Nadal’s Absence and Incredible Comeback Continues

    The Curious Case of Rafael Nadal’s Absence and Incredible Comeback Continues and in tonight’s quarterfinal he faces defending champion and 5 time Cincinnati titlist, Roger Federer.

    Even though Nadal has won twice as many matches against Federer as he has lost, most of those wins have been on clay, and normally, many would have favored Federer against Nadal on the speedier hard court surface of Cincinatti.

    Just one year ago in Cincinnati, Roger Federer established a Masters 1000 record by being the first player to win a Masters 1000 tournament without being broken in any game. Along the way, the #1 player in the world, Federer, beat a very good Mardy Fish on that day, an excellent Stan Wawrinka the following day, and in the final, dismantled the #2 in the world, Novak Djokovic, with a bagel set and a tiebreak set to win his record 5th Cincinnati title.

    In the meantime Rafael Nadal was in the early stages of his what would be a prolonged 7 month absence from the tour. Prior to Cincinnati last year, he had to withdraw from the 2012 Olympics at Wimbledon and the Toronto edition of the Rogers Cup.

    As the months dragged on, many players and fans were wondering not only how long it would take for Nadal to return to action on the tennis court, but how long it would be before he would be competitive with the top players in the game.

    During the 2013 Australian Open, former world #1 and 8 time major winner Andre Agassi said:

    I found whatever time you take away from the game you need that time to double to be fully where you were when you left, that’s my experience.”

    ”If he comes back in the first half of the year, you won’t see him at his best, historically speaking with my experience, until this tournament next year.” — Read more

    A good example would be the 2009 US Open winner, and world #4 Juan Martin Del Potro, who went out of action after the Australian Open in 2010, not returning until almost October that year after injuring his wrist. But he only played two tournaments in what remained of the year. His ranking dropped down to a low of #485 at the 2011 Australian Open, and he finally returned to the top 10 a year later at the 2012 Australian Open, close to the time frame Andre Agassi indicated.

    But incredibly, and some would say miraculously, Rafael Nadal returned to action in early February of 2013 in South America, where he had only fallen to #5 in the world during his absence, and since then has stormed his way through the tour with 8 titles and 2 finals in 11 tournaments, including his eighth Roland Garros, and 4 masters, 2 on hard courts and 2 on clay. His only real “blip” during this time was on the fresh grass of Wimbledon where he was upset in the first round by Steve Darcis. A little over a year after he left the tour, and about 6 months after his return, he has returned to #3 in the world. It is theoretically possible for him to ascend to #1 in the world if he wins in Cincinnati and the US Open.

    American veteran Mardy Fish, who is relatively early in his comeback after his heart problems forced him to stop, had this to say after losing to Philipp Kohlschreiber in the first round of Cincinnati this year:

    Fish:

    I feel all right, I just have an awful long way to go tennis wise,” said Fish. “It just kind of shows you how amazing Rafa (Nadal) has been coming back after seven months off. To do what he’s done is just not normal.” — Read More

    So we have a clearly above normal Nadal playing against a Federer who has said that this is a transition year for him, and who has won a only a single title this year on the grass in Halle and lost in his last 3 tournaments to players ranked 116, 114, and 55.

    What will the result of tonight’s match be?

    A Roger Federer win in Cincinnati would normally not be considered surprising, but this year is anything but normal. Roger will have to conjure up last year’s form to have a good chance of beating Rafa, or Rafa will have to suddenly fall apart. I don’t see either happening, but on any given day in tennis, anything is possible. If this year’s happenings are any indication, the match should be anything but normal, but one hopes it is entertaining.

    [divider]

    Dicuss the Nadal/Federer Quarter-Final at the Cincinnati Masters on our tennis forum.

  • John Isner Upsets Novak Djokovic in Cincinnati

    John Isner Upsets Novak Djokovic in Cincinnati

    The American John Isner beat world No. 1 Novak Djokovic 7-6(5), 3-6, 7-5 in the quarterfinal of the Cincinnati Masters 1000 today. It was Isner’s second win over Djokovic, having first beat him last year in Indian Wells.

    After losing the first set in a tiebreak, Djokovic was finally able to break the 6’10” American’s serve in the second set. But once again in the final set Djokovic was unable to break Isner. Serving to take the match into a third set tiebreak, Isner broke the world No. 1’s serve, grabbing the final set 7-5.

    Djokovic was looking to complete what has been dubbed the Career Golden Masters by winning in Cincinnati, the only Masters 1000 he has never won. Denied the victory once again, he will have to try again next year.

    [divider]

    Click here to discuss the Isner/Djokovic match in our discussion forum.