Tennis Frontier

Tag: Cincinnati masters

  • 2015 Western & Southern Open – Cincinnati Review

    2015 Western & Southern Open – Cincinnati Review

    Roger Federer Serena Williams Cincinnati

    The Western & Southern Open in Cincinnati was a relatively calm and orderly affair compared to the Rogers Cup the week before. There were no sledges made, very few rain delays, and no newcomers making major breakthroughs. But there is always plenty of history and positioning for the upcoming U.S. Open on the line, so the W&S Open is one of the most important tournaments on the tennis calendar, and this year was no different.

    The Unbreakable Maestro
    Before the summer started, Roger Federer announced that he would skip the Rogers Cup, stunning tennis fans from Albania to Zimbabwe. Surely he would lose his World No. 2 ranking and the No. 2 seed at the U.S. Open for this foolish decision. And sure enough, Federer fell to No. 3 after Andy Murray’s victory in Montreal, and when Murray made the semifinals at Cincinnati, the only way for Federer to get the No. 2 ranking back was to win the tournament. What Federer did in this tournament surprised pretty much everybody. He was never broken once in the tournament, did not drop a set, and played a style of tennis that was bold, majestic, and age-defying. The man is 34 years old yet just beat the No. 1 and 2 players in the world successively for the first time in his career. He never dropped his serve in 44 service games. He practically returned serves from the service line. His volleys were Edbergesque. And he now has seven Cincinnati flower vases sitting on his mantle. With Murray’s Montreal win and Federer’s in Cincinnati, the upcoming U.S. Open has become a lot more interesting and unpredictable.

    Survival of the Strongest
    Watching Serena Williams march through a tournament to another title brings back the scene when Scarlet O’Hara was stepping through the wounded soldiers in Atlanta as she looked for someone. Will anyone be fit, healthy, and ready to challenge Serena in New York? Simona Halep seems to be back on track after early losses at Roland Garros and Wimbledon but with her incredibly hard schedule, one has to wonder when she will break down again like she did in the Toronto final against Belinda Bencic. The fact remains that the only person who can beat Serena is Serena herself. The mounting pressure must be incredible, but if anyone can do it, it’s Ms. Williams. And she gets another Cincinnati vase to put on her very crowed mantlepiece.

    Another Record Denied
    Back in June, Novak Djokovic was one win away from completing his career Grand Slam at the French Open. It seemed like it was destiny after finally beating Rafael Nadal for the first time in seven tries. But Stan Wawrinka stood in his way and denied him a record only a few have accomplished. This week, Djokovic was going for another record: a Masters 1000 box set. No one has ever won all nine Masters 1000 tournaments. Federer lacks Rome and Monte Carlo, Nadal has never won Miami and Paris (Bercy), and Andre Agassi is also two titles short of a set. Amazingly, Djokovic has never won in Cincinnati but after his defeat in the Montreal final last week, most thought he would make a statement before the U.S. Open started. But a new and improved Federer, on one of his favorite courts, once again kept Djokovic from making history. Djokovic is at a special place in his career right now. Every time he wins, he takes one more step to glory, but the other side of the coin is that every time he loses, he is denied another record of some sort. It’s an enviable place to be in, and it’s tough to win everything. Djokovic will definitely be looking to make a statement in New York now.

    The Walking Wounded of the WTA
    The number of players who have been injured, dropped out of the tournament, or retired from their matches is becoming alarming. Maria Sharapova (leg injury), Petra Kvitova (mono), Caroline Wozniacki (leg), Belinda Bencic (wrist), Victoria Azarenka (leg), and Venus Williams (illness) are some of the top players who have been struggling with injuries or health during the summer months. At this rate, there won’t be anyone to challenge Serena Williams as she marches full steam ahead to her calendar Grand Slam at the U.S. Open. It’s been disappointing to see and leaving a whole lot of questions for the final Grand Slam of the year.

    Nadal’s Struggles
    For the last 10 years, Rafael Nadal has won at least one Grand Slam every year. Since 2004, when he won his first French Open, he has left his teeth marks on one of the major titles’ trophies, but his record run is in serious jeopardy. After going out in the second round of Wimbledon, Nadal went over to Hamburg and won a tournament on his beloved clay and then was destroyed by Nishikori in the quarterfinals in Montreal, and defeated in the third round in Cincinnati by compatriot Feliciano Lopez. The Nadal we know and expect has just not appeared this year and it looks like his record run of major titles is finally over.

    SledgeGate Continues
    The tournament changed but the uproar over the brash Nick Kyrgios refuses to go away. He said he had apologized to Stan Wawrinka in person, but then Wawrinka said that no such thing happened. He said, he said. After giving out a $10,000 fine, the ATP has been quiet, but Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic condemned the remarks. Kyrgios has really isolated himself from the tennis community and will have to really work hard to gain some trust and acceptance on the tour. He was very quiet in Cincinnati this week, taking only three games from Richard Gasquet.

    Fasten Your Seatbelts Because Here Come the U.S. Open
    There are two more warm-up tournaments in Connecticut and North Carolina this week, and then the final Grand Slam tournament finally comes. The two weeks in Canada and Ohio have given us more questions than clues or answers about what is going to happen on the men’s side, while on the women’s side, the results thus far look like a dress rehearsal. But as is so often the case with the greatest sport on earth, it hasn’t been boring.

    [divider]

    Cover Photo (Creative Commons License): mirsasha

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Strong Believers

    Strong Believers

    Western & Southern Open, ATP Third Round

    [1] Novak Djokovic def. [Q] David Goffin 6-2, 6-0
    [5] Roger Federer def. [11] Tommy Haas 1-6, 7-5, 6-3
    [2] Andy Murray def. Julien Benneteau 6-2, 6-2
    [4] Rafael Nadal def. Grigor Dimitrov 6-2, 5-7, 6-2

    ESPN, Inc., formerly the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network Rulers of the Universe, has a way of making its fellow cable network, The Tennis Channel, look like it has the earnings potential of an independent bookseller—an independent used-bookstore with a leaky roof and a big CD section. I could watch Cincinnati tennis on two different ESPN stations today, while the Tennis Channel was stuck re-airing the Kooyong Classic from 2004. But, I could watch ESPN today, because today was a happy work-at-home paperwork-day. (This is a special kind of day, similar to a holiday. Sadly, it is also a type of day that has become all too rare in recent months.)

    Aside from making the Tennis Channel feel bad about itself, ESPN also has a way of reminding American tennis fans exactly how unimportant their sport-of-choice is in the grand scheme of chosen sports. Today they managed it by regulating Rafael Nadal and Grigor Dimitrov to ESPN3, an online stream, while airing Little League on television. Yes, a 1000-level ATP tournament contested on U.S. soil (specifically in the Western & Southern portion of the U.S.) took a back seat to eight-year-olds standing in a meadow chewing bubble gum. A match featuring one of the best players in tennis history versus the only active player on tour to be nicknamed after one of the other best players in tennis history was shunted aside by actual baby athletes.

    But I digress. Hmm. Why was I telling you about the ESPN programming schedule? Oh yes, for metaphorical purposes! And I’ll come to those in a moment, I promise. Everybody loves a metaphor. But first, since I’m on the subject of ESPN, I want to say a few words about ESPN commentator, Darren Cahill.

    In fact, you can consider this post my formal petition for Darren Cahill to take full coaching responsibility for Marion Bartoli’s post-retirement commentary career. Because, really, with Cahill in the booth, the video stream is almost optional. It isn’t simply that Darren Cahill mostly confines his commentary to the match at hand; it’s that his comments are so sensible. Indeed, when he has nothing sensible to say, he seems to say nothing at all. (Psychotherapists love this trait in their sportscasters.)

    For instance, during set one of Roger Federer’s three-set victory over Tommy Haas, Cahill wasted little time in the usual speculation about whether Roger was actually Federer, or if this Roger might not be an imitation version of the Swiss who had never learned to play tennis. Instead, he commented that Federer was more than typically nervous, rushing himself into poor decisions, mostly involving losing points at the net. Cahill also noted that Tommy Haas’s court position on the return was taking the out-wide serve from Roger forcing him into uncomfortable choices, and that Haas’s returns—flat and hard, down the middle of the court—were the best strategy to draw errors from Papa Fed.

    At some point in the middle of Nadal/Dimitrov match— the point when the Bulgarian ran down a drop shot, hit a winner, and then jumped into the air with glee—Darren Cahill chortled warmly, saying, “Goodness me, he’s fun to watch.” With Cahill in the ESPN booth, it’s also fun to listen.

    OK. That turned out to be an official second digression, which might be some type of digressive record, if such records were tracked. (I tried to keep track once, but I kept getting distracted.) So, without further ado, the metaphorical section of the post, wherein I compare the Big Four—defined herein as Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Federer*— to ESPN, or perhaps Amazon.com, and their opponents to a cross between the Tennis Channel and various indie booksellers.

    [divider]

    Novak Djokovic d. David Goffin 6-2, 6-0

    The first men’s match on Center Court today was Novak Djokovic versus David Goffin. During Djokovic’s match, morning-time for me, I listened to my voicemail, ate a bagel, and blinked, twice. By the time I’d finished, it was all over. The second set took approximately five minutes and Goffin won exactly zero games. Djokovic, on the other hand, won six. Every time I had the opportunity to glance at my monitor I was treated to the sight of a blonde Belgian standing roughly fifty feet behind the baseline, and lunging in the general direction of a tennis ball.

    Goffin made his way to the third round via a 6-1, 6-1 win over Mackenzie McDonald, who is the first non-ranked ATP player to qualify for the main draw in Cincinnati. Ever. Mackenzie hails from Piedmont, California, an American hill-town so wealthy that it seceded from its surrounding city-state, which is a rough-and-tumble place called Oakland. Piedmont has a very tidy set of public courts. It is doubtful Mackenzie makes much use of them. In the second round, David Goffin bested last week’s Rogers Cup semifinalist Vasek Pospisil, 7-5, 1-6, 7-6. Neither of these victories offers exquisite insight into Goffin’s current form. Nor did today’s loss. Djokovic didn’t let him near the tennis ball. The Serb is looking fearsome.

    Djokovic has never won the Western & Southern Open. Conquering Mason, Ohio, would make him the only ATP player to win all nine of the Masters titles. I Googled No. 9 and it turns out to be – according to the internet’s most reputable numerology sites — “the number of destiny.” Wikipedia also defines nine as the number that follows eight and precedes ten. Make of that what you will.

    [divider]

    Roger Federer d. Tommy Haas 1-6, 7-5, 6-3

    Given that Federer spent a goodly portion of his third round match looking as if he were concerned that sustained rallies might damage his antique tennis racquet, you might be surprised that I’ve listed him among the metaphorically ESPN-esque players of the day. But—and I think I’m right about this—part of the reason Federer was able to come back and win the match from 1-6, 1-3 down is precisely because he is Roger Federer, or RF, Inc., for short. No matter how low the RF stock plunges, there is always a chance that his opponents will remember that they are up against a 17-time slam champion. (Sometimes, there is even opportunity for Federer to remember this, too, especially when he’s not wearing his special “warming shirt” and is therefore capable of hitting serves.)

    In Tommy Haas’s case, he must have also been aware of his 3-11 (now 3-12) career head-to-head against Federer. A tennis fan doesn’t need a numerology site to tell her that numbers like that can get in a player’s head. Nonetheless, the German got off to a stellar start, and looked as if he could continue being outstanding all day. Meanwhile, Federer proceeded to go from OK, to distinctly not OK, to much worse than that. By the end of the first set even his serve had abandoned him, protesting its owner’s wild net-rushing ways.

    But, midway through the second set the Cincinnati fans got to witness one of the marvels of today’s interdependent tennis economy. At very nearly the same moment in time, Federer began to produce his money shots, while Tommy’s currency took a sudden nosedive. Haas started his descent by re-gifting an early break back to Roger, leveling the set at 4-4. Federer consolidated, making one small fist pump in the process. Haas then gave away three straight points, which turned out to be set points, so he changed his mind and took them back. The set was still level at 5-5, but the momentum now rested with Federer.

    By the time the No. 5 seed closed out the match—an excellent drop shot to bring up match point, and a forehand winner to end it—Roger Federer looked like he had some measure of his aura back. (If you looked closely, you could even see it, shimmering in the Cincy sun — a pretty cornflower blue.) After the match, Federer was quoted as saying he is a “strong believer” he’s on the right path. Should Federer lose in the quarters, there’s still no proving him wrong. Even the most vintage version of Roger Federer could be excused for losing to Rafael Nadal at his most passionate™.

    [divider]

    Andy Murray d. Julien Benneteau 6-2, 6-2

    OK, I admit I did not see one ball of Murray’s win over Julien Benneteau. (I had to do some actual work today.) Andy Murray had to do some work, too — exactly one hour, nine minutes, and two seconds’ worth. Since I have no observations to make about this match, I’ll guess (blogger prerogative): the Scot is much improved this week from last. He is also the reigning Wimbledon Champion and the defending US Open Champion. He is a factor, whether he is happy about it or not.

    [divider]

    Rafael Nadal d. Grigor Dimitrov 6-2, 5-7, 6-2

    Nadal’s three-set defeat of Grigor Dimitrov was an exciting match, or might have been if I weren’t watching it while also trying to cook dinner for four. It is not easy being a Rafa fan, chopping vegetables, and watching a 6-2, 5-3 lead slip entirely away. In such moments one needs to be especially careful not to accidentally include small pieces of oneself in with the chopped kale and beans. (It’s what people like to eat in Northern California, I swear.)

    At some point during the first set, Darren Cahill said (sensibly), that, under pressure, Grigor Dimitrov had a tendency to abandon a winning strategy. As if Dimitrov knew he was being discussed, he demonstrated the truth of Cahill’s observation by gaining a hard-fought advantage in a long rally and proceeding to back it up by backing up, way up—deep into Goffin territory—losing the point because he couldn’t track down an inside-out forehand from Nadal. Case in point.

    However, when the Bulgarian made a mighty last stand, which came, as last stands will do, near the end of the second set, it turned out to be Nadal who abandoned his winning strategy. Instead of aggressively going for winners off his forehand, backhand, serves, and volleys, he mostly did not go for winners off all those same shots. When he did, he missed. Grigor, meanwhile, became good fun to watch.

    Fortunately for Rafa, he is, at the moment, well in touch with his trademark inner-passion for the game. As with Federer, you can see it in his aura, which shines bright yellow, and looks not unlike an incandescent tennis ball in the shape of a T-shirt. Even at night, the brilliant glow helps Rafa find anything from a moth resting its wings on the service-line to an aggressive baseline strategy. Having located his strategy Rafael Nadal, being Rafael Nadal, broke to open the third set. There were close games and see-saw moments in Set No. 3, but Nadal never relinquished the break. Why should he? He’s Rafa.

    [divider]

    At the beginning of Roger Federer’s match he was pronounced by many (many times over) to appear “not at all like Federer.” By the time he won, his play was dubbed “vintage Federer.” True Federer. (Though he was still far from full-flow-Federer, which is even truer than truth.) It fascinates me how often top players are defined as playing “like themselves.” It isn’t just linguistic laziness, or I don’t think it is. The technique is descriptive. If you tell me Djokovic was playing like Djokovic, I don’t picture baseline errors. No, I think it’s to do with how frequently the Big Four are able to channel their best selves, which — and this applies to all of us — is the truest version of the self. I am a strong believer in that.

    And because I’ve used up my entire allotment of words, including half my allowance for next week, I’ll end with mentioning players who deserved more mention: John Isner, Dmitry Tursunov, Juan Martin del Potro, and Tomas Berdych. Each man won a match today, and tomorrow they play Novak Djokovic, each other, and Andy Murray, respectively. I wish every one of them strong belief. I also wish tomorrow were another special stay-at-home-paper-work-day. So I could watch.

    *The Top Four (as opposed to the Big Four) includes Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, and David Ferrer, who is having a terrible time moving around tennis courts lately. I have to think it’s at least partly due to the damage done to his ankle at Wimbledon. The Spaniard tried so hard to give his second round match away to Ryan Harrison, but the American refused to take it. (Respect for his elders, and whatnot.) As a consequence, David Ferrer has now been Tursunoved twice this season. But it’s worth noting that last time he lost to the Russian was in Barcelona, mere weeks before he reached the French Open final.

  • Reliably Inspirational

    Reliably Inspirational

    A fine third day at the Cincinnati Masters yielded the best selection of professional men’s tennis matches in months. As ever in North America this wondrous congregation of talent was witnessed by a formidable array of half-empty stands. Even by the night-match, which featured Roger Federer, the stadium appeared barely two-thirds full. For some reason, Americans collectively find it hard to get excited by a tennis tournament until the later rounds, an apathy shared by their main television networks. CBS doesn’t even show up to the US Open until the last weekend, which it then more or less ruins for everyone. It won’t grace Cincinnati until the last Sunday, while even ESPN won’t trouble itself until Thursday. In the meantime there’s the redoubtable Tennis Channel, as ever a mixed blessing. On the one hand live coverage is hard to fault. On the other hand there’s Justin Gimelstob.

    It could be that the long decades of dominance have taught the American sporting public to assume that their countrymen will always feature in the later stages. Why trouble yourself earlier? We Australians long ago learned to cease making such assumptions. If we want to see our compatriots, we tune in early, preferably for qualifying. Now that there are no American men inside the top twenty, it might be wise for them to do the same. Of course, it could be that from my current vantage, precisely one Pacific Ocean and half a continent away, I’m totally misreading it and Cincinnati’s stands are actually jam-packed. Perhaps it’s merely a trick of the telecast: as well as adding twenty pounds, the camera subtracts a thousand spectators.

    [divider]

    Dimitrov d. Baker, 6-3, 6-2

    CBS and ESPN viewers certainly won’t catch any sight of the reliably inspirational Brian Baker, who today went down easily to Grigor Dimitrov. This is a shame, since he’s worth watching and hasn’t been spotted in months. Having cruelly fallen in the second round of this year’s Australian Open – on a day of sustained carnage his injury was at once the worst and the least surprising – Baker was away from professional tennis for almost seven months. Numerically-gifted readers will note that this is the same amount of time that Rafael Nadal missed. Baker’s absence generated considerably less interest. Of course, Baker being absent from the men’s tour is hardly remarkable; it has been one of the constants of professional tennis for the last decade, like top four domination, or the microwave radiation that saturates the cosmos. The anomaly wasn’t that Baker was away, but that he had – and has – returned.

    Naturally, I’m pleased he has, since I enjoy the way he plays: at his best slightly reminiscent of Nikolay Davydenko in a way that Davydenko himself rarely is anymore. Beyond that, though, I enjoy the way Baker encourages me in my fantasy that he’s a club player on history’s greatest roll. The truth of the matter is decidedly different, if not completely opposite – he is a talented pro who has had to do everything the hardest way, and whose body boasts only slightly less metal than Wolverine’s. But I still experience a slight thrill every time he puts away a simple volley. Good for him, I think, knowing I might well have duffed it into the back fence.

    Sadly today he missed too many simple volleys against Grigor Dimitrov, along with just about everything else. It was probably to be expected. Given his modest earnings over the years, it’s not as though he could afford authentic adamantium for his metal joints. He was compelled to go with cheaper base metals. Rust was thus inevitable. As is often the case it doesn’t cause a consistent loss of quality so much as wildly oscillating inconsistency. Baker comfortably saw off Denis Istomin yesterday, but might not have today given the chance. Instead he faced Dimitrov, for whom the phrase “wildly oscillating inconsistency” might well have been coined. Still, he was on his game today, and looked a clear class above his opponent. Baker will get better. For now it’s just a pleasure to see him back, and a pleasant surprise to see he still boasts a full complement of limbs. His matches are only ever one mishap away from recreating the Omaha Beach scene from Saving Private Ryan.

    [divider]

    (3) Ferrer d. Harrison, 7-6(5), 3-6, 6-4

    Speaking of Private Ryan, or at any rate Senior Cadet Ryan, Harrison managed to lose his nineteenth straight match to a top ten opponent a short while later, against a curiously vulnerable David Ferrer. The Spaniard’s lofty ranking was only apparent from the number next to his name, and not from the quality of his play. The Spaniard has been injured for some time, and has barely looked himself since Roland Garros. If ever Harrison was going to beat him, it was today. Still, the American might take some solace from getting so close: he led by a break in the third set, and was briefly magnificent in breaking back late in the match. One doubts whether he will be consoled by that, however, since he continues to give a strong impression that he hates losing far too much to find it merely instructive. The game in which Harrison was broken back in the final set featured an ace clocked at 152 mph, as they measure such things in the Cayman Islands, or 244 kph as measured elsewhere. If this was an accurate reading, then it would be the seventh fastest serve of all time. But I doubt whether it was an accurate reading. The serve even had topspin on it.

    [divider]

    (5) Federer d. Kohlschreiber, 6-3, 7-6(7)

    Roger Federer rounded out the schedule by defeating Philipp Kohlschreiber for the seventh time, so far without a loss. Neither man appeared to be brimming with confidence, and based on their combined unforced error of sixty-five they had every reason not to be. Federer thoughtfully commemorated each of his previous six victories over Kohlschreiber with a squandered break point early in the first set: performance art of the very highest order, as Robbie Koenig might say. But he mostly served well himself, and broke in Kohlschreiber’s next game. Even if Federer somehow defends his Cincinnati title, he won’t be reprising last year’s heroic effort, in which he took the event without ever dropping serve. He gifted a non-crucial break away in the second set, a favour the ever-courteous German repaid immediately. They went back to scrappy holds. Mercifully this couldn’t continue indefinitely, and the tiebreak came around. A match that had been defined mostly by forehand errors thus found its apotheosis. Federer led by 5-2, then saved a set point at 7-8 with an out serve. He finally took the match on his second match point, ironically with a forehand that landed in, a development so miraculous in the circumstances than Kohlschreiber could merely stare at it, dumbfounded.

    [divider]

    In other news, Feliciano Lopez won his first Masters level match this year, over Kei Nishikori. Milos Raonic, the first Canadian player ever to enter the top ten, nearly became the first top ten player to lose to Jack Sock. Mikhail Youzhny and Ernest Gulbis turned up dressed identically, a deplorable faux pas that left the crowd aghast. All twenty-five of them.