Stanislas Wawrinka continued a fine run of recent form by defeating top seeded David Ferrer in straight sets at the ATP Portugal Open.
Wawrinka prevailed 6-1, 6-4 in just 64 minutes. “Stan played a great match, he deserved to win,” said Ferrer, whose own game was littered with 31 unforced errors.
It took Ferrer 25 minutes to get on the scoreboard as he was pinned down by Wawrinka’s aggressive approach during an opening set.
The second set was a more competitive affair but Wawrinka secured the crucial break to move 5-4 ahead and then served out the match to seize the title.
It was the first ATP tour title for the 28-year-old Swiss since winning Chennai in 2011.
Tommy Haas won his 14th ATP title on Sunday by defeating two-time former champion Philipp Kohlschreiber at the BMW Open in Munich.
Haas won the match in straight sets 6-3 7-6 taking 83 minutes.
“It’s a little dream,” said Haas, a German now residing in California.
Tommy will rise to 13th in the ATP World Rankings, and the 35 year old is enjoying a fine year, having already beaten World #1 Novak Djokovic in Miami and making the finals at San Jose.
“Tommy played outstanding tennis, without any mistakes – almost a perfect match,” said Kohlschreiber.
It’s that time of the year again. The sun is shining over Europe – at least in theory – and the tennis season heats up accordingly. To many, it’s the most fascinating part of the tennis calendar. More exciting yet is the fact that in many ways, the energy of the European clay court season doesn’t necessarily culminate at the French Open. Instead, it extends itself to the grass courts of Wimbledon, which, due to the unfortunate lack of proper “grass court season,” seems to have become the climax of the European spring/summer, and a natural expansion of the clay season — as if the sport’s most prestigious tournament needed added cachet.
Beyond the changes in continents, seasons, and scenery, the clay season has, for the longest time, marked a momentary shift in dynamics at the top of men’s tennis. Serves were suddenly returned with more frequency, rallies extended, players sliding all over the baseline, umpires abandoning the comfort of their chairs to examine ball marks, and the term “specialist” coined with near tiresome regularity. Most noticeably, the dominant forces were no longer quite as supreme once their feet hit the dirt. That’s when you knew that for about three months or so, the tennis world would be different. At some point in the 90’s, clay court tennis nearly became its own entity.
The homogenization of the courts at the turn of the millennium made the change a little less extreme, and baseline tennis gradually became an all-surface norm. That, however, did not spell an end to the clay-induced hierarchical restructures at the top of the game. Like Pete Sampras before him, Roger Federer, the new tennis golden boy, struggled to make his mark on the red stuff early on. And while the number of true “specialists” around him was slowly decreasing, he was soon left with a far greater challenge to surmount. As Federer finally began to adapt his game to the courts he reportedly grew up on, a new specialist emerged – one so good that he exceeded the term itself; one whose game (and results) was too good to be that of a mere specialist. A king of clay had emerged, and the clay court season became the time of the year when Rafael Nadal sits, runs, grunts, and slides his way across his clay-covered throne.
It didn’t matter whether Federer was enjoying near unthinkable runs of dominance, Novak Djokovic was breaking out in spectacular fashion to win his first Grand Slam, or Nadal himself was riding eleven months title droughts, come the Monte Carlo Masters, the Spanish bull was the man to beat. In fact, at some point, he became the man to avoid, as other top players made it a habit to skip the tournament altogether. In fairness, their decisions were certainly motivated by other, more important factors, but the inevitability of the outcome couldn’t have helped. Eventually, Rafael Nadal winning the tournament year after year ceased being special, despite the outrageous nature of the accomplishment. It simply became the tournament where Nadal reminded the world who the winner of the next major was going to be, just in case they’d forgotten.
Nadal’s near absolute dominance on the surface was not without the occasional blemish, but his very few clay court losses were considered to be anomalies. Any intrigue created by his loss to Federer at Hamburg in 2007 was quickly killed off three weeks later when he vanquished his rival in Paris once more, while his shocking 2nd round exit in Rome the following year was largely blamed on blisters, with next to no mention of the man who beat him (it was Juan Carlos Ferrero, just in case you’re wondering). And why wouldn’t people so easily dismiss his losses when Nadal made sure to quickly restore order at the following tournament? His 2009 loss to Federer in Madrid received similar treatment, with Federer himself quickly playing down the significance of his win. After all, we had seen Federer and Nadal square off in enough French Open finals to know how their eventual meeting was going to unfold.
Then, that loss happened. On a surreal Sunday afternoon in Paris, Robin Soderling produced what could well be the biggest upset in tennis history and handed Nadal his first loss at Roland Garros. The world was in shock, and it took Roger Federer finally completing his career slam to provide the tennis universe with a different subject to touch on, before the attention shifted back to Nadal once again when the words “knee injury” were uttered. The clay court season, as if there was any doubt, had become the Nadal season, in triumph or disaster. He was the one constant variable; the man whose wins are praised, and losses overshadow other players’ victories.
In fact, 2009 was the year that proved just how reluctant we are to accept change. We might openly yearn for it or secretly wish it, but we only want it on our terms. There is a reason the post-Sampras/pre-Federer days are not remembered fondly. For as much as many complain about a status quo, they prefer it to chaos. People might enjoy upsets when they happen, but they want official “passing of the torch” moments, as opposed to “flukes.” People so willingly accepted Nadal as the best player in the world following his 2008 Wimbledon final triumph over Federer because they knew he was here to stay, and had already seen the signs a year before. We desire big picture narratives – moments which we look back on and pinpoint as an official changing of the guard, as opposed to wondering, “How the hell did he lose to that guy?”
The neutrals wouldn’t want Nadal to dominate on clay forever, how could they? But as exciting as huge upsets are, they generally mean little in the long run. Those who wish for Nadal’s clay court dominance to cease would likely prefer to see the King of Clay removed from his throne, as opposed to momentarily pushed aside. When Nadal bounced back the following year to storm through the clay court season undefeated, the tennis world almost collectively embraced the familiarity of it all. Nadal stomped Soderling in the French Open final, the previous year’s debacle was put to rest, and all was right in the world.
Enter Novak Djokovic…
The man tipped to be Fedal’s (that’s Federer and Nadal, for the two of you who are unfamiliar with the term) successor for three years had finally gotten back on track, and this time, he wasn’t going anywhere. An unprecedented start to the season saw Djokovic clinch every tournament he participated in, and racked up a combined five victories over Federer and Nadal in the process, but the big question remained whether his dominance would translate to clay. Djokovic chose to skip Monte Carlo, and Nadal was handed his usual winner’s trophy and shook Prince Albert’s hand for the umpteenth time. However, two clay court victories over Nadal later, Djokovic had shown he meant business. He was far and away the best player in the world, and entered the French Open with a gigantic wave of momentum. For the first time in six years, Rafael Nadal was not the overwhelming favorite to win Roland Garros.
And yet, as always, when it comes to attention and headlines, the clay court season remained all about Nadal. As Djokovic was silently making quick work of his early round opponents, Nadal was conducting melodramatic press conferences in which he was asked to make sense of his losses to Djokovic as well as going five sets (for the first time ever at Roland Garros) with big serving American John Isner. Nadal bizarrely sounded like a man burned out with tennis, and it looked increasingly likely that Djokovic would strike a lethal blow. Unfortunately for the Serb, a cruel twist of irony would dictate otherwise, as Roger Federer rolled back the years with a breathtaking display to bring Djokovic’s winning streak to a halt, essentially handing Nadal another “Coupe de Mousquetaires” in the process. Sure enough, Nadal was taking a trademark bite off of his favorite trophy two days later. The following year, Nadal enjoyed a far more peaceful European spring, steamrolling through the competition in typical fashion, while recording three victories over Djokovic to boot. The King of Clay was not to be dethroned yet.
While injury soon put Nadal on shelf for seven months, a strong return indicated that the Spaniard would be picking up right where he left off. After a great display at Indian Wells and a wise scheduling choice to skip Miami, Nadal entered the Monte Carlo Masters as a strong favorite. Uncertainty surrounding Novak Djokovic’s participation due to an ankle injury further intensified Nadal’s status, but a sensational display in the final reminiscent of their 2011 matches saw Djokovic become the first man in nine years to hand Nadal a defeat in Monte Carlo. To state the obvious: the win was monumental.
For the next month, this will be Nadal’s season. His wins will be cherished, his losses will be over-analyzed, and his comments will be beaten to death. However, more so than any other time, his status as the undisputed King of Clay is in jeopardy. If Djokovic is able to replicate his 2011 wins over Nadal at the upcoming Masters 1000 events, it could officially spell the end of an era. People might be reluctant to accept change, but for the past two years, Novak Djokovic has given them little choice but to. If the world number one finally puts an end to Nadal’s French Open monopoly, the changing of the guard that first started on other surfaces in 2011 would be completed at last. One could think of easier tasks, though…
Rafa Nadal was intractable, commenting on the decisions over the Puerto Case. From the Santo Domingo Social Club (Madrid), the Majorcan didn’t hold back on his opinion.
“I can’t judge. My opinion is that the resolution is not positive for anyone. The only ones who come out on top are those who have cheated, and it seems unfair to me that, on such a serious matter, and one that damages the image of sport, in general; we who feel most affected are the Spaniards, and, the sport,” the Majorcan said.
The current #5 in the world, accompanied by the NBA player, José Manuel Calderón, thought it was outrageous that those implicated would never see the light of day. “Personally, it seems an injustice that they won’t expose the names of those who’ve cheated, be they Spaniards or not. José (Calderón) and I know what this is doing to the image of our country, and it’s not favorable. Maybe the best thing is to stop talking about it. To me, it seems a mistake that they won’t give out the names of those who have cheated; they deserve, at least, the denigration of all athletes. (However) that’s not how it went, and we have to work towards a 100% clean sport, and hope that in the future, this never happens again.”
The Majorcan, with his head in the Madrid Open, was asked how he felt returning to competition, having reached 6 finals in 6 tournaments played…if he had expected such good results as he has seen. “No, not at all. When you come back, you just want to see how you’re going to find yourself. If you’d asked anyone on my team, and me, more than anyone, if we’d have had these results, we’d have told you you were crazy,” he said.
“Things have been going well. We’re in a place we couldn’t have imagined. I appreciate it a lot, and we just keep working, day-by-day, to get the feeling back on a regular basis…it’s the only way forward. Work and belief, effort to continue in every tournament, in every point, in every year,” Nadal said, signing off from Madrid.
In terms of expectations in the Mutua Madrileña (MS 1000), Nadal called the conditions that he finds in the Magic Box an extra challenge to get past. “The desire and sweetness to play in Spain is very important, and special to the Spanish players. That’s always a motivation for all Spanish players. Always a motivating situation, and Madrid has always been amazing, especially with me. I appreciate the opportunities they’ve given me, and I hope that on Wednesday, I’m well-prepared to compete, and make a good tournament of it.
As one of the tennis players most critical of the blue clay last year, his opinion of the surface is radically different this year. “It’s very good. The court is in perfect shape. It’s the best clay court since we started playing (on clay) in Madrid. This is great news for the event, the players, for everyone. I’m happy to play in Madrid.”
S. Williams – Qualifier
L. Dominguez Lino – S. Halep
K. Mladenovic – S. Soler-Espinosa
K. Zakopalova – M. Kirilenko
C. Wozniacki – Y. Shvedova
M. Barthel – K. Flipkens
V. Williams – A. Medina Garrigues
T. Paszek – N. Li
V. Azarenka – A. Pavlyuchenkova
L. Safarova – E. Makarova
Qualifier – F. Schiavone
E. Vesnina – M. Bartoli
R. Vinci – V. Lepchenko
J. Goerges – B. Jovanovski
A. Morita – S. Cirstea
U. Radwanska – S. Errani
A. Kerber – S. Hsieh
A. Cornet – K. Bertens
J. Zheng – S. Kuznetsova
Qualifier – N. Petrova
A. Ivanovic – Qualifier
J. Jankovic – Qualifier
M. Rybarikova – L. Robson
T. Pironkova – A. Radwanska
P. Kvitova – Y. Wickmayer
S. Stephens – D. Hantuchova
F. Pennetta – K. Kanepi
C. Suarez Navarro – S. Stosur
D. Cibulkova – Qualifier
S. Lisicki – S. Arvidsson
Qualifier- S. Peng
Qualifier – M. Sharapova
On April 20th 1993, during a Quarter Final with Magdalena Maleeva in Hamburg, the World Number 1 of Ladies Tennis, Monica Seles was stabbed between the shoulders with a boning knife by Gunther Parche, a crazed fan of Seles’s main rival Steffi Graf.
The incident shocked the tennis world, as did the leniency shown to Parche who bizarrely did not end up in prison, instead receiving probation and a psychology treatment course as punishment.
The knife wound healed within a couple of weeks, but it would take a further two years before Seles was able to overcome the psychological impact of the attack and return to the sport.
It is now 20 years since Parche’s crazed attack, and in line with the 20th anniversary of the attack, there have been a numerous articles and commentaries reflecting back on the episode.
Many of those have queried what Monica Seles would have achieved if the attack had never taken place, reassessing her place in the game and the major tournaments she may have won.
The flip side is that much of the commentary has also focused on what Steffi Graf would or indeed wouldn’t have won, together with a reassessment of her open-era record slam count of 22 major titles.
Two particular quotes stood out. One attributed to Pam Shriver – “She [Seles] was dominating Steffi Graf, who, prior to Seles, dominated everyone else.” A second quote, regurgitated from back in 2001 courtesy of Sports Ilustrated’s Frank Deford, questioned, “Was Graf the best female player of all time? She wasn’t even the best in the heart of her career.“[divider]
So how secure is Steffi Graf’s legacy?
Other commentators, bloggers, and fans have tried to analyse Monica Seles’s career trajectory had the frenzied attack by Parche never occurred, thus sizing up the impact it would have made on the contents of the Graf trophy cabinet. So let’s take a look at the match-up between these two greats and analyze with a little more rigour, the major titles that Steffi Graf actually won during the course of her career.
Step 1: Breaking Down the Graf/Seles Head-to-Head
Let’s break it down and take a look at how Monica and Steffi fared in their individual head to head matchup. Is Pam Shriver right? Was Seles the dominant player in this category?
Lifetime: Graf 10 v Seles 5 Before the stabbing: Graf 6 v Seles 4 After the stabbing: Graf 4 v Seles 1 During Seles years where she was year end #1 (91 & 92): Graf 3 v Seles 1 During Seles entire reign as World #1: (91,92, part 93): Graf 3 v Seles 2 Matches in Majors prior to the stabbing: Graf 3 v Seles 3
[/box]
Steffi Graf
Pam Shriver and the Urban Myth
However you analyse this match-up, Shriver’s analysis that Graf was being dominated by Seles is clearly inaccurate.
On the contrary, Graf had the edge in the Head to Head, before and after the stabbing, before and during Seles tenure as World Number 1 and over the course of their careers.
Monica Seles ascended to the top by dominating the rest of the field. No question. However, she did not dominate Steffi Graf. There are similar parallels with the period where Roger Federer dominated the entire field but failed to dominate arch-rival Rafael Nadal. In fact, Graf actually has a better winning percentage over Seles than Nadal has over Federer.
Inspecting the numbers exposes Pam Shriver’s take on the rivalry to little more than reaffirming an urban myth.
[divider]
Step 2: The Steffi Graf Major Count
Steffi Graf finished with 22 majors, an open era record and second only to the great Australian Margaret Court when factoring in all eras. Monica finished her career with 9 major titles. In discussions online and offline a popular pastime among tennis fans and observers is to undertake some fictional re-assessment and revised slam counts for both players based on the What if… theory. Typically, these discussions can attract wild assessments – often revising Graf’s major count down significantly and awarding Monica hypothetical titles she never won on court.
So let’s take a look at each of Graf’s major successes and see if the count bears merit…
Steffi Graf had already won 11 grand slam titles before the stabbing including a golden grand slam (all 4 majors and the Olympic title) in 1988. She had also completed a career grand slam twice over (winning all four majors at least twice). These successes alone put her among the greatest players ever.
Banked: 11 Majors
[divider]
So we are secure that at this stage, Graf already has 11 majors in the bank.
After the stabbing incident, she won an addititional 3 Wimbledon titles (1993, 1995 1996). I’d suggest these should be added to our bank without further question. Seles was not a top grass court player and in her two grass court meetings with Graf she had been trounced 6-0, 6-1 and 6-2, 6-1. The latter drubbing occurred while Seles was ranked #1.
There is no relevant argument to be made in suggesting those titles would have been banked by Seles if the stabbing had never occurred.
Banked: 14 Majors
[divider]
We now have a further 8 majors to dissect, so let’s continue with the least likely ones where a case to be made in favor of Monica Seles.
In my opinion, this begins with the 1999 French Open.
Graf faced off against Seles in the semi-final and prevailed 6-7 6-3 6-4. This was six years after the stabbing and a match Seles went into as not only favorite, but carrying a higher ranking than Graf. Steffi was playing out her last year on the tour and made history by becoming the first player in the open era to defeat the first, second, and third ranked players in the same Grand Slam tournament. This one belongs to Graf who defeated her younger rival during her WTA swansong.
Banked: 15 Majors.
[divider]
Steffi Graf
This leaves 7 majors on the list:
Four of these took place when Seles was out of the sport following the stabbing: 1993 French Open, 1993 US Open, 1994 Australian Open, 1995 French Open
Another three took place after Seles had returned to the sport. 1995 US Open, 1996 French Open, 1996 US Open
Looking first at the US Opens, it’s fair to say, Monica Seles was a superlative player on hardcourts, in particular on the slower hardcourt surfaces such as the Rebound Ace at the Australian Open. However, the faster the court got, the more it suited Steffi Graf.
During the 1995 and 1996 US Open Championships, Graf actually beat Seles, and this — compounded by the fact that during their career rivalry, the German never lost a match to Seles on faster hardcourts — makes it very difficult to lean toward the Serb.
Did the 1995 and 1996 US Opens reflect the real Monica Seles?
She ripped through the field as in her best years without dropping a single set in either tournament only to have to square off against her main rival Graf in both finals. She had won her previous US Opens in similar fashion, but without having to face Graf in final.
The judgement is that these US Opens stay with Graf. If Graf had not made those finals (as had been the case during Seles’s rise to prominence) then Monica would have won 3 majors in just over a year (including her Australian title) – not unlike her major gathering rampages during 1991 and 1992.
The 1993 US Open also remains with Graf on the same basis. Monica never beat Steffi Graf at Flushing Meadows or on a fast hardcourt during their career – before or after the stabbing. There is no hard evidence to support Monica Seles beating Steffi Graf in a US Open Final. Not enough at least to give them hypothetically to Seles.
Banked: 18 Majors
[divider]
This leaves us with the 1993 French Open, 1994 Australian Open, 1995 French Open and the 1996 French Open.
Monica was #2 seed going into the 1996 French Open but suffered a surprise exit in the Quarter Finals. She also struggled throughout the earlier rounds. The background to the story was that she had suffered a shoulder injury in Tokyo shortly after winning the Australian Open. This severely hampered her preparations for Roland Garros. Indeed, she only started playing tennis a week before the French Open began and there were concerns she’d not be be able to play at all. In a nutshell, she was both coming back from injury and rusty. Needless to say, this had nothing to do with the stabbing three years earlier.
Again, this is Steffi Graf’s title.
Banked: 19 Majors
[divider]
This leaves us the final three tournaments – The 1993 French Open, 1994 Australian Open and the 1995 French Open.
These, I would suggest are the only three titles that should really be up for discussion; tournaments where a genuinely justified case for Monica Seles could be made.
Personally I’m loathe to even consider hypothetically taking titles away from a great champion like Steffi Graf, particularly since they were won on court rather than via conversations on message boards, bars and commentary booths, but if I had to tip a wink to Monica Seles, it would be here. So therein lies the question…
Banked: 19 Majors + ? or 22 – ?
[divider]
Monica Seles Career Trajectory
Many commentators, analysts, fans make a dangerous assumption that Monica Seles would have continued her superb form for years thereafter. This is freezing time and entering the realms of a parallel universe. If John McEnroe had been stabbed in 1984, people would have given him a bunch of hypothetical titles thereafter. Likewise, Nadal at the end of 2010. The real winners would never have got their real kudos. Mats Wilander is another prime example of a player who in 1988 won three majors in a single year. He never won another.
Monica’s weight gain and future injuries are additional oversights. In her book, she acknowledged her biggest battle was with her own weight. Another major event occurred in Monica’s life with her father and coach passing away to cancer. Monica highlighted a spiraling depression and subsequent weight gain. At one point she had put on 40 lbs. This was another telling factor in her decline following the comeback.
[divider]
Conclusion
Monica Seles’s stabbing at the hands of a crazed Graf fanatic robbed us of a great player at her best. It robbed her of two prime years, and interrupted a rivalry that was going from strength to strength. It probably robbed her of some additional majors.
This piece has been written more in relation to the legacy of Steffi Graf. Of course, Monica may have added to her silverware at Graf’s expense, but I think upon further analysis, the opportunities were far less than casually reported.
She probably would have also added additional titles from competitions where Graf wasn’t a factor.
In short, she would likely have won more… but it doesn’t take much away from Graf’s overall legacy. Both were great players and well deserving of their places in the Hall of Fame.
Britain’s Andy Murray has labelled the court ruling by Madrid judge Julia Santamaria, “Beyond a joke” following the trial of Dr Eufemiano Fuentes. Fuentes was in the dock after a seven year sports doping investigation known as “Operation Puerto”.
The Spanish sports medicine doctor was handed a suspended one-year jail term and banned from practising sports medicine for four years. The offences relate blood doping athletes for performance enhancement. Doping in sports was not a crime in Spain at the time of the investigation, so Fuentes was arrested and charged for offences relating to public health.
He will not spend any time behind bars as Spanish law dictates that if the guilty party has no previous convictions then any sentence of less than two years will be commuted. The court also sentenced former cycling team official Ignacio Labarta to four months in jail, and acquitted three others, including Fuentes’s sister Yolanda.
A controversial element of the case revolved around an initial ruling that Fuentes did not need to name any of his clients outside of the sport of cycling, despite having confirmed that athletes from football, boxing, track and field and tennis were also members of his clientele. Judge Santamaria resisted pressure throughout the trial to provide the names of non-cycling athletes implicated in the scandal.
Despite repeated requests from WADA (the world anti-doping body) for access to the blood bags, Santamaria ordered that the bags and any other evidence including all computers used in the investigation be destroyed.
Murray used Twitter to express his astonishment at the ruling – “The Biggest cover up in sporting history?”, clearly bemused that all the evidence must be destroyed without further investigation. “Why would the court order blood bags to be destroyed?”
Andy Parkinson, chief executive of UK Anti-Doping also slammed the decision by the spanish judge: ‘We are disappointed. Dr Fuentes has admitted to having been involved in multiple prohibited doping activities, and linked with multiple unnamed athletes.
‘It therefore cannot be right that these names will remain unknown and no immediate action can be taken.’
It would seem for now that the guilty will escape and the innocent will be tarred with suspicion.
To be an ex-champion is no assurance of repeating in a world as competitive as tennis. Tommy Robredo and Fernando Verdasco can attest to that. Robredo was, in 2004, the last winner of the Open Banc Sabadell before the interruption of one Rafa Nadal, who wrote his name on the trophy 5 consecutive times before injury made him decide not to play in 2010, allowing Fernando Verdasco to win the tournament (that year.) The return of the Mallorcan in 2011 augmented his reign: his trophies grew to 7, to date. (In the current tournament,) Robredo has got through the first round, beating Marc Lopez, but Verdasco succumbed to Ernests Gulbis, dropping him out of the Top 40, and adding one more loss to a bleak period, (he’s only won 3 matches in 8 tournaments.)
Robredo and Verdasco are two champions who frame Nadal’s domination in Barcelona. And they are 2 champions with issues, struggling to find a way back to an elite level that they used to be part of. Robredo, within touching-distance of 31, got as high as #5 in the world, when he regularly found himself in the last 8 of Grand Slams. Verdasco, 29, had his career high in April 2009, when he reached #7 in the world, after making the semi-finals of the Australian Open, where he lost to Nadal in 5 sets.
At the time, the future looked rosy. Verdasco was still working with Andre Agassi’s ex-trainer, Gil Reyes, in Las Vegas, and had made a big leap in the rankings. Robredo was displaying some of the best tennis of his career. But then things went sour. Verdasco changed the structure of his team, abandoning Las Vegas, and modifying his work habits. He changed his methodology, and, probably, his mentality. In 2010, he won the Open Banc Sabadell in Barcelona and was quarterfinalist at the USO. Since then, however, he hasn’t won a single trophy.
Robredo’s case is more dramatic, because he spent 2 years laid low by an injury that doctors couldn’t identify. His left leg hurt, but he kept hobbling along on the circuit. Until (one) Dr. Vilaró decided that he needed an operation on the ischiotibial muscle in the leg. “It took a year to figure out what it was,” explains Robredo. “But when they operated on me, Vilaró did something magic. After a week, I was more flexible than a girl they’d operated on 6 months earlier. And the pain has disappeared. It’s a struggle to get back to my competitive level, but that’s a question of time and matches. The injury is completely forgotten.”
Robredo is now #43 in the world, while Verdasco is #35, though he’ll give up his place in the top 40 with this loss. They’re both a long way away from the positions they enjoyed in their best moments. Now the expectations fall on David Ferrer and Nadal, who start their campaigns in Barcelona against Dmitry Tursunov and the Argentine Carlos Berlocq, respectively.
[Note: Clearly this is old news, as Barcelona was won by Rafael Nadal, defeating Nico Almagro. I chose it for the insight into these two players. I know we have Verdasco fans on the boards, and everyone has been happy for the resurgence of Tommy Robredo. I hope this tells you something you didn’t know.]
