Mornin', Tribe. I realized while taking that last, long, uphill walk up the Church Road in Wimbledon that I had neglected to sign off and say good-bye, but it's hello time again; I'm back at the word mill, with a fair amount of catching up to do. By the time I wrapped up my post and left the press center with colleague Doug Robson (USA Today), it was half-past eleven, and when we got to Wimbledon Village everything was closed (my only beef with staying in the Village). So my dinner on Finals night was a bowl of cereal and two Tall Boy beers. That's the racy life of a reporter for you.
My ritual Coming Home present for Cowboy Luke was the Chinese Dragon Thomas train, which 'Poke got all fired up about. Gosh it's good to see the joy in a child's eyes when you come home - or when he gets a gift.
I want to thank you for the abundance of nice comments on my last post, Real Men Don't Dance. I wish now that I had chosen a title of greater gravitas, as befitting the occasion, and wonder if everyone caught the reference. All water under the bridge now. I noticed there were quite a few questions buried in the Comments, so I'm going to see if I can get through them - or most of them- in this post. I am also selecting some questions that may be rhetorical, and addressed to the Tribe at large, not just me.
BTW, NBC Sports' coverage of the Wimbledon Gentlemen's Final earned a 3.2 overnight rating and a 9 share, the best for a Gentlemen's Final since 2004 (Federer-Andy Roddick, 3.6/10) - and an increase of 10 percent over last year (Federer-Nadal, 2.9/8, 9 a.m.-3 p.m. ET), according to the overnight ratings released by Nielsen Media Research.
When we arrived at JFK, John McEnroe came over to say "Hi" at the baggage claim area - I didn't even know he was on the same flight. He thought it was one of the all-time Wimbledon finals, and said it both reminded him of, and made him nostalgic for, his epic Wimbledon battle with Borg in 1980, the "Year of the 'Breaker'" (poster tlf was the first to cite that in the Comments). Okay, there was no 16-14 tiebreaker on Sunday, but that's about all it lacked.
Tomorrow I'm doing an ESPN chat, so come by if you can and drop a question. Meanwhile, I'm going to comb through the Comments from my last post and try to answer the questions there, starting from the top. Here we go:
Phenylalaline (boy would I love to know the origin of that!) writes: Pete, this would be as good a time as any to award a WMB. I think beating a guy who has your number on the biggest stage in front of the legends in a fifth set where you were down double break point twice qualifies, don't you? Or do you also have to puke?
May I call you Pheny? Puking is not mandatory, but it helps. We've discussed this before and I would call this a Warrior Achievement, but not a Warrior Moment. The thing about WMs is that they are a gift, and they may be the most elusive gift of all because they are so related to circumstance. Serena's win over Daniela Hantuchova was closer to a true WM, kept from being one only by the fact that her opponent didn't co-operate sufficiently to make it one. It was like Hantuchova's only real achievement in that incident was being able to keep it from becoming Serena's WM by folding up.
Rudy 3: Are you going to Rhode Island next week for the Hall of Fame Induction?
I regret to say, no. Just too crazy a trip for the family because I couldn't really give them enough time, although it would have been fun to have a play date for Luke with Christian S. But I did work on Pete's acceptance speech when I was last in LA, and suggest that it will be pretty much like everything else Pete has done: straightfoward, simple, not overly sentimental or long.
The Incomparable Matt Zemek: Are all of Fed's opponents bulls?
Naw. Just the guys who can trouble him. Make that just the guy who can force TMF into full matador mode.
Icarus: Is it my impression or the lawn courts of Wimbledon were even slower this year? To the surface experts: which is the faster surface slam, Wimby or US Open?
I couldn't get a straight answer on that; depended on who I asked. It does vary from court to court, especially Centre Court, and on the basis of ambient conditions.That's the beauty of an organic surface. But overall, I think it was the same as last year. Wimbledon is the "fastest" surface, but the really tricky part is the nature of the bounce, and how it affects the spin of the ball and height of the bounce. For instance, on a topspin forehand, Wimbledon is "slower" because the spin tends to be blunted, causing the ball to sit up more than jump up. By contrast on a sliced-serve (the most underemployed shot at Wimbledon), the ball tends to skid more off the grass, which is slick (because of the moisture in grass). No other surface has that quality; think about squeezing watermelon seeds in your fingertips and you'll get the idea.
ANS: Must ask if anybody will have the guts take Federer to task for his bad sporting behavior during the match? Or will Bodo and the others just gloss over it and pretend it never happened like they do everything else when it comes to their "mighty Federer"?
I'm going to gloss over and "pretend it never happened" for the best reason of all - because it didn't happen.
Tangi: Also, with the AO getting rid of its Rebound Ace surface before next year, I believe the new courts will play faster -- similar to the US Open. Can anybody confirm this?
No clear answer on that one because Plexicushion (the new AO surface), like most surfaces, can be made as "fast" or "slow" as the tournament likes; it just depends on the base of the court and the specific, rubberized mix they apply to it - and the ambient conditions in play when they apply it. There is no word yet on whether the Aussies are seeking a fast or slow court; my guess would be medium pace to suit the most styles possible, but I am eager to hear anyone's intel on that if they've heard otherwise.
Side note- Many players hated the Rebound Ace, which is notoriously "sticky", and varied greatly with ambient conditions, even in the span of a single day (remember, they play night tennis, and either close or open the roof over Rod Laver Arena).
Gerrynjapan: From this point forward, which of the following two possibilities will be the first to transpire, Federer wins RG or Nadal wins Wimbledon?
Hmmm. . . Sounds like a loaded question to me, but it isn't when you think a little more carefully about it: Nadal might have pushed TMF in the Wimbledon final more than Federer pushed him in Paris, but then Nadal also survived more dangerous situations arriving in that the Wimbledon final than TMF did getting to the Roland Garros championship match.
I am less "worried" about who wins any given final between these two than which third party can - or will - stop the progress of either to that stage. And because they are such clear Nos. 1 and 2, the fact that they can only meet in a final is an interesting obstacle. Anyone want to look up how often Pete and Andre met, and added chapters to their rivalry, in rounds before the final?
Andres: Pete, would you dedicate a post to the evolution of Nadal's play? I don't think there are many other players out there who have improved their games so substantially. Other issue: from reading some of your past posts on Nadal, I think you didn't like him much when he entered the radar screen of top world players. I'd say you might have dismissed him as yet another clay court specialist, and as someone more worried for his looks than for becoming a true champion (away from clay). But I'd believe that you've come to respect him for his dedication to the sport. Am I right?
I believe I covered Nadal's evolution, albeit briefly, in the last post. On the other issue, I never dismissed Nadal as a "clay-court specialist", as I have loathed that term for ages now and put no stock in it. If those lines have to be drawn, let's call the guys in question "clay court experts" unless they play on nothing but clay. Beyond that, my only question with Nadal was: Would he, given his ability to dominate on clay, go the route of other clay-court experts who basically decided they couldn't be bothered to make winning at Wimbledon and, to a lesser extent, the U.S. Open, an ambition. In other words, would Jet Boy have sufficient vision, talent and perseverance to master surfaces that presented certain challenges to modify or expand their repertoires.
Sher: What's up with this fad of calling everyone and yourselves KADs? Do you know the ethymology of the phrase i.e. that you are "willing to kill your family for someone"? Do you really mean that?
Hey, it sounds to me like you actually don't believe that Ptenisnet would fling himself off the George Washington Bridge, if only Kolya asked!
Sahadev: Why, oh why, does Federer never play his best against Rafa?
Could it be because he's kept from doing so by Rafa?
Ori: You're a Hemingway reader, aren't you Pete?
You know, not really. I picked up A Farewell to Arms at Wimbledon last year and I was surprised how indifferent I felt toward it the second time around. . .Then again, I've always liked other books of Hemingway's better. I probably like his philosophy and the way he lived - he was after all a hunter and angler - more than some of his books. But I like to think I can imitate him for a graph or two with the best of 'em!
Chloe2: Will this pressure (chasing history) ultimately put paid to Fed putting himself (and his nearest and dearest) through the wringer year after year?
If you mean will the pressure "get to" TMF, and make him stop putting himself through "the wringer", I doubt it. You either get used to the pressure and have coping mechanisms, combined with the will, to overcome them, or you walk away muttering, "enough of that. . ."
I have a feeling Federer is in the former category. Notice that despite the amount of perceived pressure, he shows no sign whatsoever of being frazzled or overburdened by it. No dramas, freak-outs, over-sensitive declarations, self-doubts or ambivalence about his role and position. That is, he bears the theoretical mental and emotional pressure (I say "theoretical" because if he doesn't feel it or show signs of feeling it, maybe it doesn't exist, except as press and chat room fodder) with great grace and ease.
Dutch Visitor: Why is winning RG and Wimbledon a prerequisite for becoming GOAT?
Because it's not about winning Umag and San Jose, not that there's anything wrong with winning Umag and San Jose. . .
Jhurwi: Was there some other interview in which he mentioned a career grand slam for Nadal?
None of which I am aware. I think the big challenge for Nadal is turning around a lackluster tradition at the U.S. Open. Among all the majors, it's the one that European and South American players have had the most difficult time figuring out - not in terms of technique or surface, but will and confidence. The models for Nadal now are Stefan Edberg and Roger Federer.
La Boheme: Pete: I loved the metaphysical analysis of the championship player's soul and mindset. I wonder how much is conscious to the player - is Federer aware of the "dance" or does it need to be unconscious, or at least subconscious, in order to be effective?
It's a fine line there. He is conscious alright, but not actively thinking about it. I think something gathers inside, a sense that there will be critical moments coming, and a willingness to meet them, combined with getting into the right mental and emotion state for meeting them.
Bismarck: Why do some people now come up with this "slow grass favours nadal" lines?
An attempt to minimize the progress Nadal has made? The evidence for that is not in the surface, but in the way Nadal has adapted to the surface, technically and mentally.
Tim: How can a 5 time Wimbledon champion's mental toughness or resolve EVER be questioned?
When you can make a good, reasonable question for questioning it, as you could when Borg kept freaking out at the U.S. Open, which he never did figure out.
Tennis Lover: The issue is: how well would Nadal have played if he were not injured and exhausted because of the punishing schedule Wimby chose to impose on him (and others) but not on Federer?
Jet Boy's quality of play nuked that issue by the third game; it's a better one to pose for the Federer-Gasquet semi. . .
Christopher: Given that Rafa is actually right handed, why didn't Toni ever have him learn to serve either hand?
Because it didn't make much sense to him to have use the "dual-hand Luke" approach. There's a organic element here, as well as the clear advantage lefthanders have over rightys, as well the fact that the lefty slice and kicker in the ad-court - where more hold and break points are played - is more lethal than the lefty serve to the deuce court. Federer has said that part of the problem he has with Nadal comes down to the lefty-righty dynamics. And it wasn't like Luke Jensen's serve was monstrous, with either hand.
Tangi: I didn't see any sightings of Pam Shriver on ESPN on week 2. And in the wrap-up broadcast, they assembled all the analysts, and she was missing. Anybody know what's up?
Pam apparently left the event, unannounced. I heard vague grumblings about a lot of jockeying for position going on among the fleet of ESPN analysts, but that's all hearsay.
Sam: Ros: Do you know how many points Federer has to defend the rest of the year?
I'm going to sort of cheat here because I have a point to make. Crunch the numbers on the assumption that Nadal won the Wimbledon final (which I think everyone will admit was a distinct possibility). I think you'll be shocked at how quickly that would have put him within striking distance of TMF, points and ranking-wise. It's amazing how quickly these things can turn around - for anyone.
Bismarck: What´s a bouffant? has it anything to do with her hair?
It's this way of serving food where you can just go up and take what you want, which means you can fill your plate to overflowing with shrimp and ignore the mac and cheese or limp, steamed broccoli.
Okay, folks, later!