Warning: For anyone who thinks the Jacket has officially been beaten to death, stop when you get to the last two paragraphs. They contain my final opinions on the subject. Hey, somebody asked!
It’s summer, time to take off the jackets and capris (right, Rafael?), leave the lawns of Wimbledon, and head to a … parking lot in Indianapolis? One thing that Wimby makes is good TV. Centre Court, shaded and oversize, looks like it was made to fit right into a living-room screen. It’s always a shock to suddenly see tennis played on asphalt in middle America in blinding sunlight, with highways in plain view. On these courts, in this setting, the game loses the creative rallies of clay and the aesthetics of grass—the North American game is muggy, first-strike tennis. The evening matches are a different story during the U.S. Open Series—they have a terrific summer-night feel to them. I wonder if it would be possible to play an entire hard-court tournament at night? It’d be easier on fans and players, I assume, and it’d look better on TV.
This is also midseason, and the dog days are ahead for the players. Their injuries, real or not, should start to kick in about now. Justine Henin-Hardenne has already pulled out of a Fed Cup tie with the U.S., and Nadal has pulled from Bastad. I’m not completely clear who’s scheduled to play where, but you can be sure it will change, particularly on the women’s side. With that in mind, I’ll go over four questions your neighborhood tennis fan might be asking as the U.S. Open Series begins.
What happens to the Federer-Nadal rivalry now?
They’re both scheduled for August’s Toronto and Cincinnati Masters events, which they split last year, so you have to figure they’ll meet at least once before the U.S. Open. Nadal is 2-1 against Federer on hard courts, but Fed is the far more accomplished player on the surface—he was 50-1 on it last year. They’ve each won their home-court Slams; the hard-court season will make the perfect, neutral-field final leg for them in 2006. It also may lead to tight matches, but you have to like Federer. While they both have all-world forehands, Fed’s is more suited to hard courts. He uses less backswing, hits with less height and more depth, and leans into it, which enables him to control the middle of the court, which is the real key to hard-court tennis. And if anyone is going to struggle to reach the finals, it will be Nadal, who has a couple scores to settle with James Blake.
Is Henin-Hardenne vs. Mauresmo the women’s version of Federer-Nadal?
There’s history, and seemingly some dislike, between them. The WTA could do worse than have them match up on a regular basis: They have perhaps the two most attractive games among the women; their Wimbledon final was top-shelf, with every corner of the court used; and they have a 5-5 lifetime record. But these two are probably not going to distance themselves from the pack anytime soon. Mauresmo doesn’t love the U.S. hard-court season or the Open, and Henin-Hardenne’s health makes her hit-and-miss by this point in the season. Look for a potential showdown in Montreal. Mauresmo is a two-time champion there, and H-H has won in Canada as well.
Can Kim Clijsters repeat as Open Series champion?
In her losses to Henin-Hardenne at Roland Garros and Wimbledon, Clijsters looked unhappy and unsure of herself. She’s getting married—does she care about tennis anymore? It reminded me of the dilemma that Martina Hingis went through against the Williamses—she stopped beating them, and it affected her entire outlook on the game, because she knew she would have to play them at the end of each Slam. Eventually, she just gave up. Clijsters is a hard-court lover who has always been a steady performer, rather than a big-moment player. The Open Series should give her a chance to win a lot of matches (provided she plays events—I know she’s scheduled for Montreal) and build back some momentum for Flushing Meadows. She showed last year that winning the Open Series can lead to good things at the Open itself.
Who will have more success, Andy Roddick or James Blake?
Just as Blake has turned himself into a consistent force, Roddick’s stature in the sport has at least temporarily been lowered. Blake is now ranked No. 6, while Roddick, at No 11, has fallen out of the Top 10 for the first time in three years. They’re both scheduled to kick off the hard-court season next week in Indy, where Roddick has won twice. I feel like Andy reached a low in his loss to Murray, a match where his weaknesses were exposed, and that he has few expectations for himself at the moment. This may help him go out and play more instinctively during his favorite part of the year (I have no reason for saying this; wishful thinking, I guess.). Blake will also be in his element through the summer; he could easily win two Open Series events, and will challenge at the Masters. But at the biggest tournaments, there’s still some question of the depth of his desire. As my friend Jon Levey says, Blake may have too much perspective at this point in his life to have the killer instinct that you need to make it all the way through a Slam. There are certainly worse problems to have.
Another U.S. player of note will be in Indy, as a couple commenters mentioned: Californian Sam Querrey, who took a wildcard into the event. Querrey, 18 and 6-foot-6, has made tremendous strides in the last two years. He decided to turn pro rather than go to USC this fall. The decision was apparently helped by a push from Roddick, who told him he had the game for the pros. He’s got a huge serve and a smooth, compact forehand for such a big guy, though I really don’t know if he’s Top 10 material (anyone else have an opinion?). He lost to Murray today in Newport 5 and 2, but if you’re wondering about the future of U.S. tennis in the wake of the Wimbledon debacle, he’s at least someone we can take a look at over the summer.
For whomever cares, let's wrap the jacket up: I felt like Federer was miffed about Nadal getting the clay-streak trophy because it made the kid look like an all-time great player, and he thought this guy shouldn’t get some kind of vanity award when he’s the one who’s ranked No. 1 and has all the Slams. (And it was, admittedly, a weird trophy and ceremony.) Fed then said he would never accept such a thing for his own grass streak, because he’s all about titles (an attitude that serves him well, since he has many more than Nadal). This made Nadal look kind of bad. I don’t think it was intentional by Fed; he was just saying what he thought. (I agree that Federer can come across as more arrogant than he really is because of the way he speaks English. It’s loose and unassuming, a lot like his fellow Swiss Martina Hingis.) Still, which is the classy move: to smile and accept the award, or to say that it’s not worthy? Finally, Fed comes out at Wimbledon with is own vanity award for being a three-time Wimbledon champion—a jacket that has nothing to do with playing tennis—when he’s already got the real Wimbledon trophies at home.
This does not mean I’m not a Federer fan. (I don’t say KAD, that term makes being a fan sound negative). (Christ, did I just write an acronym for kool-aid drinker? Damn you, Bodo, look what you’ve done to our sport!) I think Fed’s excellence and understated charisma have raised the popularity and profile of tennis around the world in a way that Sampras’ never did—the ovation Federer got when walked on court for the French Open final dwarfed Nadal’s. In the end, I’d say Roger Federer is as humble as Roger Federer could possibly be. I would just hate for him to start thinking of himself as some kind of world symbol of “class,” which is what Nike and IMG seem to have in mind for him.
I’m heading to Pennsyltucky for a bit and will be back on Monday, the 24th, with an Indy wrap.
Correction: When I said Malisse had as much (or was it more?) talent than Nadal, I should have narrowed it to “ball-striking talent.”