by Pete Bodo
Greetings, everyone. I'm preparing for my trip to London on Sunday, where I'll be reporting on Wimbledon through the final. Y'all saw Ivo Karlovic rain down 46 aces on not-exactly-small Jo-Wilfried Tsonga today and that, combined with Robin Soderling's advance, and the number of ace machines still alive in the draw (Andy Roddick and Tomas Berdych), makes me think that maybe the circle is closing and players are awakening to the fact that a big serve on grass courts still equals potential devastation.
I've harped on this theme in the past, and the chorus has a few impressive members - Pete Sampras and John McEnroe among them. Just the other day, McEnroe told me that he doesn't care what kind of grass seed Wimbledon is now using, how close the grass is cut, or how big a fishnet players are using these days for a racket. Grass is grass and the ball still comes through faster than on any other surface. McEnroe, and just about anyone else who's been puzzled by the preponderance of baseline play (the One World Passive-Aggressive style), still thinks that a new messiah of the serve (and dare we think it, backed by the volley!) may stumble out of the wilderness to remind us of what the term "grass court" tennis really means.
Grass, like clay, is an organic surface. But unlike clay - at least the pulverized brick that lies atop a red-clay court - grass generally has a high, naturally regenerating moisture content. And moist means slippery. Returning a well-placed, big serve on grass is a little like trying to catch a watermelon seed someone has squeezed out of his fingertips. Can you say "slick"? And while the weather has been dry and balmy at Wimbledon (the blame for that lies squarely on the new roof over Centre Court; I understand Parliament is considering building a similar roof over the entire stinkin' island, in hopes that England may turn into Dubai by the North Atlantic), some of the customary humidity, abetted by a rain shower or two, could further enhance the chances of the big servers.
Of course, that particular sword is double-edged; there comes a point where the deadening effect of a moist court, slick as it may be, come at too high a cost, pace-wise. For we all know that a drier court adds service speed, and the old truism is still valid: Speed Kills.
Anyway, I'm enough of a contrarian to actually enjoy some of these spectacular serving displays, probably for the same reason that I always stop to watch when some gigantic, condemned stadium is rigged with explosives and demolished. I'm not crazy enough to suggest that guys who have whopper serves aren't trying to exploit them to the max; I'm suggesting that for some probably un-scientific reason (chance?), the serve may play a far bigger role at this Wimbledon than in the past few. It was bound to happen.
The other day, while writing a brief story on Rod Laver's Open-era Grand Slam (1969), I came across this quote in the book Laver wrote with the help of Bud Collins, The Education of a Tennis Player (it's still a fine read, whether you find Collins' casual, irreverent style an asset or liability). It seems that Rocket had trouble with Cliff Drysdale's game (as well as Cliffy's claim that he had Laver "figured out") - so much so that Laver took the fairly drastic step of changing his own game before their quarterfinal showdown at Wimbledon that year. He wrote: “I decided I’d better do something to throw him off, so I decided to vary my net rushing. Sometimes I’d stay back when I served, which was almost unheard of in championship men’s tennis on grass.”
I know, that was then, this is now. Leave me and all the other disgruntled old-timers our illusions.
By far the most intriguing match-up on my first day of coverage will be the Federer-Soderling clash. It certainly has a lot more potential than it would have if this Roland Garros thing hadn't happened a few weeks ago. Coincidentally, the Soderling-Rafael Nadal match was just getting underway when I arrived in Paris, although I didn't think much of that at the time.
This is going to be an intriguing match, in one of those Can Lightning Strike Twice? ways. Soderling has played a good Wimbledon so far, backing up the progress he made in Paris. He's had gastro-intestinal issues, but not the kind that often afflicts journeymen facing the big dogs at major events (the kind that's more commonly called "lacking guts"). In fact, the psychology of the sport suggests that Soderling is perhaps a more dangerous opponent for a champion in early rounds than later, or at any rate a final. There's a certain, extra amount of pressure, even on a hopeless underdog, in a final, but nothing nearly as leaden in mid-event matches. And the prospect of putting Nadal out of the French and then bouncing The Mighty Fed out of Wimbledon must have a certain perverse appeal to Soderling.Without the title on the line, he's even more entitled to feel that he's playing with house money.
Soderling seems to have a pretty healthy attitude, too. The Paris final was a reality check for the Swedish belter, and today he repeated almost verbatim the honest evaluation he offered after losing to Federer in Paris: "It's tough to play against Roger. You know, I've played him ten times, and after the match I never felt like I played well. But I mean, it's not because of me, I think it's because of him. He makes you play. It's tough to play well against him, put it that way. I'd like to improve everything from Paris."
I'll take a realistic player over one who's stoked out of his gourd any day, although a combination of the two attitudes produces the ultimate frame of mind. But the only prediction I'm making is that Soderling will make a fashion statement of his own by walking out onto Centre Court wearing an off-the-shoulder bearskin tunic and gladiator sandals, carrying a war club carved from the finest English yew. Wouldn't that be something?
In other news, I had to laugh the other day when I came across this exchange in an Andy Murray presser:
Q. In an interview today, Pat Cash called you boring and said you had a monotonous voice. Do you have any response to that?
A: "I don't really care, to be honest (smiling). I mean, I've said I don't think my voice is particularly interesting, but, you know, I don't need it to be. Uhm, I let my tennis do the talking. I think my tennis is exciting, so... "
Q. It got slightly better. He also compared you to Wayne Rooney, saying you're the Wayne Rooney of tennis.
Whereupon the official WImbledon moderator interjected, " Let's go on to the next one (question)."
Can you say, "buzz-kill?"
BTW, Wayne Rooney is a British football star - presumably one who's boring and has a monotonous voice.
Let's leave this final post before I depart with a word from TMF, to balance what I wrote up top. Today Roger Federer said, "That's the beauty of tennis. I think everybody has a chance. Doesn't matter if you're tall or, you know, smaller, it doesn't matter."
There's your bulletin board material for the big bombardiers.