!201103152342853288283-p2@stats_com by Pete Bodo
Happy Thursday, everyone. It's time once again to take look at the news in TennisWorld. This past week, much of it was generated on or around a tennis court, as both tours staged significant tournaments to really get the Asian circuit—mini-circuit?—up and running. So let's start right at the baseline, in Tokyo.
Hoist on his Own Petard
In the ATP video titled "Janko Tipsarevic Unplugged," the No. 13 player said: "The great thing about tennis is that if you lose on Wednesday another guy is waiting across of the net for you on Monday. The bad thing about tennis is that if you win a tournament, there is not so much time to enjoy. Maybe not next Monday, but the next one there is another guy waiting and if you lose they will call you a loser. That's why the important thing is to enjoy this hotel-to-hotel life as long as it lasts."
I imagine Tiparevic is trying very hard to enjoy life in his hotel suite right about now, after experiencing a classic example of the down-side of his analysis. Last Sunday, Janko toppled Marcos Baghdatis to win the title at Kuala Lumpur. Just two days later, in Tokyo, Jankovic played his heart out but lost a bitterly fought three setter to the volatile Russian shotmaker, Dmitry Trusunov, 7-6 (6), 6-7 (3). 7-5.
Loose Lips Sink Sis
We knew Dinara Safina was in serious trouble; it seemed almost cruel to ask about her back and her comeback hopes two years into her trials.
Safina became the WTA No. 1 in April of 2009, shortly after she was runner-up to Serena Williams at the Australian Open. She also made the final at the French Open, and held onto the top ranking through the summer. But she suffered a back injury at the Beijing tournament at this time in 2009, and didn’t play another event until the WTA Championships, more than three weeks later. She lasted just two games in her first match (l. to Jelena Jankovic) and quit because of her sore back.
Safina periodically tried to return, but her back never really healed and she was able only to play in fits and starts. Now Safina’s famous brother Marat Safin tells us that she’s done—this time for good.
Speaking at a press conference in Beijing to promote his exhibition match with Pete Sampras (Safin vaulted to fame when, at age 20, he upset No. 1 Sampras to win the 2000 U.S. Open), Safin said: “(Dinara) never recovered completely. She tried to return, but only aggravated the crisis. Now she needs to keep her back to be able to walk normally and live a normal life. [Her back] will continue to be treated, but she will play no more...She will make an official statement herself, but as her brother, I believe that there is no chance of return.”
You have to wonder why Safin would take it upon himself to break that news, but it’s hardly surprising that he did. He’s spent his entire life upstaging his kid sister. Marat found his way into the headlines even on the eve of Safina’s 2009 Roland Garros final—arguably her finest moment—when she revealed that Marat, who was just across the Channel in London preparing for Wimbledon, had no plans to hop over watch her play Ana Ivanovic for the Roland Garros title.
But hey, the revelation sure brought some attention to the exo Marat was promoting.
Safina and her brother, Marat, are the only sister and brother to have been ranked No. 1 on their respective tours.
Headlines We Love
Hingis Has No Serious Thoughts on Aussie Mixed. But she sure has some frivolous ones, like making Long John Isner team up with diminutive Melanie Oudin, just to see who takes the overheads.
And how can you not raise an eyebrow at this one: Martin finishes off Chang with wooden racquet. Sorry to ruin it for all you Agatha Christie fans out there. . .
What We Really Want is 70-68
WTA CEO Stacy Allaster told Japan’s Daily Yomiuri that her troops were ready and able to play best-of-five set matches at Grand Slam events, in response to that familiar complaint that the difference in the format for men and women makes the equal prize-money rule (for that’s what it is, albeit unofficially) . . . well, unequal.
“We don't pay a different price for a three-hour movie versus a two-hour movie. The women prepare as hard as the men," Allaster said. The puzzling thing is that she added, "And we've always said we'd play five sets, and the Grand Slams have said no, we don't want you to.”
Why would she take a strong argument (the two-hour movie) and then undermine it by implying that it isn’t the WTA’s fault that the women aren’t playing best of five—a line of reasoning that suggests that the criticism is valid? If anything, Allaster makes it sound as if the only thing keeping the WTA from embracing the long-form match is the Grand Slams. We know that not to be true. Most women see no point in going to best-of-five. Neither do I.
My suggestion is that the women should play best-of-seven, because that would bring them into the ballpark of a typical four-hour plus men’s match. Imagine the scoreline: Serena Williams d. Vera Zvonareva, 6-2, 6-1, 5-7, 6-0, 6-2.
Family Feud
Toni Nadal has always been a loose cannon in the coaching department; he speaks frankly, even if what he says might be painful for his nephew, Rafael, to absorb. Or perhaps he’s so honest because he wants Rafael to read his words, or hear them from the lips of someone else in the locker room or elsewhere, because Rafa’s ability to tune out things he doesn’t want to hear must be as good as anyone else’s. And you know those coaches, nag, nag, nag. . .
Anyway, in regard to Novak Djokovic’s stunning 6-0 mastery of Rafa this year, Toni recently told the Spanish newspaper El Mundo: “It is clear that there have been too many losses and it is true that Rafael has become nervous their recent matches. . .” But Toni also said, of the U.S. Open final, “What I saw at the end is that Rafael, despite the nerves that gripped him in the first two sets, had a good reaction in the third, went to fight and [try to] beat him. This gives me a certain hope.”
By the way, much has been made of the fact that in his recently released autobiography, Rafa, Nadal concedes that he and his uncle bicker and clash frequently. My amigos in the Spanish press tell me that they’ve always known this, and Rafa and Toni know they know it, and nobody gives a hoot.
So what if they fight? They’re family, they love each other, and the one thing for certain is that Toni does not depend on Rafa for his material well-being. That makes it easier for him to speak his mind, not just to Rafa but to anyone he deems deserving of his candor, and there’s not a think Rafa can—or apparently wants—to do about it.
One thing is for sure, the situation immediately takes away some of the corrosive suspicions and stress that can mar a typical mentor-protégé relationship, when the dollar signs get big and a coach needs to watch his words, lest he be out of a well-paying job.
The “R” Bomb
A lot has been made over the past few days about Andy Roddick’s reaction to a question posed by a Chinese reporter, after Roddick was beaten in the first round of the China Open by Kevin Anderson. Is Roddick contemplating retiring, the reporter wondered?
In typical lead-with-the-chin fashion, Roddick suggested that it was the newspaperman who ought to retire . . . eliciting laughs and guffaws throughout the press room.
Okay, most of you know that I have a soft spot for Roddick. But in this case, I think my reaction would be the same were it Roger Federer or any other player at or over the age of 30 (Roddick is 29). I’ve always wondered why certain reporters felt moved to pop any of the man variations on the question, “Are you going to retire?”
First of all, what’s the point? No reporter is going to get an exclusive when he throws out that question in a press conference. Second, does anyone really doubt that a player who’s ready to retire will find a way to make his intention known on his or her own terms, at the time of his or her own choosing? Third, does anyone really think that a player will hear that question and decide . . . to retire?
What a great idea! Why didn’t I think of that!
There’s something inherently rude and calloused about bringing up the “R” word, and I don’t even think it’s really a question. It’s a statement (“I think you’re washed up”), and at times it’s a pointy little knife that some souls just can’t resist sinking into the flesh of a player who’s hurting to begin with.
This isn’t the first time I’ve felt this way and it won’t be the last. Nothing is more offensive than casually dropping the “R” bomb, especially on a player who just suffered a bad loss.
*
That’s it for this week, folks.