I’m back from a week in Prague and Vienna carrying a suitcase full of smoky clothes—how did we live with that smell every time we went to a bar here in the old days?—and about five extra pounds, consisting primarily of pork, potatoes, and unpasteurized Czech lager (mmmm, unpasteurized Czech lager). I’ll write a post about the trip sometime this week (I did walk past a couple of empty red-clay courts in Prague, so there is a tennis connection, don’t worry).
For now, though, I need to talk a little pro game—past and immediate future. Before I left last Sunday, I managed to catch David Nalbandian’s darn-near-stirring win over Roger Federer in Madrid. It’s old news, I realize, now that Federer has won Basel and clinched the year-end No. 1 ranking, while Nalbandian appeared less than warrior-like against Stan Wawrinka in front of the Swiss fans (caught that one on Eurosport in Prague, unfortunately). Still, this doesn't lessen the excitement that the Happy Argentine generated in Spain. His consecutive wins over the world’s three best players, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, and Federer, ranks with three other men's performances as the most impressive/memorable of 2007 in my mind (I'm sure you have your own list)—Federer’s 21-straight-set Aussie Open win; Nadal’s jaw-dropping level of play against Mikhail Youzhny and Novak Djokovic in Rome; and Djokovic’s run to the title in Montreal. Of the three, Nalbandian’s may have been the most dramatic simply because it came from so far out of left field. Three months earlier, I had written this piece at ESPN.com lamenting Nalbandian’s seemingly predictable demise.
I wrote at that point that Nalbandian lacked champion’s heart and didn't feel the need to dig deeper than he already had. It’s true that winning Madrid is not the equivalent of winning a Slam. But it may have been that Nalbandian needed to get his desire back to the point where he actually enjoyed playing again. As I said, he shocked me by flashing a smile early in the event against Juan Martin Del Potro. By the end of the week, Nalbandian was clearly in a good mood. The cameras even caught him enjoying a hearty laugh with Federer during their coin toss before the final. Again, a shocker—but great to see, from both guys.
It was also great to see Nalbandian do what he does best. Against Nadal, he took over the center of the court and easily handled the Spaniard’s topspin; his game looked crisp and compact—classic—compared to Nadal’s on this day. As for the final, it was one of the only times since Jimmy Connors retired that I can remember a men’s match being won primarily from the backhand side. Nalbandian used that wing both to set up points and finish them. It was proof not only that that shot can do the heavy lifting from the ground, but that the two-hander—which few players have ever hit as smoothly, effortlessly, easily as Nalbandian—can rival the one-hander for aesthetic value. Oh, Nalbandian's forehand was it's usual clinic in balance, and his serve has rarely been better. It's this last shot that may be the key to his future, even more so than the fitness—or lack thereof—that his many critics focus on. With timing and natural movement like Nalby's, fitness may never be a paramount concern for him.
As the third set progressed, that look came over Federer's face, the one that appears every three months or so when he suddenly smells defeat in the air. He can never quite believe it (understandable, really). Fed's answer to Nalbandian, as it tends to be against Nadal in these cases, was to try to make things happen one shot too soon; he was firing away earlier in the points than usual. I suppose if there's a formula for beating Federer, it’s to not try to make too much happen. Robby Ginepri’s minor successes against him are an example of that. The American’s limitations help him—he can’t go for that much because he doesn’t have that much.
Watching the third set unfold, I found myself pulling for Nalbandian to finish the job; Americans do love an underdog. This, of course, meant that I had to root against Federer, the favorite. There are non-American colleagues of mine who say this is bad form. Rooting for the underdog means that you’re rooting for the “better” player not to play his best. I’ve never bought this. There is no “better” player at the pro level in an absolute sense; there are only matches, each of which starts at 0-0, love-all, and each of which is won by the better player that day. In the long run, of course, as their wins and losses accumulate, Federer will be recognized as a better player than Nalbandian, but that means nothing when they take the court on any given day.
Either way, it was Nalbandian’s win, not Federer’s loss. The Argentine celebrated like he’d won Wimbledon—again, great to see—and finished with a very professional multi-lingual victory speech, especially for a guy who hasn’t made many of them.
Onto the present. So I wake up this morning, flip on the Tennis Channel, and am immediately disconcerted on a number of levels. First, Dmitry Tursunov is moping his way to a straight-set loss to Mardy Fish (nice stuff from Fish, though, it must be said); second, you can hear a pin drop in the arena; third, and worst of all, the surface color in Bercy (Paris to the non-snobs in the audience) has been changed. No more fabulous, Le Samourai-style, deep-blue lounge vibe; this year it’s garden-variety light-blue inside the lines. What is the point of watching this thing now? To see if Fernando Gonzalez can clinch the seventh spot in Shanghai?
Well, there is the draw, I suppose, which unlike last year features pretty much everyone at close to full strength. There’s also the possibility of rematches between Federer and Nalbandian (third round) and Federer-Djokovic (semifinals), and a solid opportunity for Nadal to put his massacre in Madrid behind him.
First Quarter
Federer must have winced when he saw this draw. Not because Nalbandian is waiting in the third round, but because he may have to go through Ivo Karlovic, for the second straight week, to get there. I caught their two-tiebreaker semi in Basel; it was interesting, but not surprising, to see how relieved Federer was when he won. There are few players at any level as irritating and potentially dangerous as Karlovic. Everything is decided by two or three points; fortunately, Karlovic has a habit of donating just those points when the tiebreakers come around.
Elsewhere, Berdych and Ferrer are slotted to play in the fourth round. The Spaniard gets Fish next; can the American keep it up through two matches, now that Ferrer has officially clinched a spot in Shanghai? I’ll go out on a limb and say that I won’t rule it out. As for Berdych, he’ll have to face the returning and presumably fresh Mario Ancic. Don’t slot Nalby in just yet; he’s got Carlos Moya to go through first, and Charlie won in two tiebreakers the last time they played, in Cincinnati this summer. But if it is Federer-Nalbandian, I think we’ll see another very good three-setter.
Semifinalist: Roger Federer
Second Quarter
A Djokovic-Fabrice Santoro second-rounder is possible here, and we’ll see whether Andy Murray, who is in Djokovic’s section and who won last week in St. Petersburg, is galvanized (have that word and Murray ever been used in the same sentence?) by an outside chance at Shanghai. The seeds on the bottom half are the terminally up-and-down Richard Gasquet and James Blake. The Frenchman had knee problems last week in Lyon, where he lost to countryman Jo-Wilfred Tsonga. If he does play (potentially against Tsonga again in his opening round), Gasquet sounds like he’ll be motivated by the ultimate motivator: fear. “I am a bit scared of the reaction of the fans if things go wrong," he said when asked if he’d be playing in Paris.
My guess: A first-round bye will give Murray the rest he needs, and Djokovic will be a little burnt (he was in Madrid). Of course, the last time I said Djokovic was due for a letdown was before the U.S. Open.
Semifinalist: Andy Murray
Third Quarter
Is this going to be the not-so-long-awaited breakthrough for Argentine teenager Juan Martin Del Potro? He’s won two qualifying matches and beaten Feliciano Lopez in the first round. He’s also in the same section as Tommy Robredo, whom he beat two weeks ago in Madrid, and Nikolay Davydenko, who must be getting a little distracted by now (he was fined for “not trying” last week in St. Petersburg). Otherwise, the seeds here are Ivan Ljubicic, who has had a bad year and dropped to No. 15, and Guillermo Cañas. Del Potro couldn’t follow up his win over Robredo, so I’m not ready to say he’s going to go the distance here. Maybe there’s room for Marcos Baghdatis, who made the semis in Basel and who owns a 3-1 record against Ljubicic, to slip by.
Semifinalist: Marcos Baghdatis
Fourth Quarter
Here we have, as always, Rafael Nadal. This time he’s trying to shake off one of the ugliest defeats of his career, a 1 and 2 drubbing by Nalbandian in Madrid. His opening rounds look simple enough on the surface, but I’m anticipating a struggle with Stanislas Wawrinka in the third round, provided the Swiss gets past Juan-Ignacio Chela next. Nadal is 5-0 in sets head-to-head against Wawrinka, but they played a tight final on clay in Stuttgart this year. Wawrinka has also shown signs of life in the second half of 2007 and has a bruising game that’s suited to indoor courts. Up top are two guys who have chances at making Shanghai but haven’t clinched it: Fernando Gonzalez and Tommy Haas. Of the two, Gonzo has the tougher second-round test in Mikhail Youzhny. The Russian, according to TENNIS.com, needs a “small miracle” to make the Masters Cup. Still, he has hope.
Semifinalist: Fernando Gonzalez