Yesterday afternoon I left you from a Rogers Cup site that looked something like an oversized soup bowl. Against all odds, though, the water dried and the players were dragged bleary-eyed from their hiding places in the lounge, handed racquets and balls, and forced to run around under the lights. You know how on Monday I listed all the reasons I could never be a pro? Chalk this up as another: Having to start your match five hours after you had originally prepared your mind and body to play it. In those kinds of cases, whether it's tennis or some other nerve-wracking activity, there typically comes a point when I just say: I don’t care what happens, I just want it to be over. That must a reaction that every pro has had to ignore or fight off hundreds of times.
By my estimation, three things of note happened during Monday’s second half. Ernests Gulbis won a tennis match. It's true, even if only a handful of people witnessed it—you really could hear crickets chirping all around the court. Gulbis was sharp to start against Thomaz Bellucci, but exceptionally tense when he was ahead. Gulbis lost the first three games of the second set, won five straight, then did his best to blow that lead. When he was down on his serve, though, he threw bombs, kept his composure, and even—now and then, here and there, you’d miss it if you blinked—showed some positive energy. Of course, there were a few vintage Ernestsian moments. When he was he was down 0-3, he walked past his coach, who gave him a fist-pump and said, “Come on!” Gulbis only response was to raise his right eyebrow skeptically, as if to say, "Really? Did you just watch the last three games? What are you so excited about?" Later, after missing a backhand, Gulbis looked at his camp and said, “I don’t feel it. I can’t feel it,” as if all was lost. On the next point, he wrist-snapped a brilliant short backhand up the line for a passing shot winner that gave him a break. There’s a touch of the tortured genius in Gulbis, though the emphasis so far in his career has been on the first word. A W is a W, but the main reason he won this match was that Bellucci, whenever it mattered, was reliably godawful.
The next must-see event was Roger Federer’s first post-Wimbledon press conference. This was notable for (1) the length of Federer’s answers—did he miss us? (2) his professed willingness at some point to play doubles with Rafael Nadal; (3) his assertion that he’ll do a trial run with Paul Annacone as coach through the U.S. Open; and (4) his upbeat attitude about having his kids on the road—“we put tennis first and family first.” Federer also referred to his life as “superstable.” All in all, sitting in a civilized and untwitchy posture, with his legs crossed in front of him, he appeared to be a man naturally and powerfully drawn to success. I am now officially waiting for a “Roger Federer’s 7 secrets to living your dream life” book series (really, I am, I can use it).
Later, too much later, we finally had a chance to see the No. 1 and 2 players, Nadal and Novak Djokovic, line up on the same side of the court for the first time since Ashe and Connors did it in 1976. While Rafa and Nole weren’t as odd a couple as those two must have been, they didn’t exactly gel as a team, losing to two gawky young unknowns in a super-tiebreaker. With the no-ad scoring and the promise of fireworks afterword, there was an exhibition-like feel to the evening. I didn’t see the whole thing, but from what I did see, Nadal looked energized while Djokovic looked flat. He missed returns and didn’t close at the net (a classic singles player mistake). Their opponents were tall and rangy and knew their doubles. They beat Nadal and Djokovic a number of times by simply going up the middle on them.
On the one hand, I’m surprised they lost, because Nadal had single-handedly won the doubles event at Indian Wells this spring, and the format gives him a chance to show a more aggressive and creative side to his game that he subdues for practical reasons in singles—he really can hit a stab volley lob winner. But I’m not really all that surprised. They would have had to play again this afternoon, and their partnership had already caused the tournament headaches. Before the event, officials had tried to sell tickets by announcing that Djokovic would play Tuesday night. That didn’t work with his doubles, so they had to move him to Wednesday afternoon. Big-name dubs will never be a sure thing on this tour. The Lavers and Rosewalls of the world played it because they needed the money. Now the top singles players run the show, and they obviously don’t need the extra cash. Conflicting agendas can make these partnerships as much trouble as fun. Still, a Federer-Nadal combination would be more than worth whatever it takes to make it happen.
*
That brings us to Tuesday, when the weather is supposed to improve. What should we be looking for?
I’ll be curious about Sergiy Stakhovsky and Tomas Berdych. One is coming off a Wimbledon final, the other an upset of a former Top Tenner. How good is the late-blooming Stakhovsky? This may give us an idea.
After that, we’ll get another curiosity: Ferrer vs. Nalbandian. This potentially superb matchup will hang on Nalby’s fitness. Unfortunately, that’s never something you want to hang anything on. Ditto for Baghdatis vs. Chardy on the Grandstand.
Then it’s Ernests vs. Soderling, a heavyweight slugfest (ugfest?) if there ever was one. Gulbis finished late last night, so you have to like Soderling.
I’ll also be heading out to tiny Court 1 to watch two Americans, Sam Querrey and Michael Russell, face off. It might not be much of a battle, considering that Russell lists Querrey among his least-favorite opponents right on the ATP’s website. But this 32-year-old has plugged away and survived for much longer than anyone would have expected. Russell also plays with pleasure and perspective, rather than the vicious focus that’s been the norm for so long. We'll see where that gets him, and what kind of form Sam is in.
*
Enjoy all of it, if you can see it. I’ll be back later.
PS: Can someone name the song where I got the (admittedly odd) name of this post?