!95660399
by Pete Bodo
All right, everyone, it's time to turn our attention to the Australian Open. The big question in my mind is this: Who does Justine Henin draw in the first round, Serena Williams or Kim Clijsters? We'll know if it's either of those women, or a qualifier, or someone neither fish nor fowl (Sania Mirza, anyone?) in just a few hours. Feel free to discuss the draw here as it's announced, and to indulge in your passion for bracketology as the evening progresses.
Most of you know I'm apathetic to bracketology. It's been a pretty long time since any match result really surprised me, although I confess I didn't feel obliged to hustle out to Roland Garros on my first afternoon in Paris last year because I felt that Robin Soderling might beat Rafael Nadal. I take no pleasure in predicting match results, because I have a healthy respect for the level at which most people play today. Will Nicolas Almagro beat Fernando Verdasco if they meet in the first round, thus clearing the way for Jo-Wilfried Tsonga to beat Almagro and position himself for a semifinal run?
If I put the pedal to the metal on Third Avenue and run the light on 66th Street, will I get T-boned by a taxi cab?
Maybe. Maybe not.
A lot of things can go wrong, and for 127 players in the draw at least something pretty important will. But this year, with both Kim and Justine ranked some distance from what their track records would suggest is a good number, I'm pretty curious to see what the fate has in store. This is the Australian Open, not Brisbane.
The other day, we had a conference call with ESPN commentators Darren Cahill and Pam Shriver. It smoked out the elite among U.S. tennis writers, including Diane Pucin (LA Times), Doug Robson (USA Today), Howard Fendrich (Associated Press), Liz Clarke (Washington Post), Michelle Kaufman (Miami Herald), and Richard Deutsch (Sports Illustrated).
When my turn came, I asked both commentators to answer the same question: Who will finish the year ranked higher among the men, Roger or Rafa, and who will finish higher among the women, Kim or Justine?
Darren on the men: "I would definitely go with Roger. He's got to be the favorite in three of the four Grand Slam events, and he handles the transition from one surface to another better than anyone. Rafa still struggles a bit on certain surfaces, trying to adapt his game to being more aggressive. He's still a work in progress in that regard."
Pam: "I think the question marks about Rafa's knees and the overall physical issues he's had make it difficult to pick him, so I'm going with Roger."
Darren on the women: "I'll base my choice more on watching the body language both women showed in Brisbane. Kim was extremely composed - she went about her business looking like a complete player. Justine, you could see the tension in her body, like it really means something to her to come back and be successful right away. If you transform that tension through into a Grand Slam event, you have to wonder if her nerves and tension won't get the better of her. Justine came back for different reasons than Kim, and they imply more pressure. Kim seems incredibly happy with her family and baby, and really at ease. I think that will translate into an incredible 2010 for her."
Pam: "I'm amazed that we've already had a WTA match that was being talked about so much in terms of quality and drama, it was an exciting start to the year. But when somebody (Justine) is starting from zero (rankings-wise) and another player is starting from no. 15, just odds-wise you have to go with the more proven player. So I'll have to say Kim."
I publish these thoughts in an edited, economic form, but during the call they spoke in a different order, and Pam jumped back in after originally saying her piece with this: "If I can put in one last thing: If they (Kim and Justine) ever play each other in a major, frankly, I would always have to go with Justine until Kim proves me wrong. Justine's been that much tougher, mentally. Maybe having a baby, certain other factors have changed that, but I'll have to see it to believe it."
At that point, Darren interjected: "That's why I'm going with Kim - I think she's going to turn that around."
If y'all remember, last week I picked two players to watch for in 2010 (Clijsters and Andy Murray). The ESPN talking heads addressed that, too, if in other contexts.
Pam, on her under-the-radar player to watch: "I'm looking at the third Belgian, Yanina Wickmayer. She made the U.S. Open semifinals last year, and even though she's been through a lot since then (including the ongoing controversy over Wickmayer's violation of the drug-testing agency's "Whereabouts" rule), she's got a really big game. I want to see how much it's matured since the Open. This girl could be really good."
Darren (the question that elicited this response was whether or not Andy Murray's window of opportunity has passed): "Well, 2009 was the first year we really considered Andy a potential winner at a major, and his progress has been on an upward curve. He needs to make a jump, though. He needs to have more offense. In majors last year, he kind of sat back and waited for the tennis to come to him. That won't do it. But it's been a learning process for Andy and his coaches, and I think we'll see him come out of the blocks and assert himself. The surface in
Australia is great for him, and he trains in Miami so he's accustomed to the sun. I would expect this to be the year he wins his first major. He's probably my tip to win the Australian."
There you have it, get ready to celebrate, or gnash your teeth, as the draw unfolds.