I Dunno, It Feels Pretty Warm to Me. . .

Howdy. I'm back in the office today and trying to catch up with things here before my ESPN chat at 1 PM (drop by, if you're not doing anything special).  Thanks for the avalanche of questions in the Comments section of the post below; I'll be answering them in this space, more or less sequentially, throughout the day. I hope to get to all of them. You know, the 36-hour travel time to and back from Stralya is a rip-roaring pain in the backside, but once I arrive there, or at home, I don't experience a moment of discomfort or fatigue. Jet lag, like the storied "wind-chill factor" (it's 52-degrees, but it feels like it's 20! What's up with that?) is a fiction, perpetuated by the usual, glass-half-empty

suspects. Rise, people! Glad I got that off my chest. Back soon.

Okay, ex-Momofan asks: Why does Amelie break my heart repeatedly and how do I fix it, once and for all?  HOW GOOD IS SERENA? (rhetorical question)

Sorry, dudette. Would you advise any friend to date, oh, Marat Safin (Remind me to tell you all a good Safin story at a later time)? It's not like you have to get down on your knees and beg this girl to break your heart. She marches to the tune of her own drummer. My French colleagues have more or less given up on the hope that she'll be a regular, reliable contender. They shrug. That's Amelie. End of story.

Re. Serena. She's good. Very, very, very good. So good that she can break all the conventions and still  beat everyone out there with ease. The biggest story of the AO was the 180-degree turnaround in the way Serena is perceived. I was one of the multitudes who made that turn, although I always conceded that Serena is larger-than-life and more like a Force of Nature (I've called her that in the past) than a mere tennis player. But keep in mind, she needs to play at a very high level to keep that status. If she doesn't perform up to snuff, it all comes crashing down - fast. It's the gunslinger thing, writ large.

Ray: Who is the favorite for the French Open as of now? If I'm a betting man (which I am), I give Roger the slight edge over Rafango.

Welcome home, hoss. Great to have you back. I can't go quite as far as you have. The results since Wimbledon tell me two things about Nadal (make that three):  1 - the desire to transcend "clay-court specialist" status demands more than mere determination to do it. 2 - He needs a tennis coach, not an uncle who once played but there's also this soccer thing, blah-blah-blah. 3 - Jet Boy is going to be looking for some serious payback in the upcoming months; there's no doubt in my mind that the maybe this guy ain't that great after all sensibility is taking hold. If you're Rafael or Toni, you're telling yourself something like this: Okay, we found out a lot about ourselves since we beat Roger in the French Open last year. First, we need to decide how hard we want to work to defray some of our losses since Wimbledon in the early '07 hard court season (Indian Wells and Key Biscayne). But let's not go at it so hard that we jeopardize our chances at payback time on the red dirt.

What I saw in Australia said a lot about Jet Boy's deficiencies on hard court, but absolutely nothing on his performance on clay, where he's the champ until someone - perhaps The Mighty Fed, but don't overlook Gonzo - knocks him out.

*

Okay, everyone, ESPN chat is over; a few more of yours before I run out for a sandwich:

Abbey: From a tennis writer's pov, is writing about roger becoming a difficult task to do? you know, same old, same old. or is he still a fascinating story to track?

Not at all, Abbey. Genius is ceaselessly fascinating and writing should always be an adventure.

Nancy J: What qualifications does Oracene William' have to be Serena's tennis "coach?" Obviously, she is a successful "coach," but based on what experience? Who is Venus William's "coach?"

Great question, Nancy. I see absolutely nothing that qualifies Oracene as "coach" in any meaningful sense of the term. And I say that with due respect to, and a full awareness, of how important she is to Serena. Nobody ever accused Oracene of tweaking, say, Serena's forehand follow-through. This plays into an issue building to critical mass on the heels of Serena's towering performance - why do so many WTA pros have second or third-rate coaches - at best - or parents as coaches? That's one reason they can't compete with the most talented, top players. As for Venus, I suspect Richard is her coach. BTW, I don't know too many coaches who are afraid of being outcoached by Richard, crafty as he can be. Like many other women, Venus and Serena tended to win in spite of rather than because of their coaches. And that's a situation that ought to - and can be - addressed, although the Williamses are the ones who least need to do it. They could win with me coaching them.

Lucy writes:  Since you were in Melbourne and I was not, did you feel a weird vibe coming out of the AO this year? What were the crowds like? It just seemed like this year was kind of a banner year for unsavoury incidents there. Is anyone in press circles NOT an Andy Murray convert? I want names! What do all those Swedes do when Jonas Bjorkman loses these days?

Well, there were a few weird events - clash of fascistjungen, a child molestation in a public men's room - but the overall vibe was the same as ever. Casual, beery, fun on the outside courts and gathering areas, hardcore and either corporate stiff or KAD tense inside. Best feature: the daily 6 PM concert in Garden Square, featuring Aussie bands. In Australia, you get some pretty impressive rockers, unlike at the U.S. Open, where the warm-up performance for the night session is usually something lame, like an a capella outfit doing renditions of favorite hits from the 60s. This underscores one of the nicer things about Australia, where pop music is so well-entrenched in the culture that you have a welcome shortage of poseurs and hipsters that have always been so conspicuous in music scenes of other large cities - and a lack of the kind of cynicism and superiority that would prevent a lot of rock acts from playing places like the BJKNTC.

I don't know of a single dissenter on the Andy Murray front; the guy won everyone over, from what I could see. . . The Swedes, having lost Bjorkman, are hurting. The up-side is that they get to attend the event without having to walk around in sweltering heat with yellow and blue paint all over their faces, which enables them to more effectively hit on Aussie chicks. There's always an upside. . .

Our friend, the media director Matt Van Tuinen (some of you will undoubtedly meet him at Indian Wells, if we overlap) for the Pacific Life Open, asks: I want to know if you would prefer to see TMF win all four majors this year, or if you are more interested in seeing others - Roddick, Nadal, Blake, Gonzalez, etc., challenge and defeat TMF? What do you think would be better for the game?

I would like nothing better than to see a male complete a calendar year Grand Slam in my time.

Liron (Ms) Rubin writes: Momofan: Where the (expletive deleted, rhymes with "mail") have you been? For a while, I entertained the thought that you had dropped out of college and run off to grow organic tomatoes with a hippie boyfriend.

I can't answer that, but it's funny as rhymes with mail. . .

Heidi, who'll never fly again, asks: What are your predictions for our two woebegone finalists, Gonzo and Sharapova?

I think Gonzalez, under Stefanki's tutelage, will be a Grand Slam contender. I'm telling you, watch this guy in Paris! Sharapova will continue to contend at Slams because she's a great competitor and faithful, hard-working pro. To me, Sharapova is the kind of player who ought to be getting to quarters and semis, but halted there due to her by-the-numbers game. However, she did put on a pretty amazing performance at the U.S. Open last year, so I may be judging her too harshly.

Sandwich time, back soon. . .

Jenn writes:

(1) Who do you think will be the next woman to win her first major? I am a Jankovic believer, personally, but I was astounded to see how quickly she went out to Serena.

(2) Is Rafael Nadal really going "backwards" in terms of progress as some of the commentators have suggested? I question this, simply because in the last 4 majors his results are win, finalist, quarters, quarters. Those aren't exactly bad results. His loss to Youzny in NY was questionable, but he ran into a juggernaut in Gonzo last week. Nobody was going to beat that guy except, obviously TMF. If you do think that Nadal is going backwards or flatlining in his game, is it because Uncle Tony has taken him as far as he can (more than one commentator suggested that Nadal needs a Stefanki or Gilbert in his camp).

Jenn, first off, kudos for your precision and clarity. Great first question. Right now, my front runners are Vaidisova for her game, Peer for her heart. I guess  you'd have to throw Ivanovic and Chakvetadze (although I don't see it) into the mix and don't forget  Elena Dementieva - she's been there, at the late stages, before. But I'm losing faith. Second question: I buy the commentator's reasoning re. Nadal (see above). At the level we're talking about, quarters doesn't cut it.

Paleochora writes: Do you think all the coaches are going to go back to the drawing board and see what they can do to beat TMF? Or is there a feeling - ok, he's # 1 and lets all just battle it out for # 2?

There will be three camps: the I'm No. 23, I'm not worthy of carrying Roger's racquet bag camp, the I'm No. 7 and doing great, so who cares? school,  and the I'm Andy Roddick/Murray/Richard Gasquet/Novak Djokovic/Marcos Baghdatis, I gotta figure out a way to beat this guy school.  The real changes are likely to be happening in the young(g)'uns and the lower orders, among emerging players who can still embrace a "Beat Federer" component in their development.

Chloe02 writes: Maria Sharapova. Just how big a loss was the final? Did you feel that Maria played badly or was she not allowed to play by Serena? Do you think Maria will continue to dominate the other women but just come unstuck when it comes to Serena?

I don't think Sharapova dominates the other women at all - Amelie, The Kooze,  Justine Henin-whoops . . .  They can all give her fits. I also like the way Hingis matches up with her, although the record doesn't support that. See my remarks above. Sharapova will take whatever they give her (most of these reluctant warriors give her a lot) and make the most of it. Good on her.

Sashanka: Do u think that Nadal needs to tweak his game a little when he is playing on hard-courts? I mean,he needs to hit a lot deeper than he usually does. I saw his match against Malisse in Chennai and i think he lost because of that only - hitting into the opponents' comfort zone.

That tweak is a pretty big ask, which I think is why Nadal has struggled, but also where he'll be so tough on clay, where stamina and athleticism will give him such big rewards. I think Nadal demonstrates the fallacy of the argument that clay-court players are the most well-rounded of all. You can win with limited tools on clay just as you can on fast grass.

Leo: I have a question about TMF's tatics: it seems to me he really doesn't give it all on each and every match. Like analysts said, he has too many gears, do you think it is true? and also it seems to me that he has "a plan" for different players (rather than in women's tennis now popular axiom "playing my own game"). Do other players have such luxury?

I thinkTMF is distinguished by the fact that he does give his all to every match; his genius is in making it all look so easy. His gear changes are not a conscious choice, but a response - a reaction that, bizarrely and counter-intuitively, is actually controlled by his opponent. There's a fine line between "playing my own game" and "this is what I need to do to beat this guy"; some of it is pride, champions love to crow about playing their own game and leaving the rest to fate. But in almost all cases, men and women, it's a mix of both. You can bet that TMF and Tony Roche talked about how to beat Gonzalez, but the key to that conversation is a philosophical given: how do I beat Gonzo without doing things that take me out of my comfort-zone, vis a vis the things I most like to do, and do best.

May: Tony Roche said that we haven't seen the best of TMF yet, and that he expects him to peak when he is 27-28 years old. My question is: do you agree with this prediction? Plus, in which ways can Federer improve? Will he start flying over the court instead of merely gliding?

I think that may have been some typical coach's hyperbole, with all due respect to TMF. Players peak at the age you cited as competitors and masters of their tools at that age, but it seems to me TMF is already there - like,  how much more experience does the dude need? Oh, he may play a few more matches like the Andy Roddick semi in Australia in a year or two, but overall there's not a whole lot of room for improvement there. In order to improve, TMF needs to be tested. I suppose you could say he could improve as a "competitor" against Rafael Nadal, but we have yet to see if Jet Boy can sustain his ability get to Federer on clay.

(Ed note: We're starting to strain Typepad so I'm closing down this post and  starting a new one, Part 2 - PB)

**