*!96200985
*
by Pete Bodo
I've always been a big believer in that old bit of folk wisdom: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. . . and it was particularly applicable in a reversible-image way yesterday in the highlight matches of the Australian Open featuring Roger Federer and Serena Williams.
Nikolay Davydenko has had us convinced more than once that he may have a Grand Slam title in him, and Serena Williams has tempted us to write her off. They've both done their best do demonstrate that there really is a sucker born every minute.
Serena, however, takes her lure to a new, almost taunting level. You can't even write her off in an "on any given day" match, not until the last ball is hit. Down a set and 0-4 to Victoria Azarenka, a girl who's playing like a house on fire? Go ahead, flick off the television. I dare you. Serena will make you pay. . . and pay. . .
Maybe for Serena they ought to amend the second half of that old saw to read: Fool me seventeen times, and I still won't learn. I believe the word I'm searching for is "extraordinary."
But a word about Davydenko first.
The little fella has been playing great tennis; he's had a great run, and a great major in Melbourne. Let's remember that the guy he didn't beat happens to be the greatest tennis player ever to swing a racket or use a protein-and-seaweed-based hair conditioning agent. But the important thing to remember is that there's a karmic dimension to every career, Federer's as well as Davydenko's. Missed opportunities are like taking out bad loans; they sit there and collect interest, and the higher the debt mounts the more you have to repay.
Opportunities taken and converted successfully are like money in the bank; they collect interest, and the bigger the nest egg gets, the more interest the investment yields. Federer has now extended his Grand Slam quarterfinal winning streak to 23 consecutive matches. Kolya (and everyone else), you'd better figure out a way to avoid this guy until a stage where the odds skew more in your favor. He's got serious quarterfinal karma. I believe the word I'm looking for is "extraordinary-squared."
I didn't stay up to watch that match, partly because I didn't feel it was necessary. And if Davydenko had won, no problem - it's a game. Strange things can happen, but not often enough to make us throw our hands up and say: I give up, it don't make no sense no-how.
And now for Serena.
I don't think the commentators on ESPN miss very much, even if I don't always agree with them. But I felt they missed something critical in that second set. In fact, right around the time that Victoria Azarenka led Serena 4-1, I tweeted this line: 'Renka taking her foot off the gas? For that was what I saw - a subtle but very real reining in of her game.
She was still hitting the angles, but with just a smidgen less abandon and go-for-broke determination. And that seemed to give Serena just a little more time to regroup, to get back on the balls instead of the heels of her feet. I'm not even sure I'm right - it would be helpful to see the videotape. But I had no doubt that the ground shifted a little under the feet of both women, and it was enough to get Serena back on track. The rest, as they say, is history.
Beyond that, I was once again disappointed by the rush to bring real or perceived injuries into the discussion. When Serena was down in dumps, you might have thought, listening to some of the commentary, that she was playing with a leg blown off. But when she regained her form and began punishing Azarenka, the theme melted away. What gives? Not long after I sent that first tweet, I followed with this one: Uh, what happened to that snowballing injury theme? Miracle cure for Serena?.
I wasn't being flip, and I'm not criticizing Serena. But when you start finding an injury to explain every shanked overhead or surprising break of serve, you demean the action and cast doubt on the legitimacy of what we're watching. It's always something, right? Let's remember that old Aussie standard: If you're fit enough to go out there and swing a racket, you leave injuries out of it.
It's bad enough when the players declare or plant injury themes and motifs, but worse when the commentators fall back on them. So is Serena (or Roger, or Jo-Willy) hurt or not? Did Azarenka miss that forehand because she may have a twinge in her wrist? How far are we willing to go down the road of linking performance with apparent physical condition, and if we go a significant distance do we just drop the issue like a hot potato when someone suddenly begins playing better? How do you explain Serena coming back, after a close examination of how she hit a certain overhead seemed to suggest a mild upper hamstring strain?
!96202657 It's a tricky issue, because injuries are real. But focusing on them, as seems to be the growing trend, only encourages us to question the one thing that ought never to be questioned - the legitimacy of the scoreboard. And don't think for a moment that the players are unaware that when they're stinking out the joint, they can always soften the impact by rubbing a thigh muscle or flexing a wrist after making an unforced error. It's a cue for commentators to introduce the injury theme (although judging from last night's match, no cue is needed).
I don't blame Serena, or anyone else, for wrapping herself in as many bandages as she feels she needs. The elastic Ace bandage can be a legitimate precautionary accessory as well as a security blanket. And while it's a commentator's job to remark upon how well a player is performing, physically, I'd stop short of linking that to a real or perceived debility unless the situation demands it.I didn't think Serena's form called for it. Mention it once and let it go at that.
This unfortunate trend links to a larger one, a cavalier attitude on the part of the tournament when it comes to enforcing clearly articulated and agreed upon rules. My colleague James Martin has an excellent column on the flagrant disregard of rules against on-court coaching. Carlos Rodriguez hasn't even bothered even trying to hide the fact that he's coaching Justine like crazy (I actually give him credit for that), and yesterday Azarenka was seen telling her coaches to speak up, because she couldn't hear the pearls of wisdom they were casting her way from the friends' box.
And what was up with letting Serena Williams take that extra-long bathroom break, toting a handbag big enough to carry one of those old Osborne computers, never mind some smart phone? Did the warden accompany Serena into the booth in the toilet, or hold her bag while Serena used the facilities, to make sure she didn't do a little texting?
Personally, I don't believe that Serena did that - but I sure would like to know if she could have gotten away with it. And the lax way the Aussies have treated the rules makes me think that the only response she would have gotten for such shenanigans is a lusty, No worries, mate!
BTW, I'm not a big fan of the present coaching rules. What I would call small-scale, casual coaching has been around in tennis a lot longer than has the ATP or WTA rulebook. I have no problem with players and coaches communicating indirectly (via hand signals, etc.) I just have a problem with the fact that there's a rule against it, that it's enforced selectively, if at all, and that it leaves matters in the hands of the players and coaches, meaning that those who have the integrity to follow the rules get the short end of the stick.
Can we pause for a moment and genuflect to a poster of Roger Federer, on these issues?
My attitude right now is, allow indirect (hand signals and gestures, mouthing words, etc.) communication - or enforce the rule against it. Put a tournament official in each player's box, or assign one to monitor each box. Problem solved, or at least alleviated.
The time-violation rule has also been flagrantly abused. The solution for that is simple: eliminate the rule or install clocks at both ends, as in basketball. If the player exceeds the allotted time, the buzzer goes off and the player surrenders the point. The chair umpire operates a button that resets the shot-clock, and then he watches and disables the clock the moment both players are in position to play. I don't have a problem with a player choosing to bounce the ball 20 times before he serves, or a receiver stepping out of the de facto batter's box with the shot clock turned off. These players aren't machines. But get them back into position to play after every point.
One other thing: the U.S. Open justly gets a lot of grief for departing from the alternate-day playing schedule, and I think was a mistake for the Aussies to follow suit. Serena and Na Li ought to get a day of rest before they meet, and Serena will suffer even more for not getting it. But I'm not enough of a naysayer to predict that Li will win, and I still like Jie Zheng's chances against Justine Henin, although after my Grand Slam of predictions yesterday, I feel like I'm due to be bought down a peg or two.