There’s been one hot topic of conversation in the tennis world this week, but I think we’ve had enough of it around here, at least for today. I’ve tried my best to keep this news round-up blue-clay-free, though as you'll see, a little of it slips in at the end.
In his latest Racquet Scientist post, Pete Bodo discusses the current disagreement between the WTA and the ITF. The ITF recently came out with a new rule that requires any player who wants to be eligible to play in the Olympics to “make themselves available” for Davis Cup or Fed Cup duty at least once in each of the four years leading up to the Games. The WTA responded with a letter of protest claiming that the women had a “difference of opinion in the commitment system, which is too much in today’s professional tennis world.”
Pete, a longtime supporter of international team tennis, sides with the ITF and says that taking one weekend a year out for your country’s tennis federation, a federation that may have helped you when you were younger, is not too much to ask.
It’s hard to argue that finding three days for Davis Cup or Fed Cup is too onerous, and it’s true that most players currently do find the time and enjoy representing their countries. But I don’t think it does a service to either of the sport's team competitions, or the players, or the fans, when you know that certain star—a Maria or Serena or Venus or, in the future, possibly a Federer or a Murray or another highly-ranked male—are only participating in the odd tie so that they can preserve their future Olympic eligibility. I’d rather drop the confusing—“make yourself available”?—eat-your-peas requirements and keep the national team competitions separate from the Olympics, the same way the ITF keeps them separate from the other events it runs, the Grand Slams.
Over at ESPN.com, a roundtable of writers try to answer this question: What are the chances Rafael Nadal won’t win the French Open? Nadal has come a long way in the last month, apparently. A few weeks ago, we were wondering whether the “real Rafa” would ever show up. Now, after his wins in Monte Carlo and Barcelona, Greg Garber thinks he has a 98-percent chance of victory in Paris.
Other opinions vary—Howard Bryant believes there’s a “good chance” Nadal won’t win because Djokovic is still the best player overall—and there are a lot of ifs and buts involved. So many that it reminds you of how ephemeral any tennis prediction can be. Each day, each set, brings an entirely new assessment, one that will be forgotten two days later, after the player's next match. What does Djokovic dropping a set today do to our thoughts about him? What if Rafa drops one to Davydenko? Looking at the long run, I would say today that it’s 50-50 between Rafa and Nole. By Sunday I’ll probably think something slightly different.
Speaking of the ephemeral nature of tennis predictions, we have a new man of the nanosecond: Milos Raonic. At the Tennis Space, Mark Hodgkinson calls the Canadian fire-baller “the most dangerous man in tennis,” warns future patrons of Wimbledon not to sit in the front row when he’s serving, and claims that none of the Top 4 are going to want to see him in their section of the draw.
Toronto’s Tom Tebbutt, the Boswell to Raonic’s Samuel Johnson and a big believer in his game, predicts on his blog today that Raonic will beat Roger Federer tomorrow night in Madrid. In a subsequent tweet, Tebbutt even tells us what the score will be: 7-5, 6-3.
As for me, three weeks ago I wondered, after Raonic had lost early in Monte Carlo, whether he was rallying too much and not pulling the trigger early enough on clay, the way his fellow tall man John Isner was doing with such great success. Today, in my Racquet Reaction to Raonic’s high-quality victory over David Nalbandian, I wrote that Raonic won in part because he was patient, didn't pull the trigger too soon, and didn't go for broke when he did. If I were Raonic's coach, he'd be a very confused player right about now.
Is this more evidence that it’s all about execution? Some days the balls go in, other days they don’t, and the tactics that worked today won’t work tomorrow. But if that’s true, what is there to write about?
Anyway, I’ll take Federer: 3-6, 6-4, 6-3
OK, we’re getting desperate for other news. Did you know that Federer had a street named after him in Halle, "Roger-Federer-Allee"—that’s not the same as Roger Federer Alley, is it? Probably not, considering that Federer said he was “extremely humbled” by the gesture. Halle is the town where Federer usually plays his Wimbledon tune-up, except for last year, when he angered the tournament director there by pulling out after the French Open. I guess they really want him back.
Also on the Federer front, he says that he and Rafa haven’t had a chance to talk about the player-council disputes that boiled over in Melbourne in January. Still, Federer says he has no problem with Nadal, and he knows that “he’s good for the game.” I like that line; Federer as tennis fan.
Finally, because we can’t avoid blue clay entirely, I'll report that Bruce Jenkins at SI.com has decided that he’s going to stop worrying and let Ion Tiriac have his crazy dream of an event. It's really not a traditional spring clay tournament anyway, according to Jenkins, but an indoor one with a different-colored surface.
I can see the point of not judging the Caja Magica by the standards of the Foro Italico. But Tiriac already had an indoor tournament in Madrid with a medium-paced, blue-ish surface. It was held in October, on hard courts, during the indoor season, where it belonged.