Instant replay aside, this won’t go down as the most memorable NASDAQ-100 of all time. The withdrawals of Andre Agassi and the Williams sisters, the early losses by Rafael Nadal and the Belgians, the circling planes that drove TV viewers to turn down their sets during the finals: It was a rocky road from start to finish. Still, with most of the world’s top players involved, the U.S.’ second-most-important tournament is always worth mining for a few nuggets of significance. Here’s the breakdown/wrap-up.
MVPs
Roger Federer
Watching on TV, you would have to say this was Federer at his most workmanlike. He was even a little disappointing in his straight-set win in the final: Is he the greatest player of all time, or just a tiny bit better than Ivan Ljubicic? In person, though, Federer was as impressive as ever in Key Biscayne. I came in from the outer courts during one of his matches and immediately noticed two differences between him and everyone I had just seen: his easy command of the court, and how complete his game is. I used to have the same reaction walking into the stadium at the U.S. Open and seeing Pete Sampras play. Suddenly, here was the one guy who did it right.
That all-around competence is what kept Federer afloat against Ljubicic. Fed didn’t give anything away when it counted; Ljubicic did, particularly when he was up 4-1 in the second-set tiebreaker. I don’t know of any other player who seems so serenely confident as Ljubicic, but who breaks down at so many critical moments.
One other Federer note from Key Biscayne: Whenever he went to the sideline to change racquets before his opponent’s serve, he hustled back to the baseline and did a little “sorry” wave with his racquet? It’s hard to imagine many top athletes being so conscientious and deferential. Despite the well-known examples of Jimbo and Johnny Mac, maybe absolute greatness in men’s tennis requires a certain degree of humility and grounding. The three best players of all time have also been three of the most unassuming—Rod Laver, Sampras, and now Federer.
Svetlana Kuznetsova
I’ve always thought of Kuznetsova as the James Blake of the women’s game—a peerless athlete who just can’t help pulling the trigger every time she gets a forehand in her sights. It makes for up-and-down tennis. In this tournament, though, she had the right answers for each match-up. She drove Amelie Mauresmo off the baseline in the semifinals and played it cool against Maria Sharapova in the final, giving her ground strokes a nice margin, both over the net and inside the sidelines. Afterward, Kuznetsova said she was happy that even though she wasn’t swinging as hard, the ball was still “going pretty fast.” I’m reserving judgment on whether she’s here to stay—many of the Russians, men and women, have had trouble sustaining in the past, and this was Kuznetsova’s first title of any sort since 2004.
Best Match
Maria Sharapova d. Tatiana Golovin
There were longer battles, but things got a little wild during this night match, which had repercussions for Sharapova. She was up 6-3, 5-1 and on her way to a routine win when Golovin began hitting out—why she waited so long is anyone’s guess. As most of you know, when she got to 4-5, Sharapova took a controversial bathroom break; and when Golovin turned her ankle in the third and writhed on the ground, the Russian danced to her own drummer in the corner. While ESPN/IMG commentator Mary Joe Fernandez wouldn’t say a critical word about Sharapova, the crowd (rightly) booed her that night and took Kuznetsova’s side in the final.
Is it expecting too much for a player to maintain the focus of a killer but still show some heart when her opponent is hurt? No, I don’t think it is, and Sharapova may have learned that in Miami. One note in her defense: Does anyone think that those well-timed bathroom breaks—she also took one when she was down 1-4 earlier in the tournament—were free of the influence of her father?
Pleasant Surprise
David Ferrer
In the past, Ferrer has seemed like a tournament killer, a grinder who’s more Nicolas Massu dull than Rafael Nadal dramatic. But I was converted in Key Biscayne. The Spaniard, with his distinctive front-toe, slump-shouldered walk, is the personification of dogged. He won a three-hour marathon one day and came back to beat Andy Roddick 6-4 in the third the next. He’s also fun to watch. Like a good ball-handler in basketball, Ferrer’s consistency, depth, speed, and spin give any match he plays substance and rhythm. I would pick him to go deep at the French Open if I didn’t suspect that he’s going to burn himself out during the upcoming clay-court season.
Most Disturbing Trend
No Fast-Court Rivals for Federer
There was a point a few years ago when Tiger Woods was so dominant that commentators began taking his opponents to task for not competing with him. That's where Federer is now—he was the only guy standing these last couple weeks. He won in Indian Wells and Key Biscayne against a motley crew of guys who have never been called rivals of his—Blake, Ljubicic, Ferrer, Srichaphan, etc. As for those who have been called his rivals, Nadal isn't ready to face down everyone else on hard courts right now; Hewitt looks distracted (what happened to the red-faced maniac who almost ate the 2005 Australian Open?); Roddick is in danger of dropping into the pack; Safin remains only a rival to himself. In other words, Federer has beaten them all into submission.
Best Debut
Instant Replay
I think we can say that this was a success at Key Biscayne. I began the week as a supporter of the two-challenge system because, based on the NFL’s experience, I thought unlimited challenges would slow the game down. But seeing how quickly they’re dispensed with—it takes less than 10 seconds in most cases—it seems that tennis could go all the way. On clay, the players can call an umpire down to check a mark any time they want, and nobody complains about the delays. It, you know, “adds to the drama,” as they say, and also happens to be the fairest system to the players.