I’m getting tired early today—watching my Philadelphia Phillies the last two weeks has been exhausting. I picked a great time to shell out for the MLB Extra Innings package. Now I get to watch all 162 Phils games! And I'm paying them for that privilege?
I caught my share of tennis from Monte Carlo as well this week, some of it quite good. Here are few fast thoughts on the pertinent topics
Roger Federer: His shot-making has looked sharp the last two matches, even though he’s still playing hard-court tennis. There’s no reason for him to try to grind, but sometimes his attempts at winners from behind the baseline look just the slightest bit purposeless to me. I hate to agree with the Tennis Channel’s ever-grating Doug Adler, but his best shot at beating Nadal or Cañas or going all the way at the French is to develop the points so he ends up at the net. It’s his one indisputable advantage over all clay-courters.
Rafael Nadal: He’s come out on fire here. It’s always a revelation to see him on clay—all that defense and then all offense within seconds of each other. If they ever make the court dimensions larger, he might be unbeatable. His serve is also more effective than it was last year. I think he’ll finally break the jinx and beat Tomas Berdych tomorrow. Should be fun to watch either way.
Richard Gasquet: Ah, I was so close to having a prediction turn out right! Gasquet nearly reached the semis and played a lot of great tennis this week, reminding fans that he’s still a guy to watch in the future. It was tough to see him tighten up today when he had a chance to win, just as he had in his first two matches. It never ceases to amaze me that guys at that level, who have won so many matches over the years, still succumb to debilitating nerves at just the wrong moment. For now, that lack of confidence is what's separating Gasquet from joining Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray as another Next Big Thing.
Fed vs. ET: I’m glad to see Federer and other top guys getting involved rather than complaining later. The more open dialogue there is between the ATP and the players and the ITF and the tournament directors and god knows who else, the better. De Villiers has made his mistakes—threatening player suspensions is the biggest, in my opinion—but in changing the Masters structure, he’s reacting to a problem that everyone could see: too many mandatory events in a row, and the withdrawals that causes. I’m also not sure what the players want, as far as the clay Masters events go: they want Monte Carlo to stay, but do they want Hamburg replaced by a dual-gender Masters in Madrid, which is being proposed by Ion Tiriac?
From a longer perspective, this problem is another phase of the long-running one that began with the Open era: the cross-purposes of the tour and the ITF, which runs the Slams. The ATP will always be hamstrung in its Masters schedule by the strange, illogical, seemingly-set-in-stone schedule of the majors. Not to mention that two ITF member federations back Rome and Hamburg, traditionally prestigious tournaments that may have been stronger before they were folded into the ATP’s mandatory Masters list.
I think Pete Bodo was right this week when he said De Villiers is doing what he should be doing by trying to work out a sane schedule—if he hadn’t done anything, would we all have been happy? I doubt it. And while I think Federer can be a bit knee-jerk against change—he’s even joked about he immediately reacts against any new idea—he’s earned the right to express his opinion on how the game is run and have it taken seriously, which I think it will be now.
Semifinal winners: Federer and Nadal
Champion: Nadal 6-4, 2-6, 7-5, 7-6 (6)
Have a good weekend, everyone. Is anyone going to be in Rome for the Masters? I’m making my first trip to the vaunted Foro Italico. It may have been built by Mussolini, but the words just sound cool, don't they?