New Balls, Please

Howdy, everyone. This is attitude re-adjustment week, during which we shift our focus from the desert at Indian Wells and the Pacific Life Open to a very different kind of sandy ambience - that of funky, hedonistic, multi-cultural Miami, where the Sony-Ericsson Open main draw gets underway tomorrow. We'll have a varied menu of posts this week, including some from key contributors to TennisWorld.

My main professional regret at Indian Wells that because of my work load and the timing of the match, I never did write much about the Andy Murray vs. Tommy Haas quarterfinal , which was one of the most riveting matches I've seen this year. Murray won it, after Haas failed to capitalize on two match points.  I did post a Comment when I saw how many people were denigrating the match, some of them seemingly for no better reason than their frustration over the fact that their favorite player, Roger Federer, had lost early in the event. I think they missed something extremely interesting and in some ways inspiring. As it turned out, both pressers were gems, too (they ought to be available at either the Pac Life or ASAP website).

Murray was asked, right off the bat, to comment on the match, and his thoughts were so extensive and rambling that he finished up observing that he had probably just given his longest-ever answer in a presser. Neil Harman, the on-the-trot biographer and a leading voice in the KAD-ish British press corps, immediately confirmed this to be true. But the highlight of the presser was the next question, and I'm not sure who asked it. It followed Murray's extensive analysis of how his ankle injury influenced the match:

Question:  Taking all of that into account, how proud are you to be sitting there having won a match like that?

ANDY MURRAY:  I don't feel proud.  You know, I'm just happy that I won.  It kind of took a while for it to sink in because there were so many ups and downs.  At one point I didn't think I was going to be able to play; I felt okay.  He obviously had the problem.(Haas cramped late in the match).

I felt like I should win the match and then save the two match points and then managed to go on and win.  So it was -- I'm not proud.  I'm just happy that I managed to win, and, you know, hope I didn't cause anybody too many problems with the injury time-out that I took.

But, you know, it's just unfortunate it had to happen because it's -- you feel bad when, you know, you take an injury timeout as long as that, which I never really had to do before.  And then you feel like you tcan run around okay and you feel like a bit of a brat for taking so long to stop the match and you feel like you can run around.

Those are fine, old-schools sentiments, further underscoring my feeling that we've entered a really glorious period for the game. The best players on the radar - Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Andy Roddick, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, even gifted but falling-off-the-radar Marat Safin, represent a breathtaking range of sharply-etched and admirable personalities who represent the game with great dignity, flair and integrity. I'm going to make  contrast here for the sake of perspective. The WTA is awash with champions who have issues - personally based issues or tennis-related issues - which, no matter how much sympathy you may feel, really impair their ability to stand as model pros and representatives of the game at its best. The ATP pros are a manly bunch, if that means anything; it looks like the hyped New Balls, please generation is here at last - although Safin and Haas were among the original suspects. The women should be glad that equal prize-money is not linked to service to the game.

That's one of the reasons I thought that dismissing the Haas-Murray match so contemptuously was unfair. There is a lot more to celebrate - or mourn - than The Mighty Fed's dominance, starting with his critical role as a generational spokesman in bringing the game into high repute.

Of course, there is backstory with Murray and Haas. They are friends; both of them train frequently at the Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy. That helps explain why Haas was so concerned for Murray's well-being when he rolled his ankle midway through the second set, although I like to think that Haas would have done the same for any opponent. Tennis is still suffering the lingering effects of the notorious Is Tennis Dying? story, and we all know that altering the public's perception is difficult (it's even harder to alter the perception of the media, which is about as critical a thing as you can say about the press). But right now, the men constitute a tennis Dream Team. And it's true deep into the rankings.

Oh, there are plenty of players who just go about their business as pros, without making a difference. But a surprising number of men at the very top are "impact" players in every sense, and so are many  others as you travel down the ranking list. Look at Haas. Despite the eff-bombs (something I have little trouble forgiving, even though I am the parent of a young boy whom I'd like to raise right) he lobs out during a match, he radiates dedication and honest effort. The match against Murray, which Haas lost despite having match points, could have come to an end with ugly,bitter accusations flying back and forth. There are a lot of strange matches, and a lot of great ones. But I don't recall that many that were both strange and great, without being marred rather than enhanced by it.

Some - almost all - of this had to do with Andy Murray and the way he plays. The guy is some kind of trouble or weirdness magnet (something else he shares with one of his greatest apologists, John McEnroe). That's reflected in his game, which may be best described as tennis's version of atonal, free-form jazz.  Here's a relevant extract from the presser Haas gave after the match:

Q.  What is it about his game that makes him difficult to play?

TOMMY HAAS: *Well, for one, he moves really well. He knows where to be most of the time. But it's actually incredible how slow he plays. I was very surprised at times. You know, it's almost sometimes like a couple of rallies are almost -- you think you're back in the juniors.

And the balls get really heavy here.  It doesn't play as fast at night as it does during the day.  It's a little bit of a disadvantage for me tonight, you know.  Every time I'd go forward, he has a better chance to get to the balls and he kind of just notices it or he sees it, when you're actually coming in, and then he goes first shot and comes up with some great passing shots every once in a while and on big points.*

It's something I didn't expect, but for next time, it's gonna be good to know.

Q.  You were quite successful at saving breakpoints.  I think you served 11 out of 13, where he tends to get a little bit defensive?

TOMMY HAAS: You think he was offensive any time else?

Q.  Sorry?

TOMMY HAAS:  Do you think he was offensive at some other points during the match?

Q.  I think he was, but my question is --

TOMMY HAAS:  I don't think he was.  He plays very defensive.  That's his game.  He plays slice, he moves around the ball, but there's very few times he goes for it, or, you know, he occasionally hits big backhand or goes for a forehand.  But pretty much when it's in the rally, he kind of tries to let the other opponent maybe force an error, but he doesn't really play offensive.

Some reporters get frazzled when a player calls them on an assumption, but I like to see that happen. It's good to see a player take a question - and reporter -  seriously enough to challenge them, if it seems appropriate.  It shows that the player cares.

And it seems that we're in an era in which players care. It was just another compelling subtext to one of the most exciting matches I've seen this year.