Post AO Q and A, Part 2

New reader alert: there have been some great questions raised in the post below, so I am continuing to answer the queries solicited in my recent Any Questions? post. Are you all finding this helpful and fun? I know a rolling post can be tough, as it forces you to keep checking back for new material, but it seems like the quickest, most efficient way to handle this kind of thing. Feedback welcome in Comments below. Meanwhile, shall move on?

HTTB wrote: I know there have been some inquiries about the absence of Patrick McEnroe during the second week of the AO. Someone said it is due to personal family reasons. Do you have any other information to pass on to us? I'm not trying to pry into his "business", but I'm concerned that someone is very sick in his family. P-mac doesn't always get a lot of Love in TW, but I missed his commentating.

Patrick had to return home for family reasons, but thankfully they were nothing that posed any kind of long-term threat to his family's health or well-being.We emailed back and forth during the men's final and Patrick did some great calling from in front of his TV, on the ebb and flow of the match.

Joao: Do you think it's possible to make a better blog without "beyind" kissings and all time appraisals?. . . Last question: do you think it's not possible to write unbiased about tennis (special american players) and keep the americain public attached to your site and magazine?

Joao (sorry, my keyboard doesn't like accents! I believe this is less a problem of xenophobia than market-share technology). I don't really know what to say to Part 1, except that I like some people more than others, and also enjoy "appraisals." As for Part 2, it's a transparently loaded question (you know, in the same league as Do you still beat your wife?) I'm glad you asked though, because it taps into something I've been thinking about.

In my experience, American - er, gringo -  fans have a healthy and admirable interest in players from other nations. But I also wonder if U.S. fans, coming from a culture of high, competitive standards, aren't a little too apt to get disgruntled if certain players aren't in the mix at any given tournament. I think Europeans and South Americans may be more content to watch the mix of players they've been given (I don't hear too many complaints echoing across the Atlantic if, say, Roddick or Blake chooses to skip a European clay event), while we here in the states sometimes succumb to a Donald Trump-esque insistence on the best. This tournament means nothing, Rafael Nadal isn't entered! That's a slightly different way of seeing the general reaction to tournaments with mediocre fields.

Don't know whose "beyind" I kissed with that answer, but I do know that I don't believe there's any such thing as "unbiased" coverage, except in straight match reports on who won and by what score. To me, "bias" is the ability to discriminate and make choices, preferably based on sound reasoning, and the willingness to assign greater or lesser value to some qualities than others- in all things. Every time you buy a new pair of jeans, you're acting with bias. I think it's a personal obligation to make such "biased" decisions and, often, a cop-out to avoid making them.

Quynh wrote: I do have a question for you re. the Murray-Nadal match. What was the strategy that Gilbert and Murray devised for the match against Nadal and how well did it work ?

I didn't see either Brad or Andy after the match, but I believe the strategy was based on two principles, one "negative" and the other "positive." The negative one was: Don't let this guy do what he most likes: maneuver himself into the backhand corner and hit forehands from there. The positive one was, attack behind every forcing serve and try to keep to court open so you can end points quickly by jumping on any short ball he gives you - and Nadal gave his AO opponents plenty of short balls.

MarieJ: which coach would fit for him (Nadal) for grass and HC ? i'll pick Jmac, he likes the kid and has the attacking game, no ?

I like that choice a lot, Marie, but there some other fine candidates out there. Darren Cahill, for one.  Tony Roche (whoops! He's taken). Yes, even the notorious Pat Cash, who written at some point during the AO that he had been approached by the Nadal camp. If I had to narrow the search function, I would be looking to an American, Aussie or British player who had a very solid serve-and-volley game but was never so big a star (like Cash) that ego would be an issue. You know who would be a good fit, based on the game he had? Jonas Bjorkman. I see some big-time coaching in that guy's future.

Rosangel: I also wonder, in light of the type of game he (Nadal)  plays, whether thereis* anything big he can do to change, if he wants to win another major. Other players are finding ways to deal with his game, at least on hardcourts. You said yourself recently that having him win a major on a surface other than clay is a bigger ask than you had thought. How much is it realistic to ask now, in your opinion?*

I think Jet boy could "flatten" out his game on hard courts at no great risk to his clay-court prowess.  Topspin exists in degrees. He might work on getting real slice on his serve, especially in the ad-court. Anybody notice how big lefty servers (and lefties in general) have all but vanished? When was the last time you saw that famous John McEnroe "can-opener" lefty slice to the ad court? They used to "Bend it like Beckham", and I don't see why that wouldn't work on even medium-speed hard courts. Nadal could also make an effort to play further inside the court, sacrificing his great retrieving ability for a first-strike capacity. The bonus, if he did that, would be the ability to retain his topspin, put more pressure on servers, get himself in position to get more free points.

Samantha: Also, on the clay, who would you give the advantage to Justine or Serena if Serena continues to play at this level? I would say Justine because the clay neutrailized the serve and power of the big hitters.

Great question, Sammy. I give the edge to Serena for the following reasons: the neutralizing effect of clay is not as obvious as it appears. Aranxta Sanchez-Vicaro, the ultimate speedster and counter-puncher, should have dominated in Paris by that trope, yet she didn't (although she was danged good). Also, Serena is fundamentally a baseliner, so it's not like she's completely out of her comfort zone on clay. The real issue here to me is: which is worth more, Justine Henin-Whoops all around speed and retrieving ability, or Serena's bold, aggressive game and spirit? Granted, Henin is also a warrior, but in that department Serena reigns supreme. To me the big issue on clay is fitness; Serena showed us last week that fitness is not an issue for her on hard courts. I think it might be different on clay.

Maplesugar:  1 - Do you think the AO final was all about Gonzalez? Instead of about Fed? It seemed to me that Gonzo was rather "Roddick-like" in that he didn't play the game that brought him so far in the tournament, and I wondered if you drew any comparison with that? 2 - Do you think that Maria would go farther with tactics and a new coach...instead of just trying to hit the cover off the ball?

No way on No. 1. I think Gonzo wanted to play the game that brought him that far (BTW, I don't think Andy did that) but Federer found a way neutralize and deal with that; I wrote that in my match report.  On No. 2, if Maria doesn't hit the cover off the ball and win in two and three shot combinations, she's dead. I think she should focus on wringing every drop of potential out of her serve, because she's three times the player if she starts a point in control of it than even on an even footing. That, BTW, was a big key to the women's blow-out final, I thought.

Okay, folks, time to call it quits. Feel free to go OT if you wish, on the Monday Net Post. I'm going to continue tomorrow; my aim is to answer every good or reasonable question put to me in that Any Questions post.