Nice stuff from Michael Llodra today, eh? Unfortunately I missed most of it, but I did see his reaction at the end. The French players age about as gracefully as any, and Llodra adds a lot to the game. Has fast-court tennis turned a corner in Valencia and Paris?
Well, we’ll get to that subject another day. For now, I’ll deal with what’s been going on on this blog recently.
*
Just to comment on the “fodder for conspiracy theorists” reference. There were 7 players with positive tests for Nandrolone. No evidence was ever shown that the Nandrolone positives were due to a "sports drink", as was claimed by these unnamed players and Rusedski later on. The "sports drink" in question was tested and not found to have Nandrolone. That was 7 “top players" who tested positive for Nandrolone, were never named and never gave any real evidence for why these tests should come up positive. That is a conspiracy, not a conspiracy "theory". Sorry, but facts are facts, no matter what the man behind the curtain wants us to believe.—tennis roids
Kamakshi Tandon wrote the “fodder for conspiracy theorists” line in our Rally post last week. She was referring to the case of seven ATP players who tested positive for Nandrolone but were never named. Here’s Kamakshi’s response to the comment above:
Independent lab testing eventually established that it's possible for nandrolone to spontaneously form in urine, and re-testing of some of the samples indicated that the mass of trace readings during this period (7 enough for positive tests, several dozen others below the 5ng/ml limit) were due to this previously unknown reaction. A test has now been developed to tell the difference, so now those cases would not count as a positive test.
No one is quite sure why this started happening when it did and why it showed up in tennis more than any other sport, but those involved on the testing side have suggested it's because labs can now detect smaller levels of nandrolone than previously possible, and because tennis players compete
for long periods in extreme heat (the conditions required for this phenomenon to take place).
You can't completely rule out that there's some link to performance-enhancing activity, but apparently this process destroys testosterone, which if anything would hurt athletic performance. Combine
that with the sheer number of players all at the same time, and all the well-respected external and internal anti-doping officials involved, and a conspiracy seems pretty far-fetched.
That's ultimately the problem with the approach taken by this site [Tennis Has a Steroid Problem]. From what I've seen of it, I actually think it gives a pretty decent articulation of the worst-case scenario. But it cherry-picks things to support its particular theory, and ignores things that don't fit. What you get is a
possible scenario, but not a likely one.
Take Wayne Odesnik getting caught with HGH at customs in Brisbane. What's more reasonable -- saying it's proof the whole sport is dirty, or also noting that it's the first time it's happened even though players travel all the time, including to Australia?
The one reservation I have about the way the ITF runs its program is that it's more like a bureaucratic department (checks, quotas, procedures) than an investigative unit (innovation, sense of purpose). It's a
very respectable system, but I still think there are ways to improve the balance between monitoring and invasiveness, and detection of cheats vs. protection of innocent athletes. But that's another, complicated topic
*
I watched Ramanathan Krishnan play though not at his peak. His backhand was a thing of beauty, he could do almost anything with it effortlessly, he lost twice in the semi’s at Wimbledon. His son Ramesh was no less a magician, his serve though was an apology stating that he is starting the point (John McEnroe once complained “what can you do with his serve when it is at 5 miles per hour!”)—Ramana
McEnroe was tortured that day by Ramesh, at the ’81 Open. He actually admitted that he “underestimated the guy” coming into the match. You don’t hear that from the players too often, especially today when there’s such a stigma about appearing unprofessional in any way.
There are certain players I’d love to see tapes of: Ramanathan Krishnan, Rafael Osuna, Manuel Santana, Tony Palafox, all of the old amateur stylists, basically. I’ve seen very little of those guys, but I remember loving to watch Ramesh Krishnan as a kid. Very unique and unlikely game. It surprises me that India hasn’t produced a line of top-level ball-strikers through the years. Maybe the game just moved too far in other directions.
*
I’ve read “A Handful of Summers” three times now, and get more from the book at each reading.
Has there ever been a better title for a tennis memoir? And nothing captures the wonder/sadness of top level tennis players, knowing that they have nothing but ‘a handful of summers’ to ply their trade.—roGER
I never thought of the title that way, but you’re right, it really is a good one, and does the book justice, which is saying something. I would put it up there with the best sports books ever written, by player or non-player. Chalk another one up for the amateur era, that it could inspire such a poetic memoir.
*
Steve, I’m surprised you say Ferrer is part owner of the Valencia Tournament—would have thought “owning” would make you ineligible to play due to conflict of interests and staff bias? Do other active players own tournaments?—Jodiecate
I knew that Ferrer and Juan Carlos Ferrero had an interest in it (10 percent each?), but it still rang a little strangely in my ears when the Tennis Channel commentators brought it up. Djokovic and his family own the Belgrade event as well. But I would think, or hope, that’s in the interest of those guys to go out of their way to make players and fans and media believe in the integrity of their tournaments.
*
**
“There were two tell-tale signs to me that Djokovic would lose this battle. The first was when he applauded one of Federer's winners late in the second or early in the third. It’s nice and all, but I think he saps his own competitive energy when he visibly appreciates Federer—d
Djokovic’s intensity and level of competitiveness rise and fall more than Federer’s or Nadal’s. They can even rise and fall a few times over the course of a single set. You can see some days he doesn’t quite have it in him, other days he’s so intense he almost hyperventilates. Against Federer, he seems to need to convince himself he can compete with him as the match goes on. As many times as he’s beaten him, it's still easy for Djokovic to go back to believing he can’t do it on this particular day.
*
Steve, I for one really enjoyed reading your picks. It’s not about being right or wrong... at least IMHO. Something tells me that you would have a lot more people quibbling on this excellently (as usual) written piece if you included your picks. Please start doing it again for the WTF in a couple of weeks!—Sam
The picks will return. I didn’t do them for Paris because the tournament was already into the second round by the time I got to it, and I really couldn’t see any clear choices or even interesting choices to make.
*
What is the difference between a guy like Berdych who is a slacker, but also a clear choker too (Gasquet is like this too)? Is choking part of slacking?—petewho
Now we’re getting to the deep questions. Choking is just part of tennis, period. You might say that slacking is a way to avoid choking—you don’t put yourself on the line as much. I didn’t include Berdych among my underachievers yesterday, even though for much of his career he has been one (not this season, of course), because he doesn’t have a style of play I particularly like to watch. I’m amazed by his game at times, certainly, but there’s something about the styles and personas (personae?) of Gasquet, Gulbis, and Nalbandian that's more enjoyable to me. It’s hard to define why you like a certain player, but you know it in an instant, don’t you?
*
This time you've done Gasquet type of article: all fluff but no substance. The build-up (or maybe better the prop-up)and the structure (or effort) were impressively amusing; almost a Murray style weave, but not quite there.—noleisthebest
Noleisthebest, you are a tough critic, but you may have found me out here. I had high hopes for the underachiever piece, but it never quite came together the way I wanted it to. I couldn’t find a summary observation for the whole thing. Sometimes you just have to start, not knowing where you’re going to end up. But I thought it had some good individual lines, and I wanted to get the Matt Dillon quote in there. That’s the good part of doing this thing five times a week; you live to post another day.
*
Another argument against Nalbandian being an underachiever is the fact that he has done rather well against the very best, Federer and Nadal: 8-10 and 2-2 respectively. This is includes the fabulous come-from-two-sets-down five-setter win against Roger in the 2005 Year-End Championship final.—Abraxas
Can we statistically decide who is an “underachiever”? Of course it’s all relative—Nalbandian has had a great career, and I hold nothing against him. Like I said, getting up every morning to hit a thousand more forehands would drive me nuts. But to me his records against Federer and Nadal are the main reason I do think of him as an underachiever. Against them he shows us what he’s capable of. But while they own 25 majors between them, he’s got none.
*
FEDtards are biter loosers and HIPPOCRATIC DIFFIMATTORS—
I’ve been trying to put my finger on what FEDtards are for the longest time, and I have to say, I think you've hit the nail on the head (even if it is your own).