The Rally: Canuck Special Edition

!Ar We're Rallying about Canada today—please, save your applause for later. Tennis.com editor Ed McGrogan, who has been in Montreal this week, talks with me about the food, the fans, and the various curveballs that the two events have been throwing at us for the last five days.

TIGNOR: There have been plenty of surprises at both Canadian tournaments so far, but "surprise" has much more meaning on the men's side these days. Three of the top four seeds, the guys who have been so reliable over the last two years, are gone before the quarterfinals. That's always a trade-off: exciting in the moment, but it can leave the rest of the tournament less dramatic and meaningful. It was a bummer to see Ivan Dodig have to traipse out the next afternoon after his epic win over Nadal and go down to Tipsarevic—we were just getting to like the guy.

Speaking of the Montreal tournament itself, how are you liking it? We've both been to Toronto and Montreal now. In my experience, the Montreal crowds, especially at night, are more vocal and (relatively speaking) intense—more French. Toronto felt much more laid-back and midwestern to me. But I've heard people say the opposite of the two tournaments. How do the two cities and venues compare to you?

MCGROGAN: I would normally say the early losses of Murray, Nadal and Federer devalue this tournament, but Novak Djokovic could come to the rescue, presuming he doesn't become the fourth star to fall in four days. He has a loss on his record now, of course, but it feels to me like we're back on the streak again.

As surprising as the upsets have been, you could explain each of them away—Murray lost his openers in Indian Wells and Miami, Nadal has some health questions, Federer just lost to Tsonga at Wimbledon. If Djokovic were to lose to any of his remaining competition in the later rounds, even Frenchmen Monfils or Tsonga in the friendly confines of Montreal, it would be quite a story. And personally, I'm good with the five Djokovic-Nadal finals for now. Looking at the quarterfinalists, what's your ideal Sunday match?

I've written that side-court tennis isn't this tournament's specialty—even its intimate but sizable second court, Banque Nationale, feels like an afterthought. But its main court, inside Stade Uniprix, shines. It has the right amount of seating, an arena-like feel, and as you mentioned, it draws some excitable crowds. It feels like the event's heartbeat, delivering even during the undercard matches. I can't say that for many center courts, which are usually distant and bland, like Toronto's Rexall Centre.? There's also the fact that the Montreal Masters is located close to the city center, near a metro stop, which may account for its livelier feel. The Toronto Masters, held north of downtown in York, is a little sleepier in comparison. Still, I felt it offered more to the fans that just its primary court. Overall, advantage Montreal.

TIGNOR: It's true, I would not say that we learned a whole lot from these upset men's losses—though "learned," a favorite term of sportswriters, is generally too strong a word for any non-Slam result. At the Masters events we mostly just watch and wait and speculate as to how a match will affect a player, and then half the time it doesn't affect them in the way we thought it would. Even Djokovic's loss to Fed at the French didn't end up signaling much of anything.

We'll need to see Cincy to begin to talk about trends, but Federer's loss was probably the least surprising and most disheartening for his fans. He got rolled in that third set; Federer used to elevate, but this time it was the younger, stronger Tsonga who was the elevator, so to speak—but that's tennis and that's life; younger people always come along and push us closer to the grave.

Nadal's loss is a wait and see; it could, possibly, perhaps, maybe, be a sign of a new mental vulnerability in the key moments, or it could be a sign of nothing at all. As far as Djokovic, the one thing I've found interesting with him at this tournament is the way that Nikolay Davydenko played him—it was a classic "I'm playing the No. 1 guy in the world," reaction. Davydenko came out like he had nothing to lose, got an early lead, and then tightened up. Being No. 1 is a mixed blessing in that way, but the aura is beneficial in the end. Now Djokovic is getting a taste of it.

How about the women? Do you like this dual Masters in different locations setup? It's been a little strange on TV. We've had Sharapova and Nadal on at the same time, which is kind of a nightmare for a TV producer. As far as learning things on the WTA side, it's seems that Serena means business—good—that Petra Kvitova remains whiplash-inducing in her inconsistency—not so good—and that Radwanska may be a little more closer to being for real than we believed—very good.

MCGROGAN: I've caught more of the women's tournament than I'd anticipated—the Toronto feed is shown throughout the grounds and is presented on television as a combined broadcast. I've also seen it on at bars and restaurants, something totally foreign back home. As is the concept of poutine (fries slathered with gravy and cheese curd), a heart-palpitating regional offering I'm looking forward to trying this weekend.

The big seeds have been decimated there, too, and we'd probably be paying more attention to it had the same thing not occurred in Montreal. I can't recall the last time three majors were won by first-time champions in one season, but that could happen this year, what with Zvonareva, Azarenka and Wozniacki looking full of confidence one week and meek the next. Still, you just never know, as we saw at Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Or, as you seem to suggest, the U.S. Open could be Serena's latest coronation. She'll be 30 after that tournament, and Federer's already reached that age. Who do think will play longer, win more tournaments, etc.? I feel like they are in similar yet completely different positions.

As for the two Rogers Cups, I'm guessing Tennis Canada liked it better when one followed the other; it was like their own Grand Slam. But now that they're played simultaneously, I can understand the thought behind trying to shuttle the men and women between the two, so fans in one city don't have to wait a year to see a particular tour. The logistics would be tough, and the weather (poor, this week) could really mess with the scheduling, but I actually liked the idea of a multi-city tournament. It's unique, and there's about 40 weeks of one-town stops anyway. Is the idea crazy enough to work, or just Charlie Sheen crazy?

TIGNOR: Charlie Sheen crazy—is that the opposite of "crazy like a fox"? Crazy for crazy's sake—call him the artist of crazy.

I don't think I've tried poutine; I'm not sure about cheese curd, exactly, either. But let me know. The restaurants are the best thing about Montreal, in my opinion. And the main stadium is indeed a slightly worn gem; too bad that means it probably has to be demolished. Gem=demolition in the world of sports arenas. But men's Masters can seem a little sleepy in general compared to the Slams and Indian Wells/Key Biscayne.

TV coverage here has been novel and generally successful, in my opinion, except for the glaring and head-scratching lack of any evening coverage last night. I like having the men and women at the same time and shuttling between them, but nothing is ever perfect in the eye of a tennis fan. Speaking of TV, today I tried the "String Thing," that device that Mark Philippoussis has been hawking on the Tennis Channel—where he utters the unfortunate but appropriate phrase, "it's a no brainer." It was kind of clunky in my pocket, and I realized that my strings don't move that much to begin with. I don't know whether this means I'm a good player, bad player or what, but it makes the string thing less than essential.

Anyway, whether or not Serena wins the Open, I would like to see her continue to play well, if only to provide a developing narrative to the women's game, rather than the stops and starts and ups and downs and zigs, zags, and U-turns we keep getting. Kvitova wins Wimbledon and then looks awful here. Li does something big every five months. Ivanovic is promising one week, and then goes out to Vinci the next. Serena's success would also be a counter to the growing narrative of disaster that's surrounding Wozniacki, who seems at the moment to be starting down the same lost highway ridden by former No. 1s Safina, Jankovic, and Ivanovic.

Most of all, I'm hoping for a Radwanska revolution. She's taking a break from her father/coach, and is playing much better. She looks like the bionic woman this week, with that shoulder patch, but she's an aficionado's choice, a player's player, etc. As for the men, do you see any challenge to Djokovic? And do you think this tournament could do anything significant for Fish? At some point, he's got to start believing that he's a player and contender, doesn't he? K-Swiss Big Shot ad aside, he seems to stubbornly hold onto to his comfortable status in the second tier.

Still, maybe the best thing about the Canadian Opens is that you don't have to worry about the results all that much. Both in person and on TV, they exist on their own, tennis tournaments played for our summer entertainment, enjoyed in the moment and soon forgotten.

My final question: Have you had any entertaining experiences with players in the van rides from the hotel to the site? My fondest memory of Toronto last year is listening to Sam Querrey in the seat next to me singing along, in unabashed near-falsetto, to Katy Perry. Another reason to miss old Sam.

And as for Serena's vs. Roger's future, I wouldn't be surprised to see Serena win one at 35.

MCGROGAN: It's been two straight summers of a heavy Fish diet, but only if he actually wins this tournament would I say his result is something significant. We talk about players having a "ceiling," and Fish's is obvious: He's reached five Masters semis but never won a shield, and is a combined 1-18 against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, though that one win came in the semifinals of Indian Wells. Fish reminds me of James Blake, another American who, in his prime, threatened to break through at the Masters level but never did. I think Mardy will need to serve lights-out to win the final, should he get there, but who would have thought we'd be talking about Ivan Dodig this week? Maybe Djokovic is due for a defeat, like his Top 4 brethren, or maybe this is the tournament where he breaks away from the pack even further—all this chaos will result in a measurable ranking point swing.?But I want to see Janko/Djoko, which might be the ATP's answer to Sharapova/Azarenka.

I'm hoping to see more of Montreal this weekend, including a good restaurant, but I'll leave you with some of other memories so far:

—The ball boys don't roll or throw the balls to each other here, they bounce them, and they don't hold back. It's impressive.

—Listening to Montreal radio in the hotel shuttle, which plays songs that bounce back and forth between French and English lyrics. It seems like everyone is bilingual here; you can get definitely by on English alone. But no, we've definitely missed Sam here.

—In the subway cars, the station names (mostly historical figures) are explained on display screens. That would be a nice touch in New York, which has some great place names like Astor Place, Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets and, of course, the Bowery.

—Watching tennis before you play, so you can get pumped up for it—a hat tip to Racquet Reactor Tom Tebbutt and Tennis Grandstand's Mike McIntyre for indulging me—and then afterward, so you can appreciate how good all the pros are.

And that's what I'll be doing the rest of this weekend, starting tonight with Djokovic-Monfils.