by Pete Bodo

The Fed Cup final starts tomorrow, although you wouldn't know it from the media black-hole the event occupies. That's okay, there's something nice - and enjoyable - about having an event all to ourselves, right? So get ready to laze around tomorrow and Sunday, taking in last bit of tennis worth watching.

My own feeling is that compared to the recent Sony-Ericsson Championships and the suspiciously oxymoronic Commonwealth Tournament of Champions (Bali), the Fed Cup will be easy on the eyes (how can you beat red clay and the sunshine of a southern Italian resort town - or Flavia Pennetta for that matter, on that score?). I also expect it to be a colorful, spirited battle, rather than the limp to the finish line of another season, featuring antsy and cranky tennis starlets.

The big question, to my mind, is just how competitive we can expect the USA to be in this final. Flavia Pennetta and  Francesca Schiavone have demonstrated that when it comes to Fed Cup, they deliver as reliably as Fed Ex. Plus, they're playing on home turf. In fact, while this squad has brought home the Fed Cup before (2006, from Belgium, and by the same squad that will take the clay tomorrow) this is the first Fed Cup final ever held on Italian soil. And we have this: The Italians have yet to beat the USA in nine meetings; can you say "payback?" So the Americans have their work cut out for them. if they want to avoid being ground under the boot heel of Italy.

But before we wade into the match-ups, I should tell you all that I have a new post up at ESPN on the one-year suspensions laid upon two Belgian players (Yanina Wickmayer and Xavier Malisse) yesterday.

The sentiments I expressed in the post haven't changed overnight, and I see that Wickmayer has voluntarily withdrawn from Bali. While suffering a one-year and potentially career-ending (Malisse) or derailing (Wickmayer) suspension seems harsh, given that it's merely for missing tests instead of testing positive, this towering question still looms: If the "whereabouts" rule is so onerous, how come the other players, from Roger Federer and Serena Willliams to Vince Spadea and Jill Craybas, have been able to work with it?

The original news bulletin about the suspensions never mentioned that in addition to missing a test, Malisse violated the "whereabouts" rule on two other occasions. That's a little disturbing. So is the fact that both players are Belgians, when you consider how few players from that nation are afoot on the tours. It suggests a potential link in their cases, although that's purely circumstantial.

I suppose you can also choose to interpret this unexpectedly harsh decision (just weeks ago, it was thought that the two players would slip away with just a warning) as a "signal" being sent in the wake of Andre Agassi's revelations. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But nobody fabricated the actionable charges against the two players, so, looking it at it that way just serves mainly to muddy the waters - but that seems to happen in every single doping case that comes to light anyway.

Those hostile to the anti-doping effort are always going to find a double-standard, injustice, or prejudice in play; vigorous proponents of a "clean" sport will always retort that most of those details are circumstantial at best, while a positive test, or clear, uncontested violations of the "whereabouts" rule not only warrants action, it demands it.

People sometimes forget that last bit. What are you supposed to do if  you're a doping control agent, ignore clear, fact-based evidence because it might result in controversy, or even damage to the sport? Once a system is put in place, the only thing worse than potential injustice is selective or non-enforcement of the regimen's provisions. We'll see what Malisse and Wickmayer have to say for themselves in the appeal process.

On to Fed Cup. 

The draw broke well for the Italians, and it's not like they've needed help from the gods. Pennetta has been having a career-year since about the mid-point of 2009, and Schiavone has drafted behind her. Pennetta will meet Alexa Glatch in the opening match. More important, Francesca Schiavone, who meets Melanie Oudin in the second match, is well-positioned to delier a potential knockout blow. She's had a smoking-hot hand lately; in her last two tournaments, she was a finalist (Osaka) and a champion (Moscow).

Say what you want about the quality of those events, or the competition Schiavone faced - I think any player would rather win a second or even third-rate event than lose in the third or fourth round of a major. It's not just about the ranking points, either. It's about winning matches. Those W's are like potato chips, you just can't get enough of them.

Schiavone didn't beat a single player ranked above her (she lost to the only one she met, in the Osaka final, no. 15 Slammin' Sammy Stosur). But don't underestimate what nine wins in 10 matches can do for a girl when she's going up against a relatively inexperienced opponent who's ranking nearly doubles her own (Oudin is no. 49).

The head-to-head records of the singles players tell an interesting story, if the nearly absolute lack of story can be said to be tantalizing. There is no telling H2H detail; Alexa Glatch played Flavia Pennetta at Roland Garros this year, and won one-and-one. But Pennetta was playing hurt. Glatch has has never played Schiavone, and Penetta has never clashed with Oudin. The only other match-of-record was Schiavone's one-and-one rubout of Oudin at Indian Wells in 2008. It's foolish to draw conclusions based on that match; at the time, Oudin was no. 320 in the world and just testing the waters of the pro tour. She's a different player today.

This tabula rasa may work for the heavy underdogs from the USA. The Italians may not be overly worried about Glatch (who hasn't played well in 2009), but you know they're wondering if Oudin, the crowd darling they couldn't help but watch at the US Open has become a force. Heck, everyone is wondering that in the wake of Oudin's sensational run in New York, which leaves her nicely positioned to add to a resume already sprinkled with unexpected heroics.

I expect Oudin to do well on clay, partly because she has great wheels but also because of her nerve. She's a very tough player to beat, unless you can tee off on her serve. But it's harder to hurt a woman with a return on clay, especially if you're not looking to go for broke. We all know how many problems a high-quality competitor with a solid, consistent game can pose on red dirt.

The pressure on the Italian squad will be significant, and that's always in play in Fed or Davis Cup. The same details that point toward an Italian win, including the one-two punch of a weak record against the US and the home court advantage, can be turned inside-out very quickly. However, the Italians ought to be sufficiently veteran not to be spooked into such a reversal of terms.

On paper, Glatch's chances are slim to none, but this is the same girl who, in the USA's last meeting (and her Fed Cup debut), won both her singles against excellent players who had the home-court advantage: Iveta Benesova and Petra Kvitova. In fact, she lost just six games in the process. But the Czechs held the tie on an indoor hard court, which also worked out nicely for the Californian, Glatch. The question of how she'll fare against crafty veterans on clay is an open one.

This tie could be much closer than it may appear, and it could be decided by the doubles - in which case the USA is really in with a chance, what with Leizel Huber (the world's no. 1 doubles player) on the squad. Huber is, according to Fed Cup captain Mary Jo Fernandez, the "unquestionable" leader of this team, and she was the linch-pin in the two narrow victories that brought the USA to southern Italy. That gives the Italians something to ponder, and makes securing the tie before the doubles a high priority. Vania King (a last-minute substitute for Serena Williams) is no slouch in doubles.

I'll be up front about this: I really like both of these teams; they personify gritty, no-nonsense tennis, and cover the spectrum from sophisticated to youthfully exuberant. I'd be pulling for the Italian girls without a moment's hesitation - if they were playing anyone but this particular USA team, the survivor of two 3-2 decisions. Call them the Bad News Bearettes. I think they'll be be causing plenty of mischief in the honey-hole of Reggio Calabria.

by Pete Bodo

Mornin'. All eyes are shifting toward Paris as we approach the final high-value tournament of the year, the BNP Paribas Masters, known more colloquially as Paris Bercy.

As indifferent as I've sometimes been, at least in some contexts, to the fall (mostly) indoor season, I've got to tip my hat to this long-lived event. Back when tennis pros valued any opportunity to play for significant prize-money, especially at times of year when the outdoor tennis actions is slow, Bercy was a talent magnet, and over the years the promoters managed to grow it into a noteworthy event.

Bercy wasn't just a fun indoor tournament; it was the fall indoor event (much like the US Pro Indoors, in Philadelphia, was the winter indoor event in the US). As the ATP flourished and the pro game became more of a seller's market, Bercy suffered. The quality of the field declined, and those who did show up often found it difficult to muster the energy and urgency to play their A games in Paris in somber November. Tomas Berdych, David Nalbandian and Sebastian Grosjean have won the prestigious title in recent years; Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Andy Roddick have not.

But Paris Bercy has survived the epidemic of top-player fatigue and gotten over the ultimate hump for every tennis tournament promoter. It's evolved into an event that is less reliant on the participation and performance of the very top stars than on the support of fans and corporate sponsors. In other words, Bercy  - like the handful of other top drawer events - is bigger than any of the players who may or may not play it, or even than any combination of said  players.

However, judging by the news today, Bercy as we know it may not have much longer to go. The good news is that it may be transformed into something better. It seems that the tournament promoter, the FFT (French Federation of Tennis, the French ITF affiliate) is eyeing moving the event to Roland Garros.

That's right. I suggest you bring that goofy "stadium blanket" that zips up to wrap you in a cacoon for enduring November weather in a sports stadium.

Well, not exactly. Bercy would be moved to Roland Garros if the mayor's office in Paris approves the FFT's plans to build a new stadium at the traditional Roland Garros grounds (see photo above). Alternatively, the FFT also has drawn up specs for adding the hot new Grand Slam accessory to the present Court Centrale, a retractable roof (photo below). The main stumbling block to either plan is opposition from green groups and local residents in the fashionable Boulogne neighborhood where Roland Garros sits, surrounded by elegant suburban homes on chestnut-tree lined streets. You can read the details here.

I haven't seen the blueprints for the new, stand-alone stadium, but I have seen the preliminary drawings for the retractable roof. It will be interesting to see the politics in Paris play out, because the opponents of both proposed renovations are no dummies. While they may not have a problem with the idea of a roof that can be closed in the event of rain, they also know that a retractable roof (and the price tag it will carry) may foretell a shift to a split-session format during Roland Garros. And the neighbors probably don't want to deal with a more or less 24/7 tennis event lasting two weeks. Frankly, the traffic issues that seem inevitable under a two-session program are nothing to scoff at. 

Because the battle lines are so firmly drawn, I imagine that the FFT knows it won't get what it wants, and has done what any good negotiator would - position his hopes as a second or third option. That is, the FFT may want a retractable roof badly enough to insist that what it really wants is a new stadium, suitable for year-round play. That way, if the stadium idea is shot down, the FFT can appeal to the good nature of its opponents and hope to get approval for the retractable roof as a compromise measure - and the first important step down what the opposition must see as a slippery slope to an imperial expansion of Roland Garros.

But look at it this way: It wouldn't be hard for the city of Paris to insist, and legally forbid, split sessions under a sliding roof. Wimbledon, after all, has promised that it will never go to a split-session format despite having a roof with adequate lighting for it.

The FFT is also threatening to abandon Roland Garros entirely, should neither of its proposals win approval. In some ways, this would be a logical step despite the inevitable pain and outcry such a break with tradition would trigger. Roland Garros, despite its size and the significant, wonderfully-executed upgrades of recent years, is in the same position the West Side Tennis Club (formerly the home of the US Open) and Kooyong (the tennis club that hosted the Australian Open before the event moved to Melbourne Park) were in 15 or 20 years ago, and Wimbledon remains in today. All three of those Grand Slam events were played in an exclusive club in the suburban neighborhood of a metropolis. Ironically, Roland Garros is the only major that didn't strike its roots in a private club.

But that oddity is incidental; Roland Garros may just as well be a private tennis club. It has a similar footprint and relationship to the neighborhood where it exists. Maybe it isn't such a crazy idea to move the event (there goes the FFT's aggressive, somewhat irritating drive to "brand" its major as Roland Garros, rather than the French Open). By doing so, the French would merely be following the trail broken by the USTA when it moved to the National Tennis Center, and Tennis Australia when it re-located in Flinder's (now Melbourne) Park.

The Roland Garros site is historic. But it's become increasingly crowded, and while that's added to the allure of the event, it's also true that the US and Australian Opens have really flourished after moving to larger, public spaces. The move from Kooyong absolutely saved the Australian Open from becoming an irrelevant major. Only nostalgic contrarians believe that the US Open was more fun and offered better spectator value back when it was held at the West Side Tennis Club. Both events have prospered, spectacularly, in their newest homes.

Somehow, moving Roland Garros seems like heresy - wasn't it just yesterday that the FFT built the Bullring, and christened the new, spectacular Court Suzanne Lenglen?  It would seem both a shame and a waste to abandon those familiar landmarks. But our yesterdays run together, and time passes faster than we think. Tennis's track record of looking to the future, at least as far as the Grand Slam events are concerned, has been wise and productive.

Maybe moving Roland Garros isn't such a bad idea after all.

PS - I suggest you stay on-topic at this post for a few hours before you drift off into general chatter about today's tennis, or other topics.