Peter Bodo's TennisWorld

The Deuce Club, 11.20

2009-11-20T17:00:00-05:00

By Jackie Roe, TW Social Director

Evenin', TWibe! I'm still cracking up from last week's Deuce Club, which saw y'all recount your most embarrassing stories. If you missed it, make sure to go back and take a look! Next week is a big one, with the arrivals of the ATP year-ending championship (I still can't bear to call it the WTF) and Thanksgiving. I'm not sure which one I'm looking forward to more - probably depends on what happens at the tournament - but I do know this place'll be buzzing during what's normally a quiet time of the year. Feel free to use today's DC to discuss your predictions and/or frazzle over your favorite's draw, but hold those Thanksgiving thoughts and plans 'til next Friday, when I'll devote this post to the holiday.

I didn't forget about those WTA Awards this time! Better late than never, right? Here are my picks; click here to see how everyone else voted.

Most Valuable Player: Serena Williams.
Most Improved Player: This was tough. My gut tells me to go with Caroline Wozniacki ... but I'm giving Flavia Pennetta an honorable mention.
Breakout Player: Melanie Oudin for the U.S. Open run alone.
Most Disappointing Player: Going with the majority on this one - Ana Ivanovic.
Best Rivalry: Serena vs. Venus is the easy choice. But Dinara Safina vs. the media was an interesting match-up, as well, as was Maria Sharapova vs. Jelena Jankovic, if only for the "Is her last name Jankovic?" quip.
Match of the Year: Another obvious choice - Serena vs. Elena Dementieva at Wimbledon.
Most Inspiring Moment: Kim Clijster's improbable U.S. Open victory.
Most WTF? Performance: (tie) Vera Zvonareva having that spectacular meltdown vs. Flavia Pennetta and Svetlana Kuznetsova completely losing the plot vs. Wozniacki, both at the U.S. Open.

Looks like the USO was a pretty important tournament, huh. Note that I left out a few categories since this was running long, but I'm happy to share my thoughts on the others if you're interested. Just holler in the Comments.

Now on to today's topic - another one that'll help us to get to know one another better. Like last week's, it's inspired by something Andre Agassi-related, but again, I promise I won't get into any of the scandals! He recently completed Vanity Fair's Proust Questionnaire (here's the link), and it got me to thinking about how I'd answer the questions myself. So I decided to do just that; on the VF website, you can take the questionnaire and find out which luminary you most resemble. I was matched with Allen Ginsberg and Jane Goodall. Sure, why not ...

Taking the quiz was a challenge - but in a good way. I found the questions really thought-provoking, and at the end of it all, it gave me a greater understanding of myself. What makes me tick, what I aspire to, what I value in myself and others. And then, to see how others responded to the questions let me in on their inner workings, too. Not to mention, I liked that the questionnaire calls for pithy, short-and-sweet responses. That's part of what makes it so difficult to complete ... and so fun.

I thought it'd be a great idea for us to do this as a group. You can take the questionnaire on the VF site, of course, but then none of us would be privy to your responses! So let's do it right here instead, in the Comments. I cherry-picked my favorite questions out of the bunch, those that I thought would give us the greatest insight into who we all are and how we approach life.

Below are the questions I'd like y'all to consider, along with my answers. Go ahead and set yours up in the same way, and try to whip through 'em quickly so conversation keeps moving. Your initial reaction is probably the truest one, anyway, right?

Here goes:

What is your idea of perfect happiness?
Any scenario involving my family, a beach, Korean food, music, and of course, tennis.

What is your greatest fear?
A loss of control. (See why I don't drink?)

What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?
I put way too much pressure on myself. Goes hand in hand with perfectionism and OCD.

What is the trait you most deplore in others?
Insincerity. Be real, dangit!

What is your greatest extravagance?
Tennis trips! Heck, Indian Wells alone.

On what occasion do you lie?
When telling the truth would only result in hurt feelings.

When and where were you happiest?
I'd like to think it hasn't happened yet. If I had to go with something that has: As a child, being awoken by the sun on a Saturday morning, reaching for an Archie Comic or Nancy Drew mystery, and reading for hours in bed, with my sister Elizabeth doing the same right beside me.

If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
Just one? Maybe ... that I weren't such a crier.

If you could change one thing about your family, what would it be?
That they all lived in the same town as me.

What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?
Not being able to express oneself.

How would you like to die?
Quickly, quietly, and with a smile on my face.

Uh oh, now that OCD is making me want to revise all my responses ... guess that means it's time to turn it over to you! Answer away, and have a great weekend!

Watercooler

2009-11-20T09:00:00-05:00

Good mornin', everyone. I'm here extra early because I'll be long gone by the time you read this; deer season in upstate New York opens Saturday, and my freezer is empty of venison. You'll have a place to gather and talk every day over the weekend, though. Tomorrow morning I'll share some news with you about a new project I've been working on for a few weeks now.

That's all I have for you today, but I'm sure you've got plenty to talk about when it comes to the Barclays ATP World Tour Final. Jackie-Oh! will be around later today with a Deuce Club; not sure what she's cooked up for this week, but drop by later.

And have a great weekend!

-- Pete

Resurgent Insurgencies

2009-11-19T11:41:07-05:00

by Pete Bodo

Howdy. Over the next few days, I'll be looking at the players nd match-ups in the upcoming Barclays ATP World Tour Finals. Y'all know the groups inside-out, and are aware of the most compelling match-up of round robin play: Andy Murray vs. Roger Federer. Del Potro fans might take exception to that, but I think the two men to beat at the YEC are Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic - neither of whom has won a major this year, both of whom are terrific indoor players currently playing well.

Djokovic isn't just playing good tennis- he's on fire, having beaten pretty much everyone in the course of his recent Basel-Paris double; Murray is well-rested after a long layoff to heal his wrist, and when he returned a few weeks ago he immediately won Valencia and got a few more matches under his belt before he lost a close one in Paris to Radek Stepanek (6-4 in the third, third-round). Valencia was Murray's 6th title of the year, the most by any ATP player.

In the big picture, Federer doesn't really need to do anything to further advance or enhance his career; in the small picture, he could do himself a big favor by winning his round robin match with Murray, which will not be played before Tuesday. He needs to do that less because of the rankings picture, or to boost his street cred, than to quell the resurgent/insurgent theories that he's in eclipse.

One thing I've noticed over the years is that certain stories take on a life of their own and eventually become not only inescapable, they also begin to shape reality by unduly influencing it. Dinara Safina learned that recently, in the midst of the controversy surrounding her no. 1 WTA ranking. Can anyone doubt that the relentless ceaseless criticism - hail, the simple fact that the story would not or could not die - the snide, leading press-room interrogations, even the semi-playful banter of Serena Williams (who was thought to be the "real" no. 1) eventually got to Safina, and made her life at the top more rather than less miserable? The girl was emotional toast by the time the US Open unfurled.

Or take Pete Sampras. He also learned what it's like to be steamrolled by what, in political circles, is know as the theory of the Big Lie - the idea that if you shout something long enough, loud enough, enough people are going to buy into it. Sampras learned that during his relative long stretch of patchy play before he won his 14th major at the US Open in September of 2002.

Sampras came into that match having been to just two finals since July of 2000, and he didn't win either of them (Federer's loss to Juan Martin del Potro at the recent US Open was, in some ways, similar to Sampras's stumble against Lleyton Hewitt in the same final of 2001). Worse yet, Sampras had lost in the second and first rounds, respectively, in his previous two majors going into the 2002 American championships. By then, the Is Sampras Finished? theme had morphed into something even more discouraging for the champ: the question that haunted each and every one of his press conferences was, Pete, when are you going to retire?

Sampras was a pretty strong-minded guy. But as the US Open approached, unable to escape the relentless "retirement" question, he became testy and prone to bouts of self-doubt. He started to second guess himself, which often spells the beginning of the end in a sport as confidence-based as tennis. Was he deluding himself, he wondered? One of his great achievements, and it will never show up in the record books, was the mental strength he showed by clinging to the almost inexplicable, deep-down conviction that he still had one major title left in his right arm. And at the point when even his most loyal fans also began to really wonder, he proved himself right.

Right all along, but what a price to pay to prove it: all that stress, all those tiresome questions deflected, but still echoing long after they were tossed off. Once, he literally had to grab the arms of his chair to hold himself down as he began to rise, intent on punching some guy in the nose for asking the "R" question with an unconscious but big, obvious grin on his face.

Federer still has a long way to go before he's in a comparable position, but he can make his own life a lot easier by putting out the small fires before they become big ones. And those fires are going to be ignited every time he plays a tournament and fails to win it. The only real escape from having to endure the always bittersweet experience of leaving the game with the conviction that you'd wrung every ounce of potential out of yourself is to do what Sampras did - make an enormous statement that's at once liberating and undeniably final (Sampras knew better than to get greedy, thinking, Hey, maybe I can grease out another Australian Open, or add one more Wimbledon title).

I don't think Federer is the type who will feel obliged to do that; whatever else you think of him, he's never shown an inclination to rub someone else's nose in the dirt, or throw a big middle finger up in the direction of his critics, or the world in general. But it's hard to imagine that a guy with as much pride as Federer would just end his career at no. 11 in the world, with a string of six or eight or 12 second or third round losses in his wake.

"Injury" is the word that most high-performance athletes fear even more than the letter "L," but physical failure can make the process of leaving the game less painful. The kindest fate for a player in his early 30s may be fading from the game because the body has begun to protest too much. It's the equivalent of showing up at school without having done your homework - but with an airtight note of excuse from the doctor. Bu it's easier to envision that option, years from now, for Rafael Nadal than for Federer, who still looks like he could finish up with tennis and make a fair mid-fielder on the soccer pitch, or replace Derek Jeter as the New York Yankees shortstop.

Okay, just the fact that I'm thinking like this is a little alarming, and certainly premature. On the other hand, it's always a good idea to peek around the corner up ahead, to see what might lie in wait, and use the preview to plan the immediate future. Which is why Federer could do himself a favor by getting past Murray with minimal drama. And that won't be easy.

Murray has a winning head-to-head record against every player in his group, and he's a combined 11-2 against del Potro and Fernando Verdasco. Against Federer, he's 6-3. The agggregate H2H is impressive: 17-5. And this guy still hasn't won a major?

Of course, Murray lost the last time they met (Cincinnati, '09), but he won their four previous meetings, including a 7-5 in-the-third battle at the last YEC. Federer is coming into the match trailing a loss to Djokovic in Basel and a surprising second-round collapse against Julien Benneteau in Paris. You'd be hard-pressed to describe that as a slide, but a poor performance in London might make it one, and considerably complicate Federer's life as the Australian Open begins to bear down - barely a month down the road from the end of the championships.

Federer is at that point in his career when he's beginning to hear footsteps, and not just those of Murray, Djokovic, or Nadal. The crowd includes his most ardent fans as well as his most unapologetic critics, a handful of younger players, and a fleet of media adding to the confusion even as its members protest that they're just trying to cover it. This would be a good time for Roger to pick up the pace a bit, not for the sake of his legacy, but for the simple reason that he's earned to right to enjoy the rest of his career without having to defend the desire to do so.

A well-timed win here or there can help accomplish that. And beating Murray in London would be just such a win. We all know that Federer can spend the rest of his career picking his spots, and this would be a good one to choose, even if there's no no. 16 jacket to be worn in the event he wins.

Every conflagration begins with a tiny match.

Pole Position

2009-11-18T13:03:45-05:00

Mornin'. I'm a little late to the party today, because we had a new podcast to record: subject, Barclays ATP World Tour Finals in London, which for many of you will be the main course of your Thanksgiving meal next week. Just this morning, I had a note from our old Twibe friend, Skip1515, who's going to the attend the event and may send along some of his impressions.

I'm not going to tell you who I picked to win the Tennis Master's Cup in London - you'll have to listen to the podcast (which will go live on the Tennis.com home page tomorrow afternoon) before you start howling in outrage. But here's a hint: the guy has given me a second life as a seer.

Once again, I have to issue the disclaimer: I'm a reporter and analyst, not a fortune-teller given to wearing robes and a conical hat festooned with astrological signs (Little Steven, anyone?. I've seen too many tennis matches - whole tournaments, in fact) run off the rails to feel justified when I make the right call, or ashamed when it's the wrong one. You can put it alongside my profound distaste for bracketology and the endless parsing of draws; everyone has a tough draw (or an easy one) until he doesn't, and if that sounds a little hippy-dippy, so be it. To the players, I say shut-up and just win the thing; to the fans I say shut-up and tip your hat to the guy who won. Tennis is a reality-based game.

Besides, where's the fun in picking Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, or Rafael Nadal to win?

Well, these opinions certainly aren't shared by one and all; if they were, there would be less to talk about, and we all know that jawing about the draw is as fine a way to vent emotions and opinions as any other. So put on your pundit caps and fire away, but remember that these round-robin setups are tricky, because to some degree all the matches played after day 1 are conditioned by what happened on the previous day, or days, when it comes to the match-ups. One man's "must-win" is often his opponent's "can lose." I do like the basic round-robin approach, and believe that these tournaments produce credible results. But they're a different kind of animal.

The example I always trot out in this discussion is Ilie Nastase. The guy was a basket case at Grand Slam events (he won "only" two of five major finals), given his talent level. But he was hail on wheels at the annual Masters events, winning the year-end championships four times, which leaves him tied with Roger Federer in that department). I put it down to the fact that Nastase knew that he could lose a match and, in some cases, even two matches, and still wind-up in the semi-finals. That took considerable pressure off him, and helped quell some of the anxieties to which he was prone in single-elimination events.

And while we're on the Tennis Masters Cup, how about a hat-tip to "the Poles" (As one ATP Tour headline recently put it, Verdasco and Poles Complete Barclays ATP World Tour Finals Field! - it looks like I'm not the only one who gets irritated by having to tab back-and-forth between my document and the ATP website to make sure I spell correctly the names of Marius Fyrstenberg and Marcin Martkowsi). Still, while the Polish duo (pictured here) did a good job closing the deal on qualification in the last few weeks of the season, I was sad to see that their resounding, berth-clinching win over Mike and Bob Bryan in Paris also knocked out of contention those old warhorses, Wesley Moodie and Dick Norman.

It would have been nice to see Moodie and Norman in the big show, even if they were hobbling in with the aid of walkers.

-- Pete

The Silk Shirt

2009-11-17T12:42:54-05:00

by Pete Bodo

You gotta love The Mighty Fed. Just about the time that everyone is trying to adjust to a world in which Roger Federer doesn't - or maybe, no longer can - win everything in sight, he comes out with this (in an interview with Paul Kimmage of The Times of London):

"I'm midway [through my career]. It feels like the second part of my career right now, although I am trying to avoid saying that because the second part sounds like ‘neehhhhrrrrr' [motions straight down]. You can definitely play your greatest tennis until 32 or 33, it's just a matter of how you look at it. I've always been a big believer in looking at the big picture. It's not about, ‘What will we do tomorrow?', it's about, ‘How will my life and tennis look in the next five years?' And I still have the same vision, so that's going to help me."

I had laugh out loud when I read that - especially the "neehhhrrr" bit. Anybody want to talk about handling pressure with grace? Actually, the entire piece is a good read; you could call it TMF's Sermon on the Mount - a discourse on how to handle being the guy with the target on his back in perpetuity, a meditation on the importance of taking joy and pleasure out of even a stressful life, an exposition of the workings of the mind of a confident, imperturbable genius. This guy needs a coach! It may be the dumbest thing I've ever said (but stick around, there's always tomorrow).

If you want to understand Federer, you really need to start with the fact that despite his resemblance to a regular if very nicely-dressed guy, he really is different; you have to throw out everything you known about other guys who have walked in similar shoes.

For example, look at the contrast between the way Federer and his pal Pete Sampras drove on to greatness. Having written Pete's book, A Champion's Mind, with him a couple of years ago, I feel pretty qualified to make this comparison. Pete took his mission to make the most of his God-given talent as a challenge, and decided a few years into his pro career that he was willing to make the sacrifices required to fulfill his destiny. His drive to secure that sixth-consecutive year-end number 1 ranking (a first-order record that is now safe even from Federer,which makes it hard to imagine anyone every toppling it) almost wrecked him; the day he won his record, 14th singles title, he was ready to quit. Sampras had as deep and abiding a love for the game as any player who ever laced them up, but he grew tired of having to wear the hair shirt.

Federer's shirt, by contrast, is made from silk. And you can't help but notice how much, well, easier, it all seems for him. In the interview, he even mentions how he decided to take pleasure out of the things that drive so many pros batty - the travel, the itinerant lifestyle, the 24/7 bugle-call of competition. Once Federer decided that winning majors and making a run at the record established by Sampras was a worthwhile goal, he essentially shrugged and decided: Well, it's going to be a bear, but I may as well have fun doing it. . .

And that's a conclusion that escaped most of our other, recent male tennis icons. Bjorn Borg, Ivan Lend and Sampras were all about the discipline of greatness (anyone else notice that the word "discipline" just doesn't appear to be part of Federer's vocabulary, and probably won't be, until his twins, Wimby and Rolanda (sic) start school?). Jimmy Connors was all about bringing the poor schmo across the net to his knees, begging for mercy. John McEnroe's schtick was, as that successful but cheesy reprise of the famous James Dean Rebel Without a Cause poster (on behalf of Nike) demonstrated, mostly about being the misunderstood, alienated genius. And what is Roger Federer about? Try enjoying life; having fun. Nike probably rejected the idea of a poster: We can't dress Roger up like Cyndi freakin' Lauper!

Andy Roddick, 16-14 in the fifth in the Wimbledon final? Hahahahaa! Isn't this great! Rafael Nadal, beating him to a pulp on the red clay? Man, this is going to hurt in the morning, but it's kind of cool seeing all those Spanish princes and stuff here . . . Juan Martin del Potro at the US Open? Alright, I had him, but you can't win 'em all and did you catch that serve of his, pretty awesome, huh?

I can think of only one aspect of Federer's legacy that may be negative. It's going to make you wonder why all those other guys seemed so tortured, why everything had to be so danged dramatic, like in some stupid Ken Russell flick. No matter what Andre Agassi might say, it's possible to love this game, from beginning to end. The "sacrifice" narrative is a gripping, honorable one, great fodder for hero-worshippers, role-model seekers, and amateur psychologists.

But what about the "fun" narrative?

Federer has made his life in pro tennis seem a little like the story of a a teen-ager who got to go snowboarding instead of back to school for the entire month of January. Sure he wiped out a bunch and got a little tired as Februrary bore down, but it sure beat struggling with geometry.

It turns out that even that tearful, post-Australian Open final moment earlier this year wasn't nearly as traumatic as some wanted, or hoped, it was. When Federer, wiping way a tear, said, "God, this is killing me. . .", he was referring to having to make a speech while in the grip of turbulent emotions, not the actual, emotional pain of losing. It was more like having to talk to your mother on the phone while sitting in the dentist's chair, having a cavity drilled, than having to address the mourners at your best friend's funeral.

I thought this nugget from the interview especially telling:

He (Federer) begins with a story about a script he received for a commercial for Nike with Tiger Woods in 2007. "We had these different lines," he explains, "and I was reading through it and said" ' I’d like to take the text where it says, ‘I love winning’. And they said, ‘Well, that works perfectly because Tiger says he hates losing’. So that’s a part of it, I suppose. I feel I’m the ‘love winning’ rather than the ‘hate losing’ type.”

This is a pretty radical confession, given what we know about most great players, who fall almost exclusively into the Woods camp on the subject. And it's easy to underestimate how difficult it is to take the Federer stance on this, either naturally (which almost never happens) or through a lot of hard work on the mental aspects of competition. For you risk a lot more when you hitch your wagon to the idea of winning instead of the fear of losing, in roughly the same way that it's a lot easier to avoid doing bad than it is to actively do good.

The desire to win is driven by hope and optimism; the hatred of losing draws to a greater degree on fear, a constant looking over your shoulder. The guy who hates losing stands in danger of becoming a hoarder, a miser. The guy who loves winning stands a chance to become rich and make others wonder how come he's so "lucky."

And let's be frank about this: haven't we all thought, at one time or another, that Federer is lucky? That he's got that "easy" game, that rational, even-tempered nature, all those cupcake draws, all those unworthy Grand Slam final opponents, greasing the skids for his slide to tennis immortality. If Nadal wouldn't have come up lame at Roland Garros, Federer would still be chasing Sampras! Yeah. Cry me a river, begrudging his success. Then try opening your eyes, unclencing your fists, and relaxing that frown on your face.

As Roger well knows, life can be fun. And so can tennis.

PS - This is also your Watercooler post for today.