ATP Doubles Changes
It's funny that mainstream news tickers didn't carry this article. Tom Tebbutt of
The Globe and Mail wrote in his column about
some format changes the Association of Tennis Professionals plans to implement after the US Open. Tennis-X also mentioned this news yesterday, but at the
very end of a long article.
Apparently, men's doubles matches on the tour will be played without breaks during the changeovers, with tiebreaks at 4-all, and with no-ad scoring. This means that a the final score in a doubles match could look like this: 5-4, 5-3.
These changes are being instituted so that "doubles competition on the men's tour does not clog up the schedule and that an event attracts more top singles players..."
I think that, instead of enticing singles players to join the doubles event at a tournament, it could marginalize men's doubles. You have doubles specialists just like you have singles specialists. Both singles and doubles are part of tennis, regardless of which is more popular.
It would be like playing a pro-set instead of a best-of-five match. John McEnroe can hang with the younger players during a SuperSet match, but he can't keep up that form for at least three sets these days. If this format change occurs, doubles teams who come back from being 3-5 down to win the set 7-5 will be a thing of the past.
Late last year, the
ATP website surveyed its readers about doubles. I was one of the people who responded to their questionnaire. It asked me if I wanted more singles players to play doubles, if scoring should become no-ad, and if time spent conferring between points should be shortened. I said yes to the first, no to the second, and no to the third. I think the ATP might have made the results of that survey (which may have been non-scientific, by the way) the basis for their decision regarding the format changes.
In the Tennis-X article, Todd Woodbridge says this about the changes:
"I'm very disappointed with our (ATP) council, so much so that I think they all should resign because they've gone ahead and made changes without even asking what the rest of the tennis world thinks. They've made a scoring system that doesn't even exist. It's not an approved system by the International Tennis Federation. They've gone and made a decision against what the players also wish. Even the top singles players are scratching their head at this decision. It's disappointing."
Wimbledon Singles Semifinals
Two Mondays ago, there were 128 players. Now, there are four left. Wimbledon seems to have flown by in a flurry of aces and errors, routine wins and upsets. Today, the ladies play their semifinal matches.
The seeding held up for the three top women:
Lindsay Davenport (#1),
Maria Sharapova (#2), and
Amelie Mauresmo (#3). However, there is one unexpected semifinalist:
Venus Williams (#14). Her sister Serena was seeded fourth, but went out in straight sets during her third round match with Jill Craybas after struggling in her first two matches.
Venus is a surprise package; despite her two Wimbledon and US Open titles, she hasn't been beating the top women players for the past two years. Yet she blasted her way to the semifinals without dropping a set by playing the athletic power tennis she was known for. She plays Sharapova today; their
head-to-head record has Sharapova winning the two times they have met. Neither of these occasions were at a Grand Slam tournament, and Maria has incentive to get to the final. After all, she
is defending Wimbledon champion. This will be a match to watch, because both are big hitters. However, television viewers would be well-advised to turn down the volume on their sets while watching, because both are loud grunters (er, screamers?) as well.
In the other half of the draw, Davenport meets Mauresmo. After a brief stint as world number one, Amelie surrendered the top ranking to Lindsay when she had to retire in a final against Lindsay last year. Although Mauresmo made it to the Wimbledon semifinal last year, she suffered a mental lapse (common whenever she plays a big Slam match) and lost to Serena Williams.
Davenport has a better record during Slam tournaments; she has won the Australian Open, Wimbledon, and US Open. This year, she made the French Open quarterfinals despite playing without much interest. Their match may be a testament to whose mental fortitude holds up longer.
Meanwhile, in the men's singles event, the same thing has occurred. The top three seeds Federer, Roddick, and Hewitt are in the semifinals, but the Swede
Thomas Johansson (#12) sneaked in, slaying Slam giant-killers such as David Nalbandian and Max Mirnyi. Johansson (not to be confused with
Joachim Johansson, his countryman and fellow tour player) won the Australian Open in 2002 by defeating Marat Safin. However, that career achievement has been seen as an anomaly. This year, he seeks to prove that perception wrong as he meets Andy Roddick tomorrow.
For the third time in three years, Andy Roddick has reached the Wimbledon semifinals. However, this time around he had to pull out two five-set matches: his second round match against Daniele Bracciali and his quarterfinal versus
Sebastien Grosjean. After losing in five sets at last year's US Open and in this year's French Open second round, I'm relieved to see Andy tough it out and win. However, he needs to play better as his potential opponents may be better able to capitalize on the lapses that put him in the five-set situation.
One of these potential opponents is Roger Federer, who plays Lleyton Hewitt in the other men's semifinal. Federer has dropped only one set in his run to the semifinal, and his
head-to-head record versus Hewitt shows him to be at an advantage. The last seven matches they have played, Federer has won. Federer has also bageled Hewitt five times in those seven matches. In this year's Australian Open and French Open, however, Federer has been beaten in the semifinal round. Can Hewitt avenge his 6-0, 7-6, 6-0 loss from last year's US Open?
I've watched this year's tournament from the start; I'll be watching it finish on Sunday.
(Originally posted on
June 30, 2005.)
Wimbledon Men's Singles
Since I've taken to watching a lot of tennis since last year's Wimbledon (and I don't see any signs of stopping soon), I figure I should probably dedicate at least one post once in a while to discussing this sport I love. This is as fangirlish as I'm gonna get these days. Ü
The most pertinent issue right now, of course, is Wimbledon. It starts on June 20 and will end on July 3. (Aw, shucks. It misses my birthday by a day.) You can bet I'll be tuned in from start to finish.
The reason this tournament rivets me to my seat? Wimbledon is the only major held on grass courts, which are the original surface tennis was played on. (Ever wondered why it's called "Lawn Tennis" at MILO clinics? Now you know.) With a long history and much tradition, Wimbledon is easily the most prestigious tournament on the tennis calendar.
As the
Star Sports promos say, all the great champions have won at Wimbledon. This is why 128 male players and 128 female players are about to converge in London on a raquet and croquet club. This is also why I'm going to watch: to see players make history.
Last year, my favorite male player
Andy Roddick lost to defending champion
Roger Federer in a final between the number one and two seeds. This year, world number one Federer is aiming to make it a three-peat to equal Pete Sampras' record at Wimbledon. However,
Roddick has again been seeded second, despite a slip in rankings to Australian Open 2005 finalist
Lleyton Hewitt and French Open 2005 champion
Rafael Nadal. The number one and two seeds will be placed at the top and bottom of the draw respectively. This ensures that any meeting between Federer and Roddick will take place in the final.
Roddick and Federer aren't the only two contenders for the men's singles title, however, nor is their progress into the final secure. There's still Lleyton Hewitt, a previous Wimbledon winner, seeded third. As the number three seed, he may be randomly placed in either Federer's or Roddick's half of the draw. Hewitt has proven to be Roddick's nemesis in the semifinal of the Australian Open earlier this year and the Pacific Life Open a few months later. Federer has beaten Hewitt soundly the last few times they met, most notably in the final of the US Open 2004 where he bageled Hewitt in the first and third sets.
The fourth seed Rafael Nadal will then be placed in the opposite half of the draw from Hewitt. He beat Federer in a thrilling French Open semifinal and defeated Roddick at the Davis Cup final between Spain and the US. However, both these victories came on slow clay surfaces. Federer narrowly beat Nadal in five sets at the NASDAQ-100 Open on hard court, which was slower than the US Open hard court surface Roddick pounded Nadal on in 2004. Nadal hasn't proven himself on fast surfaces, although he has stated that it is a dream of his to win Wimbledon. He lost in his first match at the grasscourt Gerry Weber Open in Germany last week.
Marat Safin (another favorite of mine) is seeded fifth. This guy is dangerous when he wants to win a match. His biggest opponent, actually, is his mind. Having no motivation last year, he exited Wimbledon in the first round and declared that he was giving up on that particular Slam. This year, he seems to want to be a serious contender at the four slams, overcoming his two-time bridesmaid syndrome at the Australian Open by winning it this year. Although he's stated that he doesn't like grass much, Safin's shown success at the surface this year ; he made it to the Gerry Weber Open final where he fell to Federer in singles and doubles. He hasn't met Roddick in a match this year, aside from an exhibition set that Safin won. However, Roddick had three consecutive victories over Safin in 2004 after losing to him in the quarterfinals of the Australian Open.
Just looking at the top men's seeds at Wimbledon, I'm already relishing the great matches I'm going to watch next week. Don't expect me to sleep much. I'll want to watch Wimbledon live.
(Originally posted on
June 15, 2005.)
Black Cats, Ladders, and Broken Mirrors...
...They've all got nothing on me. I am officially a jinx on anyone I root for at the Australian Open. Case in point number one: Maria Sharapova. After making it through the early rounds, she loses to Serena Williams in the semifinals by running out of steam. (Sharapova steamrolled Williams in their two encounters last year
Case in point number two: Andy Roddick. Tonight was his semifinal match against Lleyton Hewitt. He had gone the whole tournament dropping just one set, and there I was sitting in front of the TV watching him drop two successive ones. I couldn't bear to watch any more, so I switched it off. When I turned it back on again fifteen minutes later, the channel was showing a volleyball match, meaning Andy lost.
To get the results I want, then, maybe I should root for Williams and Hewitt?
I don't know. I think I might jinx myself. Ü
(Originally posted on
January 28, 2005.)
Now Serving
On my Friendster profile, I say I'm into tennis as a spectator (since nobody bothered to enroll me in a tennis class). I got into tennis watching because my mother, her brothers, and her father are huge tennis fans. Whenever I went to visit my maternal grandparents in June, the television would be tuned to a replay of the Wimbledon match that happened in the wee hours of the morning. One of my uncles would be doing a play-by-play because he had already watched it live. My mom would be rooting for Pete Sampras, who was still at the peak of his game. I got dragged into it when I saw that commercial Sampras and Andre Agassi did for Nike, where they set up a net and started playing tennis in the middle of Times Square. I got filled in on their friendly rivalry by my grandfather.
So, last year, when Sampras retired and Agassi was beaten out by Ferrero in the U.S. Open semifinals, I thought I had no more reason to keep watching tennis. It turns out that yes, it was the end of an era, but it was also the beginning of another.
Andy Roddick won that Grand Slam with his powerful serve and became world number one (for a few months). And then Roger Federer with his strong all-around game stepped up, having won Wimbledon and the Australian Open.
You can imagine how many late nights I've been up the last weeks of June 2004, pissed off at the rain delays that kept me from watching Roddick and Federer eliminate their opponents until they finally met on Wimbledon's Centre Court last July 4. World number one and number two facing off: I could barely watch since I couldn't decide who to root for. As always, I ended up rooting for the underdog (Roddick) and thus was devastated by his defeat. But he accepted runner-up position with such grace and good humor that I felt justified in naming him my favorite tennis player.
Anyway, the sports news writers have been trumpeting this Roddick-Federer rivalry as the new Agassi-Sampras. Time will tell if that's going to be the case. I'll be glued to the edge of my seat in the meantime.
(Originally posted on
July 10, 2004.)
