Tennis Hall of Shame

Interesting set of predictions. Among other things, that doping will be found in tennis; that new (and retro) forms of drugs will be used in droves to evade testing; and that testing itself will become too expensive and will need to be discontinued in favor of hormone profiling. Makes sense to me; whatever one may think about drugs in sports I don't like the way the testing authorities spout moral encomiums while violating every principle of democratic civil liberties.

wg

Posted by at 10:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In contrast to the singles (and also to the women's doubles at WTA YECs), the YEC doubles draw is filled with all top eight teams. The ATP may have declared war on doubles in other ways, but the YECs give doubles their proper due and play out a full round robin among the eight teams and follow the same format as the singles.

It seems clear from the standings that Paes-Zimonjic will go through to the semis; we'll pick Bryan/Bryan to go with them; in the other group we'll pick Black/Ulyett and Bjorkman/Minyi despite their loss to Huss/Moodie (who are, despite their lack of fame, the Wimbledon champions).

Given the changes the ATP is trying to implement, this may be the last year that doubles survives in anything like its original form, so if you have the chance to see any of these matches, best enjoy it.

wg

Posted by at 1:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As injury-wracked as the WTA year-end championships were (and note that I managed to choose wrong in almost every match I called), the ATP YECs have been arguably worse.

The women were missing three of the four Grand Slam champions, Henin-Hardenne with a hamstring injury and both Williams sisters because they weren't ranked high enough to qualify (after missing much of the year through injury and/or apathy). But the YECs still had seven of the top eight -- everyone turned out for the YECs who qualified other than JHH. It was *Philadelphia* that bore the brunt of player withdrawals, at least some of which were almost certainly partially due to the players realizing they didn't need the points to qualify.

The men's YECs are down to only one of the top five, they're missing two of the year's three Grand Slam champions, and they're flying the 14th ranked player (Thomas Johansson) in from Monte Carlo to be an alternate in case anyone more pulls out. The worst, I think, was Agassi -- even if he was injured, this is the third time he's lost a match or two, then cried injury and gone home. Of course, he's 36, and it's almost impossible that he *doesn't* have some injury that's bothering him at any given time, but the pattern is striking. Safin's missed half a year, hard to argue with that; Nadal at least came out on court and apologized; Roddick always looked like a candidate for back problems the way he sticks his ass out when he serves; and Hewitt...well, I know his wife's having a baby, and one must approve of his desire to be by her side...but...oh, well, where's Concorde when you need it?

The YECs always looked like being Federer's tournament in any case. Roddick and Hewitt haven't beaten him on any surface in more than two years, Safin (who beat him in Australia) hasn't played in months, and Nadal is arguably still learning to play on faster surfaces (and said before he withdrew that he didn't like the Shanghai surface). Coria lost all his matches last year, and was predictably going to repeat the performance this year (and has so far); the alternates (Gaudio, Puerta) are clay-court players.

Of the draw, the players you'd expect to make the semis:

Federer
Ljubicic (Nalbandian's a versatile player, but Ljubicic has had a better record at the beginning and end of this year)

Davydenko
probably Gonzalez

Gonzalez is a tough pick: he's got a better game for fast courts than Gaudio or Puerta (both of whom are clay-courters even though Puerta can serve and volley), but he comes in at the disadvantage of not being prepared and having only two matches to play, both of which he has to win to qualify for the semis. But it's hard to choose against him, because of the surface.

Final picks: Federer vs Lubicic

To win: Federer.

Going back to the injury problems (and bear in mind that Federer only a few weeks ago was on crutches with an ankle injury he's apparently been able to rehab in time): the players keep saying that the season is too long and too brutal and that their bodies can't take it. Clearly *something* important has changed just in the last ten, maybe even five, years -- players got injured in the 1980s and 1990s, too, but not on this scale and in this quantity. There are lots of reasons that have been frequently mooted why this happens: the preponderance of hard courts, both on the tour and as training grounds for young players; the age at which kids start to play intensively now; the pace of the game; the schedule. But I think the overgrowth of money in the game is also a contributing factor, and one no one is talking about. When players *had* to have long careers if they hoped to retire in any comfort, they were forced to take better care of their bodies and think long-term. Now that you can be more than set for life with one big win (Sharapova's 2004 Wimbledon win netted her $21 million a year in endorsements, by most estimates), the rule seems to be to go for broke, cash in, and then you don't have to care what the promoters or anyone else needs. The exception is, of course, Federer, who genuinely seems to care about playing for history. But he *is* the exception, and he's also unusual in apparently limiting his off-court commitments.

wg

Posted by at 1:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Have to pick Pierce, I think, against Mauresmo in the final. Hopefully will be a good match with no injury dramas or choking.

More shame for the WTA: utter failure to promote the doubles, which features some terrific players. Raymond/Stosur invisibly beat Martinez/Ruano Pascual last night, and Black/Stubbs beat Likhovtseva/Zvonareva. (Black actually qualified with two partners, an achievement which has been utterly ignored; Huber, with whom she won Wimbledon, got injured, and she's played with Stubbs ever since). The number one ranking is up for grabs between, I think, Black and Samantha Stosur, and these four players will wind up the top four, but I'm not sure in what order. Great drama -- and should be a great match -- if the WTA cared to exploit it. Why not sell doubles by offering it to broadcasters free? Why don't broadcasters show it to fill in time instead of reruns of the match you just saw? Shame rating: 5.

Eurosport went on last night to blot its copybook further by not going back to show Pierce/Davenport after Mauresmo/Sharapova were finished. Shame rating: 3.

wg

Posted by at 3:44 PM | Permalink

Only two of last night's matches were competitive -- and while it's understandable that Sharapova might want to save her energy for tonight's semifinal (and possibly tomorrow night's final), it's an insult to the paying fans and a violation of the tour rules to give less than your best effort. We'll never know for sure, of course, if she tanked or if she was just off and Petrova was playing well, but a lot of people who saw the match think she tanked, and I certainly thought she would have preferred to win it but didn't really care all that much. She's 18. That's pretty young to be jaded enough to be that calculating.

Pierce, on the other hand, fought her way back from a set down against Mauresmo, and Clijsters, having lost her first two matches, seemed to feel it was worth the effort stomping on Dementieva not to lose all three.

For tonight:
Mauresmo over Sharapova (why: well, Mauresmo has the kind of varied game and low slices that trouble Sharapova, and she doesn't seem to get as nerve-wracked at the YECs as at the Grand Slams. But mostly it's wishful: I'm tired of Sharapova's antics, and I'm therefore making an irrational prediction.)

I was going to pick Davenport for the final, and then discovered that I had the semis backwards, and Eurosport joined the match for the second set tiebreak, which is poor service after a week of all-night live coverage. Pierce is just having a wonderful run.

The appalling YEC Web site (don't go there unless you love Flash) deserves special censure for making it impossible for anyone to understand the closing stages of the round robin. Many of the TV commentators and fans were confused by what the players had to do to win their groups, and this was entirely because the information about how the standings are calculated and when and whether the sets (or the head-to-heads) count is simply not there. Who ever heard of a major competition where the basic information about SCORING was unavailable? This is ridiculous. It's a *terrible* way to market the sport, utterly alienates fans, and displays contempt for all involved. The clear implication is that the event's promoters think nothing matters except who's playing. Get rid of these idiots and let them put on exhibitions instead of ruining fan interest in what ought to be one of the five biggest events of the tennis year on the women's side.

Shame ratings of the day:

Sharapova: 1
WTA Tour, for the YEC Web site: 4 (well, it *is* only a Web site)
Eurosport, for skipping almost all of the first semi: 3.

wg

Posted by at 10:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last night decided the semifinalists, but tonight's matches are not completely meaningless. For the two winners in each group -- Davenport and Sharapova, Pierce and Mauresmo -- it determines their position in the final group standings and therefore determines who plays whom in the semis. (#1 from each group plays #2 from the other group).

I got three of the four semifinalists wrong. In retrospect, Sharapova was obvious (I went for Petrova), and Pierce should have been predictable also because she's done consistently so well since May (two GS finals, two tournament wins). Mauresmo was less easy to predict, but she had made up for her two early-round indoor losses by winning Philadelphia, and was primed and ready. Whereas, Dementieva was exhausted from the effort of qualifying for LA, and Petrova is not as consistent as the four who will go through (plus looked ill during the early part of last night's match). The real surprise was Clijsters, who won this event in 2002 and 2003 (DNP in 2004), and who seemed to carry all before her whenever she played this year. Clijsters has complained of being tired from jet lag, which I find baffling in such an experienced traveler. But it's another reason why LA is a bad choice of venue for the YECs -- the fall indoors circuit is all in Europe.

For the players who won't make the semis, the matches still matter in terms of ranking points (and money, if that matters now).

I'd expect things to wind up thusly tonight:
- Sharapova to defeat Petrova and wind up #1 in her group
- Clijsters to defeat Dementieva
- Pierce- /Mauresmo, any damn thing could happen. Pierce is playing the best tennis of her life, has her sights set on becoming #1, and historically has the better career. Pierce in three, despite Mauresmo's greater variety.

One of the interesting things about this round robin format, though, is that the final could see a replay of Davenport vs. Sharapova, which so far has been the best match of the tournament. (It pains me to say, since both are baseline bashers.)

.wg

Posted by at 3:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The draw is out, much earlier than the women's was.

Red: Roger Federer, Guillermo Coria, Ivan Ljubicic, David Nalbandian.

Gold: Rafael Nadal, Andre Agassi, Nikolay Davydenko, Gaston Gaudio.

Federer, Agassi, and Nadal all have injuries (ligaments in foot, hip, left knee, respectively) that may yet take them out of the tournament, though as of now they're expected to play. (Rumors on rec.sport.tennis are that Puerta, the first alternate, has been told to get on a plane because Federer is still in pain, though I don't know how much credibility to give it.) If you're wondering where some of the other famous players are, Hewitt is home watching his wife get ready to produce a baby; Safin's left knee is still recuperating; and Roddick withdrew yesterday with a bad back and is replaced by Nalbandian. Like the women's draw at LA, it looks somewhat depleted, in part because the players who have moved up, especially Coria and Gaudio, are primarily clay-courters who aren't expected to do much on a faster surface.

If those in the above draw all play and are in reasonably good shape, I'd expect the following in the semis:

Federer
Ljubicic
Nadal
Agassi

A lot of people would love to see a Federer/Nadal final, and Nadal beat Agassi in the Canadian Open final back in August. If Shanghai is a faster surface, Agassi could well reverse that result here, though it would certainly be fitting if the two dominant players of the year finished it by facing off.

Either way, I'd expect Federer to win unless his injury becomes a factor. He has said (before the ankle ligament injury) that defending his Masters title is one of his priorities for 2005.

wg

Posted by at 4:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last night's matches were sort of hum-drum, even though Mauresmo got herself a good win against Clijsters, whom she hadn't beaten since the US Open R4 2002. Clijsters led their head-to-head 8-2. Pierce and Davenport had straightforward and (now) expected victories over Dementieva and Schnyder respectively.

My revised prediction is that Davenport will win all three of her round-robin matches and will probably play Mauresmo in the semis, and that Pierce will go through to play...well, probably Sharapova in her semis. And the final now looks like Davenport - Pierce. Though we've seen little of Sharapova or Petrova so far.

Tonight's matches:
- Schnyder vs Petrova (Petrova - Schnyder is playing well, but can be overpowered. Although she may want revenge for her loss to Petrova in the Linz final)
- Davenport vs Sharapova (Davenport - when she's playing well, Davenport is just too good and too experienced for Sharapova, who's had a good and consistent year but not a great one)
- Mauresmo vs Dementieva (Mauresmo - a rerun of the Philadelphia final, where Dementieva threatened but Mauresmo triumphed with a more consistent serve and more variety)

btw, if there is a Web site worse than the WTATour Championships one, I hope never to see it. For a site promoting an event it's utterly dismal: everything's in Flash with no alternative, the event's history is nowhere to be found (past champions?), the standings are not completely shown (if you look at the main pages, it looks like only match wins count -- but sets count, too, if it comes down to the wire), and the promoterst take so little interest in doubles that they haven't even bothered to list the four teams that have qualified. It is truly dismal even as pure marketing (although of a piece with the WTA tournament held in LA in the summer), and it's no surprise that the event in its three-year run in LA has never gotten any traction or become the magnitude even it shoudl be (as Mauresmo said last week in Philly). What a continuingly dismal shame it is that the Championships (which, btw, the players call simply "the Masters") was forced to move from Madison Square Garden, where it had all those things and atmosphere besides.

wg

Posted by at 12:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The draw is out.

Green group: Davenport - Sharapova - Schnyder - Petrova
Black group: Clijsters - Mauresmo - Pierce - Dementieva

Semifinal predictions: Davenport vs Mauresmo; Clijsters vs. Petrova
(Why: Davenport and Clijsters historically have their best results indoors; Mauresmo and Petrova have just played matches in Philadelphia on the same surface, so they're ready.)

Final predictions: Davenport vs. Clijsters
(Why: as above. Mauresmo tends to choke in the clinch, and although Petrova has improved her results this year and ought to have the weapons to beat anybody, she tends to self-destruct at inopportune moments, and one title seems unlikely to change that completely overnight.)

Winner: Clijsters
(Why: all else being equal, the better mover wins. Davenport and Clijsters are both great on indoor surfaces, both hit hard, serve well, and can move into the net and put away volleys. Davenport has the edge in power and on the serve. But Clijsters has a big edge in movement.)

Tonight:
Clijsters vs Pierce: Clijsters and Pierce both won the last tournaments they played, and both have had a great year (Pierce: FO final, US final, won San Diego and Moscow); Clijsters: won US, Indian Wells, Miami, coming back from a year of injuries to #2 in the world). Clijsters in straights.

Sharapova vs Schnyder: both pulled out of Philadelphia with injuries (Schnyder - left hand; Sharapova right thumb strain). Schnyder beat Sharapova in Rome on clay, but Sharapova likes faster surfaces. Sharapova in two.

Davenport vs Petrova: two more Philadelphia pull-outs (Davenport with flu; Petrova bruised her heel in the quarterfinals). Petrova should be on a roll having won her first title in Linz a couple of weeks ago, but Davenport historically has had her best results indoors and on hard courts. Davenport in straights.

wg

Posted by at 8:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)