"Be more constructive with your feedback!"

2008 U.S. Open Recap: Standard structure. Six up and ten down, eh?...I appear to be growing more curmudgeonly in my golden years...

Thumbs Up: to Roger Federer. Funny how his slump now looks like a very impressive year, isn't it? Three Grand Slam finals (and, in the fourth, he lost to the eventual champ in the semis), one major win, a gold medal (ok, fine, in doubles. Still...), three overall titles, 54-12 record, $4.4 million in earnings. Talk about a bar being set impossibly high.

Yeah, it would've been better had he beaten Nadal in the final on Monday and, yeah, he's looked positively ordinary at times this year, but I think this tournament proved what he's really made of. When all is said and done, he's going to be remembered as the greatest ever. (Suck it, Rob. Does the Andreev win qualify a gritty five-setter?)

Thumbs Down: to this horrible, horrible TSN and TSN2 boondoggle. That's right: boondoggle. I type words I would never say so as to appear more important.

I'll elaborate: in recent years, we were lucky enough to have the TSN Alternate Feed, which would pick up the slack and show tennis in its entirety when the main feed was showing some lousy CFL game...or NASCAR. But starting a couple of weeks ago, TSN launched TSN2, so that people can tune in to the second station if they don't like the programming on the first...except Rogers--a not unpopular cable provider--and Bell don't have a deal in place for the new station (there are rumblings that TSN's asking price is way too high...not that that really matters to Rogers, since they invariably pass on price increases directly to their loyal customers), so now we have regular TSN (channel 30) and, on Channel 407 (previously the alternate feed) we have...the exact same TSN again. Great.

I think you can see where this is going. Two Fridays ago, I'm at my parents' place and want to watch Roddick's Round 2 match against upstart Ernest Gulbis, but TSN was showing CFL...shuffling the tennis to TSN2 (which--again--we don't get). Awesome. Now that was annoying enough, but it was compounded by the fact that the guide said they were going to air tennis on tape delay at midnight, but when 12 rolled around, they aired--without explanation--shitty, shitty Friday Night Fights. Way to alienate your viewers for absolutely no reason, TSN!

Thumbs Down: to TSN proper, for just being plain stupid. When I was back in Toronto during the week, I wanted to tune in the Djokovic-Roddick quarterfinal on Thursday night, except this was the same night of the NFL kickoff game, so, instead of being able to watch the match (which, you guessed it, was on TSN2, aka the station no one has), I was stuck watching a choppy feed online (in Spanish!), while trying not to fall asleep watching Redskins-Giants (which, I might add, was also available on NBC). Yes, they did cut to the tennis once the football game--mercifully--ended, but they were already in the third set...and that's not really the point now, is it? I know that TSN has a deal in place for NFL games televised on NBC and I'm sure the game got a pretty big number, but it still infuriates me. Yet--somewhat amazingly--TSN wasn't even the most incompetent network covering tennis. That distinction belongs to...

(Major) Thumbs Down: to CBS Channel 4 Buffalo. So I'm home Monday afternoon, eager to watch the men's final at 5 p.m. Upon tuning in, I see...the 5 o'clock news. OK. Quickly jumping online, I discover that CBS 4 has elected not to air the tennis. Final. Of. A. FUCKING. MAJOR (which was originally supposed to air Sunday afternoon), instead fobbing it off on sister station CW23, except we DON'T FUCKING GET CW23 IN TORONTO!! Morons!! By the time tried to log on the USOpen.org to watch it online (knowing full well that it wouldn't work, since I'm not a U.S. resident), I'd worked myself into an especially frothy rage lather. At this point Carrie (God bless her) called and suggested that I try Hoops, our local sports bar. And, sure enough, they had it (using a Seattle CBS feed). I'm so disgusted that I can barely even talk about this except to say: Congratulations, CBS 4, you've won the coveted "Worst Station in the History of the Fucking Universe."

Thumbs Down: to Canadian tennis players who flamed out ever so swiftly in this year's draw. This includes Frank Dancevic (straight set loser in the first round), Caroline Wozniak (lost in the first round in singles...and doubles!), Stephanie Dubois (who didn't even qualify, but at least won her first qualifying match). Even Daniel Nestor, seeded #1 in the men's doubles draw, crapped out in the Round of 16. Yikes! And on the "it's actually way worse than you think" front, please note that there were zero Canadians in the Boys Singles 64-player draw (Under 18s, basically) and only two girls in the Girls Singles draw (and they both lost in the first round). So...yeah. Prop bet: The Lions will win the Super Bowl before a Canadian (male or female) wins a singles Slam title. Any takers? (If you exclude Wonziak, who has shown glimpses of Top 20 talent, I'd probably be willing to make it "Slam semi-final").

Thumbs Up: to Andy Roddick. OK, I did claim that he was done after Wimbledon this year, and I still kinda stand behind that, but the Roddick we saw during this fortnight was much more the Andy of 2003 (i.e. confident, dominant, electric) than the Andy of 2006-08 (i.e. shaken, stubborn, infuriating). Fabrice Santoro (who, disappointingly, acted like a big fucking baby during his first round match against A-Rod) looked legitimately terrified at times.

Thumbs Up still more: to Andy's press conference, which remain wildly entertaining. Click here for a great Q&A session after his beatdown of Gonzalez in the Round of 16.

Thumbs Down: also to Roddick, who after dumping the first two sets played himself--somewhat improbably--back into his QF match against Djokovic, winning the third and up a break in the fourth and two points away from pushing it to five, only to totally gag it away by way of back to back double faults (allowing Djokovic to break him) and then--and this one is potentially unforgivable--playing a ridiculously stupid drop shot during a long rally at 5-5 in the tiebreak. I'm still not sure how Taylor's head didn't explode.

(a rare) Thumbs Way Down + a Wag of the Finger to: Novak Djokovic, who, at the ripe old age of, what, 20?, has become almost pathologically obsessed with the crowd. Upon beating Roddick, Djokovic let loose with the following, as boos cascaded down on him.

For the record, here's what he's objecting to:

Q. With the way he plays and his style, does it almost mandate that it's going to be a grind? Because it's not easy to knock Djokovic out of points early, even if you're playing well.

ANDY RODDICK: Oh, sure. You're going to have to go to work. He goes to work pretty much every point, and, my service game, he's going to put returns in, he puts guys in pressure. It seems like a lot of times there'd be breaks back and forth with him. You know going in that you're going to have to go to work.

Q. When asked about his injuries today, mentioning the right ankle as opposed to the left ankle, the other day ‑‑

ANDY RODDICK: Isn't it both of them? And a back and a hip?

Q. And when he said there are too many to count.

ANDY RODDICK: And a cramp.

Q. Do you get the sense right now that he is...

ANDY RODDICK: Bird flu. [Kyle here: lol--great timing]

Q. Lot of things. Beijing hangover.

ANDY RODDICK: Yeah.

Q. He's got pretty long list of illness.

ANDY RODDICK: Anthrax. SARS. Common cough and cold.

Q. Got a lot of things going on with him.

ANDY RODDICK: Sure.

Q. Do you think he's bluffing?

ANDY RODDICK: No, I mean, I'm sure ‑‑

Q. The way you're saying it, almost means you feel like...

ANDY RODDICK: No, if it's there, it's there. There's just a lot. You know, he's either quick to call a trainer or he's the most courageous guy of all time. I think it's up for you guys to decide.

Listen closely, Novak, because I'm going to drop some knowledge on your head:

1. I know you loved it when everyone loved you (see: last year). Those impressions were classic. But: get over it. In everyone's defense, they didn't quite realize what a dick you (and especially) your parents are.

2. You're. From. Serbia. It's called the U.S. Open. It's not reasonable for you to think that the crowd is going to be behind you. Why this fact eludes you and you felt the need to go into full-blown Ivan Drago mode, I'll never know.

3. Roddick was kidding! Are you so hyper-sensitive that you can't realize that Roddick is being facetious roughly 90% of the time?

4. Even if he were being serious (and, in fairness, he may have been for the section where he references "couragenousness"), you yourself said the exact same thing in your post-match on-court interview with Michael Bartan after your 4th round match. I heard you! When asked, "what do you think about your next round opponent [still undetermined at the time]?" you answered: "I dunno. Whoever it is, I know he's going to be healthier than me."

5. I could almost (almost) understand this if you lost. It'd total be sour grapes, but, when you're dejected, sometimes that stuff just pops out. But: you WON--so why be such a little bitch about it?

Thumbs Down: to James Blake.

I don't know if there's ever been a world-class player who has been so thoroughly lacking in ingenuity. Watching [him] play used to be loads of fun, since he has that monster serve and plays with such enthusiasm. Now? It's an exercise in frustration, as he simply refuses to change or, worse (but, to my mind, increasingly likely) it never even occurs to him to change up his game.

OK, technically that's just a cut and paste from my Wimbledon post and (again: technically) it's referring to Andy Roddick, but all of it holds true. Blake has Top 5 talent, yet--and this gets more and more amazing major by major--has never made it to the quarterfinals of a slam. I like Blake a lot and he's by all accounts a great guy (though his on-court demeanour still leaves a great deal to be desired), but that's inexcusable. A guy that beats Federer at the Olympics less than a month ago simply should not be struggling against the likes of Donald Young (Blake beat him in five tough sets in the first round). We saw Young (8-18 on the year) play in the Saturday Qualies for the Rogers Cup and, frankly, while he may grow into a competent pro (at the moment, I'm unconvinced), at the moment the professional game seems completely baffling to him and he doesn't even deserve to be on the same court as Blake.

Thumbs Up: to Mardy Fish. Nice August run, McFly: semis in LA, finals in D.C., quarters at the Open. (and put up a good fight against Nadal for two sets--not bad for someone who lost five consecutive matches in June and July.) All the while rocking K-Swiss gear (that wine coloured shirt? Loved it.). I'll be honest, I have a soft spot for Fish, who, so far as I know, is the only guy on tour who wears ankle socks (like me!). But...

Thumbs Down: to the Mardy Fish that played sets three and four against Nadal. I know you're a big hitter (48 winners) and that that leads to more unforced errors, but, my word, I've never seen someone miss shots by five or six feet as routinely as Fish did that night. It says that he had 53 errors for the match, but given that he played a perfect first set, that's pretty terrible. He had Nadal on the ropes...and then totally threw it away. Dial it back a bit.

Thumbs Up: to Jon Wertheim (for continuing to write about tennis) and to Bill Simmons (for abstaining). If you're even a casual fan, JW's page needs to be among your bookmarks.

Thumbs Down: to Ana Ivanovic, who flamed out in the second round to French qualifier (and world number 188) Julie Coin. Please, please, please stop referring to this as "one of the greatest upsets of all-time" MSM. Longtime readers will know that I'm totally in the tank for her, but, looking at this objectively, she's 4-3 since she won the French Open (which, btw, was in June). Her thumb is hurt, she's not terribly mentally tough, everyone lets down a bit after winning a major: pick your excuse. Any way you cut it, something is wrong with her. (Also, bring back the one-piece dress, Ana. I'm convinced this wardrobe change is at least 35% to blame--ok, that part's not so objective...)

Thumbs Up: to Ser--xdhiwfdsqydrrrrk. (Sorry, fingers rejecting request.) To Serena Williams. Win tournament without dropping a set? Check. Play an actual quality match against your sister? Check. Regain the #1 ranking? Check.

While I found the media's griping about Venus and Serena (ranked 7th and 3rd, respectively) playing each other in the quarters to be totally ill-informed (look it up, people: they put the 1 seed in the top half and the 2 seed in the bottom half. After that, they draw for placement. I've watched them do this in Toronto (though I have no idea why, since it's dreadfully dull). There's no conspiracy here. In fact, the only conspiracy would be if they decided the sisters had to be on the opposite side of the draw. If you don't want them to play each other for the finals, I would suggest that you kindly ask them to play in more tournaments--like, say, Indian Wells--so that their rankings don't artificially drop and throw off the seeding. Let me know how this goes...), you have to hand it to Serena. When's she's on her game (and in some semblance of shape) she appears to be virtually unstoppable.

Thumbs Down: to yet another straight set women's final. Yes, it was mildly entertaining, but did anyone really think Jankovic was going to pull it off (and, by "it," I don't mean "her underpants during a changeover"). Obviously not. This now makes nine straight grand slam women's finals decided in straight sets (Mauresmo-Bartoli in the '06 Wimbledon final was the last to go three) and sixteen of the last twenty (in particular, you have to go back to 1995, when Graf knocked off Seles in three, for the last U.S. Open to go the distance. Wow.)

Criticisms aside: I thought this was a very good tournament...and while I'm pretty sure I say this after every major, I think the game of tennis is in great shape. Now, let's all go to sleep until the end of January.

"He's a lover but not a fighter. But he's also a fighter, so don't get any ideas..."

Wimbledon Thoughts: Usual drill. Off we go...

Thumbs Up: to Canadians. From Frank Dancevic upsetting the incredibly erratic David Nalbandian in Round One, to Stephanie Dubois's near-miss against Chakvedtadze (more on this in a sec), to Alexandra Wozniak winning a match, to Nestor winning the doubles title (completing the career doubles slam). This is what passes for a major success in Canadian tennis in 2008 (that fact is probably worthy of its own "thumbs down," but we'll set that matter aside for the time being).

Thumbs Down: to a spate of first-round retirements in the men's draw (seven--Nishikori, Volandri, Llodra, H-T Lee, Stakhovsky, Odesnik, and Lapentti--by my count...and this doesn't even include Monfils, who went through proper channels and withdrew before the tournament started, though only just). While I can't, in good conscience, advocate, as Brad Gilbert and others have championed, getting rid of prize money for first round losers (see the precedent setting decision in Baby v. Bathwater), (I think) I'm all for stricter (or, possibly, any at all) medical evaluations in the lead up to the tournament. This would result in legitimately injured players being replaced by lucky losers from the qualifying draw.

Thumbs Up: to Fabrice Santoro (the Magician!) finally getting to play on Centre Court (though I'm bemused that he had to ask to get this perk). Sure he lost in straight sets, but still: good times.

Thumbs Down: while this will almost assuredly send Taylor into a fit of rage, I have to talk about this: the fact that the challenge system is available to some (but not all) players competing in the same event is grossly unfair. Case in point: on Monday, the aforementioned Carolyn Dubois missed a forehand winner on match point by--from all accounts--a fraction of an inch, yet had no recourse (i.e. could not challenge), because...she wasn't playing on a court (i.e. not Centre Court or the Grandstand) that was set-up to handle video replay. Now, on Tuesday, I happened to catch Jelena Jankovic successfully challenge a call early in the second set. In that case, her shot, which was initially ruled out, was, on appeal, called in. Now, what you need to know about this decision is that the ball didn't so much catch the line as be so close to the line that there appeared to be no gap between the line and the ball (again, we'll table my beef that a ball that's 99.5% out really should not be called in under any circumstances--especially if you take into account the margin of error)--a very narrow distinction, but a distinction nonetheless. Anyway, the point is, Dubois shot could very well have been in and the fact that she wasn't afforded the opportunity to question this was determined solely on the basis of her lowly ranking (hence, she was banished to an outer court). In other words, the system punishes those that can least afford to be punished. (And, yes, I'll concede that she could very well have been on the receiving end of a favorable call and thus made more money, but I find resorting to the whole law of averages thing weirdly unsatisfying here.) May not seem like a big deal, but, ultimately, Dubois missed out on 6,750 pounds (the difference between the prize money from losing in the second round and the first)--or about $13,500 CDN, which is a rather big deal when you've only make $80,000 all year.

Spaz?

Thumbs Up: to Jon Wertheim, who is everything a tennis writer should be: funny, smart, willing to question the sport in order to improve it, and not hopelessly entrenched.

Thumbs Down: to Bill Simmons, my one-time sportswriting hero, who is, unequivocally, not a tennis writer, but, apparently, fancies himself the savior of the sport, resulting in the single worst (also: most indefensible) piece of sportswriting I've ever seen. I can't decide what's more annoying:

(a) that he'll probably never mention the article again.

(b) that, if he does, he'll say something to the effect of "guys, I was totally joking. Why so serious?"

(c) that his suggested "improvements" seem to have been pulled at random from a hat ("um...what about...eleven...best of...two sets? Yeah!"; a point for hitting someone with the fucking ball? Really, Bill??).

(d) that, two years from now, he'll hop on the tennis bandwagon and open that column with something ridiculous like "two years ago, everyone thought tennis was dead, but it's back, baby!"

(e) that, if he comments at all on the response to this piece, he'll almost assuredly characterize the tennis fans' reaction as "hysterical."

(f) that this piece is nearly (but not quite) as irresponsible as Gregg Easterbrook's seemingly vendetta-fuelled rants against Bill Belichick, but will never be addressed by ESPN.com's Ombudswoman.

(g) that of his last fifteen articles, a whopping ten have been about the Celtics, with the remainder consisting of the aforementioned tennis piece (HATE!), a not-very-funny "ramblings" column, a draft preview where he bickered (when he wasn't gloating) endlessly with Chad Ford, a so-so draft diary, and one insufferable piece where he talks about boring it is when all your teams have won championships. Well, fuck you very much, Bill. (It's got to be saying something that the best Bill Simmons article I've read in the last six months was an unpublished article of his from twelve years ago about high school basketball in Boston.)

(h) all of the above.

Thumbs Up: to the endlessly amusing Daily Telegraph beat reporters. From last Tuesday:

With a big white plaster on her right knee and a clinging white dress which looked as if it had shrunk in the wash, she looked something of a battered campaigner, and the style police should certainly advise against tucking the spare ball up her skirt so it bulges like some ugly white growth out of her right hip.

She looked, in boxing terms, like the perfect punch bag. But while Federer had been glorious, it is in no way misogynous to say that Ivanovic was so pale by comparison that her match was a challenge to the now accepted wisdom that it was worth the same money.

True, there were wonderful glimpses of what she could do as she manoeuvred the increasingly static Rossana into no woman's land and stroked home easy winners. But there was also too much hesitancy in her serve and in her movement around the court.

Back in the interview room such thoughts seemed ungallant to the point of traitorous. Fresh out of the shower, Serbia's most beautiful gift to the sporting world was all smiling, bright-eyed intelligence as she said how pleased she was with her game, and talked about "Number One" being a privilege as well as a pressure.

(What obsessive--some might even say "hysterical"--attention to detail!) I mean, that's just great (not to mention: hilarious) writing, as was an article that referred to Federer "murdering" Mario Ancic in the quarters and a headline bluntly stating "Nadal Puts Murray out of his Misery" (and, two days later, the wry "Marat Safin suffers as does the furniture after semi-final defeat to Roger Federer"). Note to the National Post: don't ever stop subscribing to this service during Wimbledon.

Thumbs Down: to all major Canadian newspapers (well: the Post, Star, and Globe & Mail, at least) for only listing the showcourt matches on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, making it incredibly difficult for Taylor, Dad, and I to make our suicide pool picks. Attention Sports Editors: why would I only want to know about 5 of the 8 upcoming quarterfinals? You wouldn't do that for baseball, would you?

Thumbs Up: to the Williams sisters. Now, I won't pretend that I'm a fan, or that I even like them (I don't, largely because they are two of the sorest losers in sports history), but I'd like to think I'm the kind of person who gives credit where credit is due, and these two deserve it. Say what you want about their interest level (and "flagging" or "inconsistent") is perhaps the most charitable way to describe it), but when these two are on their game, there's no one physically or mentally tougher. Going back ten years (to 1999) one of them has one at least one major every year except two (2004 and 2006). And they won the doubles title at Wimbledon, too--handily, I might add. Someone stop me, because I'm afraid I'm starting to respect these two.

While we're here, and it's only Friday as I write this, Thumbs Down to another brutally boring Grand Slam final between the two? The horror! Here's a tip: next time, tell both of them that the winner never has to speak to their father again. I guarantee you they'd bust their asses then.

[Note: Sunday now, during the (first) Federer-Nadal rain delay. OK, the final wasn't nearly as bad as I'd anticipated, though the two looked someone-just-smothered-our-puppy dour throughout the match. I won't go as far as John McEnroe, who described it as a "borderline classic" (pretty sure it has to go three sets for that label to apply), but it was relatively compelling. Two comments about the color commentary from Mary Carillo--whom I'm usually a big fan:

1. I get it. You're a big doubles fan. Please stop saying that their participation in the doubles tournament is why they made it to the finals of the singles draw. They only went to the net 33 times combined out of 157 points played (roughly 20%). Let's not go crazy.

2. Also, was it absolutely necessary to breathlessly mention (after nearly every point!) how hard both girls were working? I believe you--they're trying hard. Elena Dementieva aside, no one seriously believes these Williams vs. Williams matches to be choreographed at this stage.]

(But here's where I make the previous paragraph look like a backhanded compliment...)

Thumbs Down: to the rest of the women's field for, yet again, totally rolling over. Ivanovic, Sharapova, Jankovic...go on. Does it have something to do with poor scheduling decisions (note what's missing here and here between the end of the French and the start of Wimbledon)? Absolutely, but being mentally soft plays a big role too. For Ivanovic, Sharapova, and Jankovic (the top three seeds on the women's side) to not even eek out a set between them in their losses (combined, the three won a mere a sixteen games in defeat) against three players ranked outside the WTA Top 50 (and two outside the Top 100) is embarrassing.

A while back, someone wrote in to Wetheim (though damned if I can find the link at the moment) lamenting the fact that when an unranked player upsets a top five seed on the men's side, the ATP is heralded as incredibly deep, whereas, when this happens on the women's tour, it's a sign that the top seeds are weak. Essentially, the argument went that the women's tour is screwed either way--Sharapova wins and it's because her draw was soft until the quarterfinals; Sharapova loses early and she's unfocused. Now, though I'm partial to the men's side, I find this line of thinking fairly persuasive...but also, for reasons I can't quite put my finger on, irritating. I've actually given this a bit of thought and I think my answer is this: while I can't back it up empirically (always a great concession to make during an argument), upsets on the women's side seem to be more of the flash-in-the-pan ilk (see: Alla Kudryavtseva over Sharapova and Tamarine Tanasugarn over Jankovic) who fizzle out quickly, while upstarts on the men's side are usually quality players that that have the ability to go deep into the tournament (see, for instance, Mario Ancic knocking off Ferrer and going to the quarters, and Tipsarevic, who won only one more match after knocking off Roddick, but is a proven talent who pushed Federer to the brink in this year's Australian Open.

Now, to be sure, there are outliers (for instance, Rainer Schuettler advanced to the semis last week despite plainly being terrible, while Zheng Jie rolled to the semis after beating Ivanovic in Round 3, though I remain unconvinced that she's actually any good--ask me again around Labor Day). I dunno about all of this actually...I may need to re-think it. If anyone else would like to weigh in, by all means.

Thumbs Up: to ESPN's coverage. Really, really good job of taking the viewer to the most exciting match of the moment (more on that here), even if it--gasp!--features non-Americans. Now that's progress.

Thumbs Down: to ESPN's running score ticker across the top of the screen. Ten days in and...it still confuses me. If I see 3-5, it will always mean "3 serving 5," so why risk the confusion of it being the opposite? More to the point, why would you get rid of the old box score in the top left corner? To save one-one thousandth of the screen's total area? Silly.

Thumbs Up: to the hilarious mispronunciations in this clip, but Thumbs Down to...virtually everything else. I'm pretty sure it's OK to prefer men's tennis to women's, but do you have to be so ill-informed (and the best kind of ill-informed viewer, too, i.e. the one who loudly and frequently declares himself to be extremely well-informed) and cover-your-eyes misogynistic? Ugh.



My two favorite parts are when he: (a) claims that Ivanovic has done nothing of note (then what was that big trophy presentation in Paris all about four weeks ago?); and (b) mentions that Safin is playing some "Swiss nobody" (actually, Stanislas Wawrinka, presently ranked 9th--remember: tennis expert!--in the world...and, one presumes, rising, since he lost in the first round last year at Wimbledon, but made it to the 4th round this time), but that the match is likely to go five sets. Huh?

Thumbs Down: to Andy Roddick, who is, as much as like him, D-U-N. Done. I don't know if there's ever been a top five player in the world who has been so thoroughly lacking in ingenuity. Watching Roddick play used to be loads of fun, since he has that monster serve and plays with such enthusiasm. Now? It's an exercise in frustration, as he simply refuses to change or, worse (but, to my mind, increasingly likely) it never even occurs to him to change up his game. I called my dad as Roddick was tanking against Janko Tipsarevic (a very good player--see above--who, nevertheless, serves--and this is being charitable--like a nine-year old girl) in the 2nd round and asked him why Roddick wasn't stepping well inside the baseline to return serve (he's renowned for being particularly weak in the department) and his response was "I dunno. It's like watching someone run into a brick wall over and over again." This was followed by a five minute rant about how no one serves and volleys anymore. I know, dad. I know.

Thumbs Up: ...to Andy Roddick, for his always entertaining (and occasionally gut-wrenchingly honest) press conferences. Here's the transcript from the Q&A after the Tipsarevic loss. And, since I'd feel like a hypocrite if I didn't mention this, I'll ask: why are we so quick to shit all over the Williams sisters after they refuse to praise their opponents after a loss, but praise Andy for doing essentially the same thing? Racism. I've actually given this a lot of thought and I think it's because Andy is so self-deprecating. The mere fact that he mentions (repeatedly, in fact) that he choked is very humanizing, to the point where you feel bad for him (except for Rob, who continues to hate his guts for reasons beyond comprehension), whereas the typical Serena comment is along the lines of "well, I was so profoundly awful today that anyone could have beaten me," which endears her to precisely no one.

Thumbs Up: to Roger Federer, who, regardless what happens Sunday, is the single greatest washed up player in tennis history. 65 straight grass court wins! ( I can't stress this enough: that's incredible. The last time Federer lost on grass, Bush was still a popular president.) 17 straight majors where he's made it to at least the semis! He's amazing...and the clear GOAT in my mind. Like Mad Men's Don Draper, Federer, in his element, is absolutely fearless. And it's fucking beautiful.

[Note from Sunday afternoon, 7 p.m: ...but he's human, too.

While I'm incredibly disappointed Federer lost, full credit goes to Nadal, who has worked tirelessly to adapt his clay court game to grass, including beefing up his serve. A lesser player would've caved after watching two championship points fall just out of a reach in the fourth set, but he kept his head and, let's be honest, outplayed Roger in his own backyard. He is, in every way, a worthy champion. So, too, should it be noted that this is the best match I've ever seen.

Now, did anyone of this stop from me taking an angry nap from 4:45 to 6:00? Well, no. Nevertheless...]

Neither here nor there: have you ever seen Federer lob? Isn't this strange??

Thumbs Down: to the just-broken story that Andrea Jaeger--now a Dominican nun (honest!)--allegedly "threw" the 1983 Wimbledon final against Martina Navratilova. So the story goes, Jaeger, then eighteen, had a fight with her dad the night before her final, and--somewhat inexplicably--decided to seek out Navratilova's counsel. In doing so, she broke Navratilova's much-vaunted pre-match routine, and, feeling guilty, "let" her win. I suppose you can see where I'm going with this, but, given that Navratilova lost precisely all of one match during the entire year (in the 4th round of the French, finishing the year an unprecedented 86-1--believed by many to be the most dominant tennis season in history), won, not only the Wimbledon in question, but the U.S. Open and the Australian (then the last major of year, unlike now, when it's chronologically first), followed by next year's French, Wimbledon, and U.S. (yes, you read that right, six majors in a row), and that Jaeger had a lifetime 4-11 record against Martina (including Navratilova's 7-6, 6-1 beatdown in the '82 French final), is it not reasonable to conclude that Navratilova was, you know, probably going to win the '83 Wimbledon title anyway? Nun or not: how about this, Andrea? Shut up.

(Bonus) Thumbs Down: to tennis skeptics, including (as mentioned) Simmons and Misha (whom I respect immensely, but couldn't disagree more with here). Your silence after Sunday's final is deafening. Now, do I wish the ratings were better? Well, sure. But it bears mentioning (despite being egregiously obvious) that the sport has a worldwide following (witness the ten million--the actual number; I'm not being hyperbolic--Brits that watched Murray outlast Gasquet) and that perhaps we shouldn't read too much into ESPN's, admittedly "rather too close to zero than one is typically comfortable with" ratings. The game (if maybe not the industry) is just fine, thanks...and in extremely capable hands.

"Whatever the mess you are, you're mine, okay..."

2007 U.S. Open Recap

Note: yes, I realize this ended a week ago. What do you want from me? I'm pretending to go to law school here! Stay tuned for my World Series preview in December.

I wanted to come up with some Esquire-"Dubious Achievement Awards"-inspired witty titles, but, to be honest, that takes a lot of work, so let's just go with "Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down."

Thumbs Up: Roger Federer. I think we're all running out of superlatives year. I purposely avoided doing a running diary for the men's final for fear that would end up as follows:

4:05 - Federer walks out onto the court. Science Dammit is he stylish!

4:12 - Ohwhatabeautifulshot

4:14 - Ohwhatabeautifulshot

And so forth. (You know how I know you're gay?) True, it wasn't the most compelling of finals, as Federer--aside from his serving, which was magnificent--seemed a little bit off, but watching him on even a so-so day is better than watching pretty much anyone else at their best.

Thumbs Down: The Women's Final. Fun fact: the last U.S. Open Women's final to go three sets was...1996, when Graf beat Seles 7-5, 6-4. [Pumping my fist.] Since then, the runner-up has managed to win an average of 6.6 games in the final. This year, Svetlana "All these zeros on this oversized cheque are real, right?" Kuznetsova, who played a solid tournament but was, let's be honest, just happy to be there, managed to drag that number down, winning just 4 games against Henin. Ouch. Remind me again why the women's final airs on Saturday night? At least Dr. Quinn had some suspense. (Note: starting next year, it's moving back to its original afternoon timeslot between the two men's semis).

Thumbs Up: Justine Henin. I really didn't think she had enough weapons to win in New York this year. I was, of course, dead wrong. Thanks to what seems like an improved serve (110+ on the radar gun), her always reliable killer backhand, textbook volleying, and the fact that she's--by far--the best tactician on tour, Henin cruised to her second U.S. Open title. There was a bit of scare against Venus in the semis, but she managed to prevail. She's had a terrific summer.
Thumbs Down: Serena's classless remarks. Can a girl be a douchebag? If so, I would definitely describe Serena as such. Here's the quote in question, coming on the heels of her straight set loss to Henin: "I just think she played better. I just think she made a lot of lucky shots, and I made a lot of errors." Now, I won't belabor the point since she's already been (justifiably) excoriated by the media, except to say: grow the fuck up.

Thumbs Up: Novak Djokovic. This kid--who is only three months older than my brother--is the real deal. He's gone 19-4 in the slams this year, with all four losses coming from Nadal (two, one due, at least partly, to injury) and Federer (the other two). He capped this off with an impressive run at the Open. He didn't always look his best, but, even when he wasn't in top form, he still managed to gut out a couple of tough wins (see the epic 4:44 5-setter against Stepanek in Round 2 and a gritty four-set win against Juan Monaco in the Round of 16). He then crushed Moya (who beat him in Cincinnati), hammered Ferrer in the semis, and, really, could've beaten Federer in the finals (Taylor swears that he should have won). Plus, he's dating Sharapova to boot. All in all, an impressive year. I'm still a bit concerned about his net play (generally weak) and the way he played all those set points against Federer (in a word: tightly; it looked to me like he was waiting for Roger to make a mistake, to which I say: don't hold your breath. To borrow a boxing analogy, you need to knock the champ out, and I didn't see that killer instinct last Sunday), but his strokes are top-notch and he's going to be a force to be reckoned with for a long time to come.

Thumbs Down: Crap Seeding. How is it that Federer, the top seed, played Roddick (the 5 seed) in the quarterfinals, while Djokovic (the 3 seed) was slated to play Tommy Robredo (the 8 seed)? Why doesn't the seeding committee use the standard 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6, 4 vs. 5 formula? This is a question that has always bothered Taylor and I. Turns out, the unofficial answer is: we want to avoid the same top seeds playing each other in the same round every tournament. Well, I'm just bored enough to investigate this. In the previous ten grand slams, the top eight seeds haven't been identical once, thus negating the ATP Tour's argument. This really isn't that big of a deal (Fed would've won regardless), but it does strike me as somewhat silly. And also, as for the original argument, here's something that would never come up in an NFL meeting: "hey, isn't everyone tired of Pats-Colts in the playoffs?? Let's mix it up!!"

Thumbs Up: HD Tennis. In a word: ohmygod. So, so sexy. If it were socially acceptable, I would take my brother to court in and sue for full custody of his new television. Consider yourself on notice, Taylor.
Thumbs Down: TSN's Maddening Schedule. Back to back nights in week two were interrupted for the ridiculous Super Series (who was even watching this? Couldn't they have cancelled the rest of the series after Canada won? What's the deal with playing in different provinces on consecutive nights? Pace yourselves, lads. Even Misha--the biggest hockey fan I know--could barely be bothered to pretend to be interested.) As a result, I missed all of the V. Williams-Jankovic match (arguably, the only great match of the entire tournament on the ladies side) and most of Roddick-Federer. Speaking of...

Thumbs Up: Andy Roddick. I know, I know, he's now 1-14 against Federer all-time, but he played Roger tough in the quarters. Truth be told, the outcome never really seemed in doubt, but at least he made Federer work for the win.
Thumbs Down: Andy Roddick. I didn't see his post-match interview (though I imagine it involved Andy banging his head against the podium repeatedly) but, my God, this has to be deflating for him. At least in the past Andy had something to hang his hat on (I could have served better, I need to improve my backhand, he's mentally tougher than me, etc.), but now? I really don't know. He played a (fairly) terrific match (notably: a 71% first serve percentage, 77% of first serve points won) and still got fucking clobbered. I'm bummed for him and he's made over $12,000,000 in prize money in his career. Federer is just too good. Which brings up an interesting (at least, I think it's interesting) question: is he happy being world class (he hasn't been out of the top 10 in years) but, compared to Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, decidedly second-tier? I mean, it's conceivable (in fact: more than likely) that he'll never win another slam, which has to be disheartening for him. And yet, he can probably go on winning two or three non-majors a year for another six years. There's certainly no shame in that, is there? For a much more sophisticated meditation on the whole "being mind-boggling good at something, but far from the greatest" issue, seek out David Foster Wallace's brilliant essay on Michael Joyce, then the 79th-ranked men's tennis player in the world, now Maria Sharapova's (at this stage, I'm guessing embattled) coach.

Thumbs Up: Ana Ivanovic. Carrie says that, once a year, I'm allowed to call one other women "gorgeous" with impunity. So...even though we've got about 100 days to go in '07, I'm using up my "get out of jail free" card right now. Goddamn...she's hot!

Thumbs Down: to the impending postponement of our nuptials. But, baby, you said you were cool with this...

Thumbs Up: Men's Tennis. What with Federer's absolute dominance on grass and hard courts, Nadal's superior clay court play, the emergence of Djokovic as a legitimate rival to both, and a series of riveting matches at the Open (Blake-Santoro, Blake-Haas, Djokovic-Stepanek, Nalbandian-Ferrer, and Nadal-Ferrer to name a few), it's just a really exciting time to watch men's tennis. Yes, it's cyclical and, yes, the women's game is bound to get hot again, but, in the meantime: let's just enjoy the ride.

Thumbs Down: Women's Tennis. Part way through a rather dull early round Serena Williams beatdown, USA Network announcer Ted Robinson casually mentioned to Tracy Austin (the color commentator) that, while he was completely in favor of equal prize money for the men and the women (a recent change), he wondered if it wasn't time to consider reducing the women's field from 128 to 96 players. His reasoning--though unstated--seemed to be: Tracy, these early matches are soooooo boring. I'm as likely to sprout wings and flap out of this booth as Serena is to drop this match. Whaddya say we blow out of here and get some KFC?

Austin (not, um, my favorite sports personality) was, predictably, mildly offended, and replied that, why, just yesterday Hantuchova (the 9 seed) and Santangelo (the 23 seed) had both lost, in essence, replying: Ted, you fool, can't you see that upsets are a regular occurrence? Thinking the segment over, I just shook my head, but, amazingly, Robinson retorted that pointing to the defeat of two seeded players that absolutely no one thought were threats to win the tournament doesn't exactly prove that the women's draw was deep. And he's exactly right. If anything, it seems to prove the reverse: how bad is women's tennis if Daniela Hantuchova, a perfectly serviceable player who, nevertheless, is prone to mental breakdowns during her matches (to the point where I've actually witnessed her cry while serving), who is most known for having the longest legs on tour (this is true), and who has never advanced beyond the quarterfinals in a grand slam event (and not past the 4th round in the last four years--wtf?), how depleted are these fields that she's the 9th seeded player in this year's U.S. Open? (To prove that I'm an equal opportunity hater, it also strikes me as insane that James Blake-whom I'm happen to really like--was the 6-seed in the Open, despite only making it to two grand slam quarterfinals in 23 tries.) Another excellent example would be Martina Hingis. Hingis, who was once #1 in the world, retired, at the age of 22, due to injury in 2002, only to return three years later and play her way back into the top 10 by year's end. This is made all the more impressive when you consider that she serves like someone who has severe osteoporosis and a possibly life-threatening aversion to sweating.

So...here's my solution: seed the top 12. If, for some reason, the Williams sisters are not among that group, they should be made the 11 and 12 seeds. As much as I dislike them, there is, at no point, more than 10 women on the WTA Tour better than these two. Trust me. Those 12 seeds get a first round bye. The first round will then consist of the remaining 104 players playing for 52 spots in the second round. From that point on, it's a six round tournament (just like March Madness, except with more grunting!). This reduces the field from 128 to 116 and would, invariably, lead to stronger early round matches.

Still not convinced about my lack of depth on the women's tour argument? Hot off the presses: in her comeback tournament, 31 year old (that's roughly 285 in tennis years) Lindsay Davenport defeated Hantuchova in the final of the Commonwealth Bank Tennis Classic in Bali today. She also beat Jankovic (the 3-seed in the U.S. Open), in the quarters.

Oh, wait, I forgot to mention: she gave birth to her first child 95 days ago.