Tuning Up for the Tune-Ups
grif
This has been the mellow Monte Carlo. It used to be that the heart of the
season began to beat right around now, but this time the tournament almost
feels like a one-off, a clay tune-up for the more significant clay tune-ups
to come, with the French Open way out there on the horizon.
You can chalk it up to a phenomenon previously unknown in tennis, something
called the Novak Djokovic Effect. It's akin to the John McEnroe Effect, and
in more recent years to the Roger Federer/Rafael Nadal Effect: At certain
points in time, the absence of any of these players from a tournament would
have robbed it of a good deal of its urgency right from the start. Without
them, an event didn't quite matter, or matter nearly as much as it did with
them. It's a measure of how far Djokovic in 2011 has come that he has
reached that status. Too bad, too: He was forced to choose between his two
home tournaments, one in Monaco and the other in Belgrade. It's been a
little weird to hear about him practicing on the courts at the MCCC this
week, but skipping this one and, hopefully, living long enough to fight in
Paris was the right decision.
Along with the Djokovic effect, we've also suffered from the Incredible
Shrinking Masters, that annual moment when we go from the Slam-like,
dual-gender, 96-draw events in Indian Wells and Key Biscayne to a relatively
sleepy 56 men at a country club. It's about as close to the leisurely days
of the game's amateur era as we get today. But there are upsides to
everything, right? The fewer players, the more individual attention we can
give to the ones whom we do get to see. Which leads to thoughts, and
questions, and the hazards of trying to answer them.
***
The Tsonga Perplex: What is it with the guy?
One day, when he's playing Juan Monaco, he's clearly the tougher, stronger,
and more motivated player. The next day, against Ivan Ljubicic, he clearly .
. . isn't. In that surprising defeat to the older man, Tsonga appeared
unsure of himself, unsure of how to compete. It's an even more perplexing
case than that of his fellow free-spirited Frenchman Gael Monfils. At least
with Monfils, flakiness is part of the deal up front, and, if you're
inclined that way, part of the appeal. Tsonga at least makes a show of being
a serious character, but the results can seem just as flaky. Or is it just
that his ball-striking has gotten less clean over the years, and he's tried
to rely on athleticism more and more?
The Gulbis Confirmation: He's not the flavor of the month
For the last three or four years, and especially last year, Ernests Gulbis
was a pet favorite of mine, a guy whose matches and even press conferences I
would go out of my way to see. Now, not so much. It isn't just because he's
gone back into flounder mode, though that doesn't help-the guilty appeal of
underachieving does wear off after a while. It's also that a serious fan of
anything, be it music or movies or fancy New York burger joints, ends up
living for novelty. Indie rock fans, say, will always look forward to
discovering a new band much more than they will waiting for the third album
of a band that they already like-they're old hat by then. The match between
Gulbis and Milos Raonic this week was a good example of that cruel
phenomenon. There you had the flavor of 2010 going up against the flavor of
the last three months. We've gone from embracing the erratic and sometimes
very funny baby-faced slacker to liking the methodical and serious
baby-faced grind. That's tennis-it's appeal cuts many ways.
The Murray Conclusion: This guy is good
Was it me who began this week assuring you that we shouldn't expect too much
from Andy Murray? Should I end it by speculating that he might just have the
best chance of anyone of knocking off Rafael Nadal on clay this year? No, I
won't go that far, but these two played an epic two-set semifinal here two
years ago, after which Nadal said that he, at least for that moment, feared
Murray more than anyone on the dirt.
But no, it's just a little early to crown Murray the French Open champion.
We just had him washed up for the year a few short days ago. For now, I'll
just say how much fun it's been watching him this week. He's moved as
fluidly as a genuine dirtballer, he's played with the mix of craftiness,
steadiness, and occasional aggression that the whole world has been calling
for from him for years. And while he hasn't registered any monumental wins,
it does make you think that clay is a nice place for him to ply his
particular trade; he can hang back, be patient, and ultimately win with his
superior all-around ground-stroke game. At a time of big rips and heavy top,
it's always fun to see Murray slow the game back down.
His match with Gilles Simon was a particular pleasure. The first set, with
both guys carving around the ball rather than belting it, was relaxing. The
second set, when the crowd whistled at Murray for drop-shotting an injured
Simon, was edgy. What was most amazing to me was just good Murray's drop
shots were. So good that even the whistlers had to pause to applaud, before
they went back to whistling.
The Federer Question: Did He Seem Less Than Totally Desperate to Win Against
Melzer?
In the middle of the second set, down a break and with things looking bleak,
Federer watched Melzer hit a mediocre drop volley and . . . kept watching as
the ball bounced once, and then bounced twice. He pretty clearly could have
tracked it down if he'd set out to do so from the start.
That's not to say Federer wasn't trying, of course, but there did seem to be
a lack of outrage on his part about losing the first two sets of his career
to the Austrian. Like Soderling and Baghdatis and Berdych and Davydenko and
maybe even Gulbis over the last year or so, Melzer was due to get a win over
Federer-he beat Djokovic at the French last year and Nadal in Asia in the
fall. And he played excellent tennis from start to finish today. He pushed
Federer back with his backhand, which he took early and hit deep. In the in
end, with the wind swirling and the dust kicking up, Melzer did the smart
thing by continuing to move forward. Melzer is a very human player; you can
read his emotions easily. He was fighting to keep his excitement and anxiety
down in the last two games. It was nice to see him get to let them out.
It's obligatory at this point that we ask, after a Federer defeat, whether
it's a "sign of his decline." It is, but as I said last year after his loss
to Berdych at Wimbledon, it's only another sign of his decline into
normalcy. It's against the normal run of things for a guy to keep beating
other quality opponents every single time out for years on end. That period
of his career is over, as are, almost certainly, the three-Slam seasons. But
this stage doesn't seem too bad, either, all things considered: This was, as
we've been told many times already, Federer's first loss to someone other
than Nadal or Djokovic in 2011; more significantly, it was his first loss
before a semifinal since Wimbledon last year. Comde to think of it, even
that is above the normal run of things.
Afterward, Federer, who blew a lot of break points, shanked a lot of balls
in the closing stages of the match, and was on the defensive much of the
time, said he was happy to get some clay matches in and happy to get to go
train at home. Like Monte Carlo itself this time, there wasn't a lot of
urgency about Federer's performance. As we've learned this week, Paris is
still way out on the horizon.
http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2011/04/tuning-up-for-the-tune-ups.html
TT
> Steve Tignor
>
> This has been the mellow Monte Carlo. It used to be that the heart of
> the season began to beat right around now, but this time the tournament
> almost feels like a one-off, a clay tune-up for the more significant
> clay tune-ups to come, with the French Open way out there on the horizon.
>
> You can chalk it up to a phenomenon previously unknown in tennis,
> something called the Novak Djokovic Effect. It's akin to the John
> McEnroe Effect, and in more recent years to the Roger Federer/Rafael
> Nadal Effect: At certain points in time, the absence of any of these
> players from a tournament would have robbed it of a good deal of its
> urgency right from the start. Without them, an event didn't quite
> matter, or matter nearly as much as it did with them. It's a measure of
> how far Djokovic in 2011 has come that he has reached that status. Too
> bad, too: He was forced to choose between his two home tournaments, one
> in Monaco and the other in Belgrade. It's been a little weird to hear
> about him practicing on the courts at the MCCC this week, but skipping
> this one and, hopefully, living long enough to fight in Paris was the
> right decision.
>
Uh, this Djokovic surely is a great clay courter. Almost a clay legend
this year already without even playing on clay.
His improved results have lots to do with improved serve...from which
advantage clay does take away.
Too bad that he still has not beaten Nadal on clay, ever.
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>Steve Tignor
>
>This has been the mellow Monte Carlo. It used to be that the heart of the
>season began to beat right around now, but this time the tournament almost
>feels like a one-off, a clay tune-up for the more significant clay tune-ups
>to come, with the French Open way out there on the horizon.
Yes.
>You can chalk it up to a phenomenon previously unknown in tennis, something
>called the Novak Djokovic Effect. It's akin to the John McEnroe Effect, and
>in more recent years to the Roger Federer/Rafael Nadal Effect: At certain
>points in time, the absence of any of these players from a tournament would
>have robbed it of a good deal of its urgency right from the start. Without
>them, an event didn't quite matter, or matter nearly as much as it did with
>them.
Yes.
>Along with the Djokovic effect, we've also suffered from the Incredible
>Shrinking Masters, that annual moment when we go from the Slam-like,
>dual-gender, 96-draw events in Indian Wells and Key Biscayne to a relatively
>sleepy 56 men at a country club.
The guy is saying exactly what I said few weeks ago...
TT
Well you both look pretty silly when Djokovic loses in Serbia...
Sakari Lund
What does that got to with IW, Miami and Monte Carlo?
Djokovic is related to the second point above. And there is a big
feeling that he is missing from here, and it doesn't change in any way
if he loses in Serbia.
TT
It has to do with your and Tignor's sense of Djokovic missing from
MC...putting him as big favourite on clay before he even plays there.
>
> Djokovic is related to the second point above. And there is a big
> feeling that he is missing from here, and it doesn't change in any way
> if he loses in Serbia.
>
I miss him too, guess we'll have to manage with David Ferrer...who btw
leads clay h2h against Djokovic 3-0 and won the only 500 clay tournament
so far this year, Acapulco, beating Almagro in the final.
Now if Ferrer were to beat Nadal I'd rate him at #2 on clay atm. He may
well be that in reality even if he loses!
Sakari Lund
But this part where I said "The guy is saying exactly what I said few
weeks ago" refers to the part where he talks about the things that
make IW and Miami look big compared to Monte Carlo. It has nothing to
do with Djokovic.
Earlier he talked about Djokovic missing, which makes the difference
look even bigger this year. And don't act like it is irrelevant. The
guy has won every match he has played this year. You have said for
years he is the #2 clay courter, and now suddenly he is irrelevant.
Manco
TT
With Tignor's logic WTF is ridiculously minor event, having only 8 players.
>
> Earlier he talked about Djokovic missing, which makes the difference
> look even bigger this year. And don't act like it is irrelevant. The
> guy has won every match he has played this year. You have said for
> years he is the #2 clay courter, and now suddenly he is irrelevant.
He's not irrelevant, but his absence hardly makes MC a lesser event or
winning it asterisked in some way.
ocean
Nole first has to actually take a set off Nadal where it matters, at
RG. Something he has never done. Even PHM took a set off Nadal at RG,
ffs!
ocean
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 00:55:34 +0300, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >17.4.2011 0:32, Sakari Lund kirjoitti:
> >> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 00:08:00 +0300, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
> >>> 16.4.2011 23:59, Sakari Lund kirjoitti:
LOL. What has Nole won on clay? A rinky dinky masters series at rome
in 2008 where Fedal lost early! That's all he has won on clay. On
grass he has won squat as well. His best chance at another slam this
year is at USO. Period.
TT
Fuck, we have a realist here. Awesome.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Also this article that says that there is a "Djokovic effect" is going
a little far. I would not put Djokovic in the same breath as Federer
and Nadal and their effect. Right now Djokovic is this goofy talented
guy to me. He has done nothing in tennis or for tennis that would make
me think there is any such "Djokovic effect." I mean he is fun to
watch play especially in the past few months but saying that I missed
him in the MC tournament and that he is important enough in tennis to
have his own "effect" is crazy! What's next, his parents are going to
run the ATP? ;)
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
Agreed. But he could win many upcoming slams. As I recall, someone
posted they thought he could break Federers' record.