The Aussie Draw

The draw comes out tomorrow, and since Melbourne is 21 hours ahead of California (I think), I'm not sure what that means, but I'm bouncing in anticipation. Will Serena have to play Justine in the quarters again? Thoughts on that, or anything else?

Yee!!!

Go Serena!

She's lookin' fierce!

Williams (S or V) v Henin could easily happen due to the seeding. Currently I would give VW more chance of winning than SW. VW looks to be fit and in relatively good form; SW just looks like she is carrying too much weight - her power will get her through the earlier matches but a decent player should be able to exploit her lack of conditioning (if they can't then that proves yet again that women's tennis has no real depth). Henin has to be favourite to win; she is the most naturally gifted player, and is bound to be confident after 2007. The best result for women's tennis would probably be for one of the younger players to come through and win.

In terms of the men, I have a sneaking suspicion that Federer won't win this year. Like the women it would be good for the sport if someone like Djokovic or Gasquet wins.

Did you watch the Aussie last year, jargoneer? Quite a few decent players failed to exploit Serena's lack of conditioning. But I don't really think she has that problem this year.

ETA: I disagree that Henin is the most naturally gifted player. I think she's a very gifted player with an extremely strong will to win and work ethic that goes with it. But if she had to drop her training for awhile, I think we'd see some bumps. Also, her size is not a gift.

I pretty much learned last year not to count Serena out, especially in Australia. That said, I still think Justine is going to win (which, with my luck, means she'll be upset in the first round). Does anyone know if Davenport will be in it? I heard rumors she might be back for the Australian, but I'm not at all sure, and haven't been paying that much attention to tennis news in the offseason.

Gasquet? Beat Roger? No way!!

You're right. Gasquet is nowhere near ready to beat Federer when he's defending his title. Djokovic, maybe.

And, legxleg, I don't think you have to worry about Henin being bumped in the first round. She's a pretty sure bet until the later rounds.

The draw is out: http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/draws/ms/index.html

I think we're looking at Safin v. Baghdatis in the 2d round; Davenport (she's back!) v. Sharapova 2d round; Jankovic v. Serena in the quarters (I'm glad they changed it up.); and if all goes well, Venus v. Ivanovic in the quarters. The men's draw doesn't seem as exciting, but at least Rafa is in it this year. Look for Rafa v. Roddick in the quarters(?).

I'm going to be using that one a lot. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

ETA: I posted too soon. Federer v. Gonzalez (does he still have the magic of, say, 9 months ago?) in the quarters.

>5 citygirl: - I did watch the AO last year and the fact that Williams won highlighted the problem with women's tennis - there is a real lack of quality, not to mention variety. That not one player was able to exploit Williams lack of conditioning is a damning indictment on the standard of the other 'top' players.

If Henin is not the most talented, who is? Despite not having the same physique as the other players she is able to compete with them due to having a superior technique.

Jankovic v Williams is an interesting match - it is getting to crunch time for Jankovic, to see if she can step to win a GS or will just be another generic top 10 player.

I didn't say Gasquet would beat Federer, although he has in the past, I said it would be good if someone like him won - a new face etc. Federer will probably be more worried knowing that Nalbandian is the same half as him.

I wouldn't place any bets on Nadal, he seems to have a real problem with his knees at present.

Hurray, I'm glad that Davenport is back! Although, Sharapova in the second round is pretty tough. Still, Sharapova can be kind of spotty sometimes, so I'll hold out hope.

I really hope we see Nadal v Roddick; I like watching both of them play, and I feel like they don't actually come up against each other all that often. So here's hoping Nadal's knee pulls him through at least til the quarters - then they can abandon him :-P (I admit it, I'm a Roddick fan, but I promise, it's not just his looks >

If Henin is not the most talented, who is?

Why, Serena, of course.

Technique is not talent. And my point about Justine's size is that, in today's field, being tall and naturally strong is a "natural" gift, a "talent." Justine has to work that much harder because of her size. Serena does not have to work as hard. To me, this is evidence of talent. When you put talent like Serena's with work and discipline like Justine's, you get Federer.

And I disagree about the quality of the women's game. I see nothing that says that the women, generally, are less able than the women five years ago or ten or twenty. In fact, I think it is the opposite. The tour is more grueling than ever and, despite the dearth of American up-and-comers, we're seeing talented, driven players coming from everywhere else. The rewards of women's tennis are huge these days compared to the past and the fight is tougher.

Serena's victory a year ago can be construed as a) indication of low-quality field or b) proof of Serena's talent and heart or even c) some combination of the two. I go with b. This issue has been debated quite a bit.

I agree, there's lots of women who can compete. I do think that the game as a whole was more entertaining before the new racquet materials made power more important than finesse. Anyone can hit groundstrokes these days and stay in the game, but is it any fun to watch? That's why I love Justine & Mauresmo--the ycan actually volley when they need to (and look great doing it).

As for the men, I'm hoping Andy Murray pulls his head out of his butt and does well this year. He's got so much game, I hope he learns how to use it. And Roddick is overrated. Dude is nothing but a big serve. No head for the game, no finesse, boring. Nadal will wipe the floor with him, if he even gets that far.

You know, loads of people say Roddick is overrated, and I get that. I can understand how some people might find him boring to watch, and that's fine. I find him, personally, to be one of the most entertaining players to watch. It's not so much about finesse and shot variety as it is about heart. You can actually see him putting it all out there, and I think that, as well as his serve, is what has kept him in it. He kind of reminds me of Serena in that respect. But people find different things entertaining, so it's all good. :-) I hope that he and Nadal both get to the quarters, and that it's a good, close game, regardless of who wins - I think they're both entertaining players, and a close match between the two of them would be great for everyone.

And the real question - how can I watch the Australian Open, keep on my 50 books schedule, not fail out of school, *and* have a life? Something is going to have to go - I suspect it will be sleep.

I guess that's the difference between you & me, legxleg, I prefer a player who "puts it all out there" in their shot making, not in histrionics. But then again, I loved MacEnroe. ;-)

Give me a poker player like Sampras or Federer, who barely sweats, but puts his opponent in his place with a well-placed winner. That's not only heart, but guts as well.

I hear you, legxleg. I have a TIVO just so I can record Grand Slams, since I have a job and all. What that means is that I have to stay up until the wee hours watching tennis, especially the first week. I do a lot of fast-forwarding.

Re Roddick. At first I thought he was just some strutting jock, but I have really come to respect him as a player. First of all, that serve is f***ing fierce. I just love it. I could watch him serve all day.
Second, I completely agree about his heart. He doesn't have the talent and variety of Federer or Nadal, but he's really opened up his game in the last year and a half (thank you Jimmy Connors), and it's been fun to watch him get more confident at net. At the US Open 2007, I think it might have been the quarters, he played Federer, and that was the best I'd ever seen him. They were toe to toe. It was like, who's going to blink first? He forced Fed to play his A+ game. (You know Fed starts with the B- and raises as he needs to.) But Fed came out with A+, he knew Andy was gunning for him.
Third, mental toughness. I think players don't get enough recognition for this. The lack thereof is what is wrong with Murray, Blake, Safin, etc. Not Roddick. He's one of the few players who can consistently serve big and accurate when he's down 0-40. That's not small.
Fourth, personality. I gotta weakness for players with attitude. I love his strut on court. In press conferences you find out that this guy is also wicked smart, funny and down to earth. I wasn't surprised to learn that he'd once hosted SNL.
Fifth, looks. Hey, I'm a straight girl and that face and physique are kinda hard to ignore, not that I'm trying. ;-)

Mental toughness???!!! Roddick was the poster boy for tanking way before Blake or Safin or Murray! That's why he hired Connors--to help him figure out how to keep his head in the game. So far, it has helped marginally, but get him up against a real stud and he will flail.

He had a bad 9 months. Come on!

I respectfully disagree. He had several years where he couldn't play well. He won the US Open once, then he lost his mojo. (Remember those commercials?)

Yes. I do remember those commercials. So sad.

But please note (respectfully, of course): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_roddick in the section "Career Statistics" that he has not dropped lower than #6 since 2003. I wouldn't exactly call that not playing well. And the past 3 years he's had Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic (and now Nalbandian) to contend with. And with the possible exception of Nalbandian, I would say that the first 3 have a natural talent that he cannot approach, yet he hangs in there.

I don't believe everything I read on wikipedia. I'm sure he has dropped below 6. He was lower than Blake during the latter half of last year. I remember what a big deal they made of that.

It doesn't matter where you are in the computer--the fact is they have been touting this guy as a real contender for 8 years and he hasn't lived up to the hype.

In my humble opinion, of course.

Well, I guess it's a matter of perspective. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. I wish you could've seen that US Open quarterfinal w/ Fed, tho. *sigh*

So. Does anybody have any Grand Slam-watching rituals ready to go?

This is going to be fun. Disagreement makes interesting discussions as long as people remain civil. And since it's LT, that's not an issue.

Rituals? I just make sure I have plenty of roving to spin. And snacks. Husband only looks in from time to time, he's not glued to the tv the entire fortnight.

Fortnight! One sure giveaway that someone is a tennis fan.

>12 citygirl: - Talent has nothing to do with physical attributes - it's how well someone hits the ball, how they can change their game, the number of shots in their locker, etc? That's why Henin is more talented than Serena; she is able to manipulate the ball more. That doesn't necessarily make her a better player because Williams can use her physical attributes, strength and power, to win.
Re - the women's game in general, women's tennis has always suffered from a general lack of depth. At present there are too many identikit players, none of whom seem capable of developing further. Too many of them just seem to capitulate to the Williams sisters and Henin.
I would also argue however the reason Federer has won so many GS's is that the men's top 10 has been relatively weak for a few years (with the exception of Nadal on clay). When Sampras was winning his titles the top 10 included players like Agassi, Edberg, Becker, etc - excellent players in their own right.

One reason Roddick can't make the step up is that he is incapable of changing his gameplan. Connors has tried to alter his game but Roddick doesn't seem to think about how to play a match once he is on court. He goes on with a plan and then just sticks with it regardless. I don't think you can doubt his commitment though - he really does try, the truth is that he is just a fraction below the best. It's a pity because he does come across as a really nice guy.

One of the papers in the UK reported that Nadal's coach is starting to get worried that his current knee problems could be career threatening.

OK, re: Roddick's ranking, you can see the rankings from somewhere in the mid-seventies on at atptennis.com. I haven't got the time to check all of them, but at one point during the Blake-was-ranked-higher era, it seems like he dropped to number 7 (Jan 15, '07). However, considering all the massive 'he's done!' outcry around about then, I'd guess that's the lowest he's dropped in some time. In my opinion, top seven (hell, top ten) for such an extended period of time is a real contender; there are a lot of players that would love to have that sort of history. And if you jump forward a few months from that time at number 7, he's back at number three (I'm looking at May 7). Considering all the
'he's done!' stuff that was coming from the media and everyone at that time, I think his comeback was pretty impressive. A lot of people would have gotten really negative and just slunk away.

Re: Roddick's mental toughness - while he certainly is capable of mental freakouts, he's also had some mental victories. I remember watching one match where I was sure it was over - he was down something like 6 -1, or 6-2 in the tiebreak - and he actually came back to win it. As far as gameplan goes, what jargoneer's saying could be true, I don't know; I'll have to pay attention from now on.

Oh, and speaking of Jimmy Conners - I kind of love the Roddick-Conners team. Whenever Roddick does that backhand down-the-line, it makes me happy.

I certainly hope Nadal's knee problems aren't career threatening. Sometimes I get down on the whole Nadal-Federer rivalry, but really, it is exciting to watch, and I'd hate to see it end with Nadal benched from an injury. Also, I've felt really affectionate towards Nadal ever since that whole 'calling for a medical timeout because he couldn't swallow a banana' thing during the French Open...year before last, maybe? I really hope his knee situation isn't that dire. *crosses fingers*

You know, I remember hearing that Sampras said something about the men's field being so much tougher when he was playing, and the reason Federer wins so much is no one can give him competition, in an interview. I thought he was just having sour grapes because he regretted retiring, but then he beat Federer in that exhibition match, so I don't know what to think!

This is going back to message 16, but this time around I have a TiVo, so I'm looking forward to fast-forwarding through matches I'm not as interested in. The way I figure, I can even fast-forward in between points (especially if Nadal is playing). Hopefully that will make watching the Open more feasible. I don't really have any rituals; generally I just keep my books open while I'm watching so I can pretend that I'm working. I don't get anything done, but I feel better about it. And anyway, I've always been a strong believer in learning by osmosis, if only because I'm lazy!

I've tried fast-forwarding while Nadal prepares to serve, it doesn't work. You miss the serve and then have to rewind. When watching Nadal play, I have a book handy, you can get in a paragraph or two while he adjusts and dribbles and does whatever.

I do hope his injuries are not career-threatening. That would be almost-tragic.

What made me think that Fed is the GOAT is when Agassi said he was the best he'd ever played. Hmmm. It's not his fault that his only real competition is Nadal and now Djokovic. The man is transcendent.

jargoneer, Serena can do anything on court. What weaknesses do you see that point to a lack of talent? If she played consistently, she'd dominate. Justine's a great player, no question, but she'll never be able to match Serena's or Venus' serve.

serve, schmerve. Who else can make shots and volley like that?

Ahhh, the dying art of the volley. I miss it, I surely do....

Littlegeek,

I too dearly miss the volley. I haven't cared quite as much for tennis since Edberg retired:(

In General...

On the Women's side, I believe Henin is confident she can beat anyone...except Serena. If someone knocks Serena out because she's less than motivated or injured, then it's Henin's tournament. But, if it gets to Henin v. Serena, Henin will fold like an accordion (well, maybe not quite like that, but close) because Serena is mentally stronger and at least as talented (speaking of the volley, I think Serena's "okay" with the shot given her doubles results with Venus). Ivanovic and Sharapova are my dark horse picks to get to the final (not really a huge gamble there:). Or will Davenport score one for the mom's of the world?

On the men's side, wow, look at all the talent in the second section of the draw: Nalbandian, Safin, Baghdatis, former winner Johannsen, Djokovic and my personal pick to do some damage (cuz he's playing well right now), Dimitry Tursunov; it's anyone's ball game. Can Nalbandian continue his hot streak? Can Safin get his head on straight? Can Djokovic win the big one or will he be just another top tenner?

I thought I heard the tournament was using a different surface than the old slow, sticky stuff (har-tru?) they've been using for years. Can anyone confirm this and, if so, is it a faster surface?

According to Wikipedia, source of all questionable yet believable information: In 2008, the Rebound Ace surface which has been in place for the past 20 years at Melbourne Park, will be replaced by a cushioned acrylic surface known as Plexicushion. The main benefits of the new surface: better consistency and less retention of heat (due to a thinner top layer).

From what I heard on tv: Serena likes it, believes it will be easier on her ankles. Roger (ever the traditionalist and master of variable control) wishes things would stay the same. Commentators think we'll see fewer slides because of the grittiness and apparently it will be harder on the balls themselves.

Thanks citigirl,

Illness at work caused my schedule to change unexpectedly, but I wanted to get some sort of post up before the tournament really got going. Then I went to post and LT was down for awhile, so it was after 2:00 am by the time I got something written, and I had to be back to work at 7:00 am, so I foisted the court surface research off on you:) Unfortunately, I still don't know if "a cushioned acrylic surface" would play fast, slow or somewhere in between. Also, would the grittiness fluff up the tennis balls (slowing them down) or would it do the opposite? I'll have to listen in to the commentators and hope someone talks about it a bit more, I guess.

Re: 31

Sorry citYgirl, I didn't mean to turn you into a girl from a banking institution.

I don't mind. It could only be an improvement to my net worth.

It seems the commentators have been indicating (my profession is showing, isn't it?) that the court is playing a bit faster. They think it will be a help to Roddick's game. Interestingly, it seems to suit Nadal as well. Hmmm.

If Roger is bitching about it, I would think it would be playing slower. He likes a fast court.

Yeah, but Roger hates any changes. He still doesn't like the challenge system. I'll pay closer attention when I watch tonight.

He uses the challenges to great effect, tho.

I can't watch much tonight, it's my singing night.

I'll tell you what happens. :-)

Only 2 weeks to go before Aus Open 2009 begins!

Hubby told me today that Djokovich was ousted on the first day of a warm up tourney this week. You all know how I feel about this.

Roger FTW in 2009!

Hi digifish_books and littlegeek!

littlegeek - regarding Novak - Yes I do. And I feel the same.

Go Roger!!! He won easily in the first round at Qatar. Next is Seppi.

How's the wrist, littlegeek?

Got my cast off yesterday. It's stiff, but feels better today already. Thanks.

is this Andy Murray's year?