To be fair, the French also has a pretty long list of long shots who have won. Albert Costa, Iva Majoli, Andres Gomez, even last years champs, Gaudio and Myskina were surprise winners. So I can see SpchProf point. I think of all the slams, the French is the most likely place for underdogs and long shots to win. It's also the place where specialist are most successful.

Removed.

I too am giddy for Rafa! Very cool way to celebrate your birthday weekend. Glad for him that he didn't crumble under the pressure of having his king looking on. I had visions of Clinton at Wimbledon a few years ago when they flashed to Juan Carlos in the stands.

I have to agree with OopsSorry, that I'm dismayed that the casual tennis viewing public still holds these stereotypes about players at the French Open.

If you look at the results of many of the so-called "clay-court" specialists, you'll see lots of good results on hard-courts and indoors (Ferrero made the 2003 US Open final for goodness sake, not to mention the 2002 Masters final as well). Nadal was finalist at the NASDAQ 100 earlier in the year, Coria the year earlier.

Why aren't we talking about "Grass Court" specialists the same way? Ivanesevic and Krajicek quickly come to mind as players who didn't even much success on hardcourts let alone clay. Tim Henman has underachieved somewhat as well outside of Wimbledon, though for me, it's more mental that physical in his case. Before Roger Federer, Pat Rafter was probably the closest thing to an all-surface player in the modern era.

I was a little bit annoyed by the cameras and interviewer following Zidane around. It's not his championship, it's not even his sport. But at least it wasn't like he tried to call undue attention to himself, and the focus went back to the two finalists.

I was also a little distracted by that gooey-looking thing hanging off Puerta's chin for almost the whole match. But fortunately it turned out to be a just a bit of towel fluff. I remember Agassi had a towel thread hanging off his stubble for the better part of a match a couple of years ago. Distracting as hell. I can't even remember which event it was now, but I remember the thread.

There was a time not too long ago when the clay court specialists didn't even bother entering Wimbledon. I'm happy that Nadal is aiming to win that too. If maybe not this year, then someday.

I'm by no means a casual tennis fan, and I do feel like we see a few more clay specialist who do well at French and not at the other slams. True there are big names like Ferrero and Nadal who will do well on other surfaces, but look who else is in the final, Puerta. I don't think many feel he has a great chance at Wimbledon or the USO. Last years winner, Gaudio, is not a major threat on other surfaces either. Again this is not a criticism, because I love to watch great tennis no matter who is playing.

Also, players who do well on other surfaces get criticized routinely for their failings on clay as well. Sampras and Roddick don't exactly have it easy when they fail to advance far at the French.

Not sure about Krajicek, but I believe that Ivanisevic made it to the US Open semis one year and Michael Stich made the final there one year as well. Oddly the one semi that Henman made other than at Wimbledon, was at the French.

Good win for Nadal! But I'm kind of heartbroken over Puerta. I loved him. He's incredibly cute and had to work so freaking hard to get to the final.

I haven't watched the Roger/Nadal match yet, and I don't know if I should. I mean, even if I know the disappointing score, should I watch it just as a tennis fan because it was good tennis? From reading this board, it doesn't seem that way. So I ask the other Roger uberfans: should I watch it?

And now that Nadal has won his first GS, I can come out and say that I don't like him anymore. He seems very sweet off the court, and is a nice guy, but there's a certain point where the novelty wears off, and youthful enthusiasm becomes over-the-top histrionics for me, and I think that that line was crossed. I can't say anymore that it's inexperence, youth, enthusiasm, etc. I usually don't like players that emote THAT much- ergo my favorites: Roger, Sampras, Rafter, Edberg, Moya, JCF... I like the quiet type. I can't even root for him for being an underdog. He's never going to be that again. And I can sometimes dismiss on-court histrionics if I love the player's game, but I don't even like his game that much. So there. I don't think I'll be rooting for him anymore.

Aw, but he just turned 19 and just won his first Grand Slam. I can understand his enthusiasm and emotion. I love it that he thanked the ballkids. I might be wrong, but didn't Federer also cry upon winning his first slam? I think they all get a little emotional, even the ones who are used to it.

Maybe it's because I have a soft spot for the Spanish players. Too bad about my favorite, Juan Carlos Ferrero. He lost badly, and did so wearing a headband. Gah. I'm hoping he does well at the US Open.

Needless to say I am thrilled. I love Nadal and his enthusiasm on court and his real, sweet, respectful personality off court. Love this kid! I just think he's a good guy. Did any of you catch how cute he was to take the ball girl by the hand when going to collect the trophy? Not many players do that, rather the kids follow them. (Fed and a couple of other maybe would have as well, but still for a first GS title and to be so sweet- must be noted) He is a sweetie. And I think very genuine.

So glad that Puerto played so awesome. What a great GS final! Guy played some spectacular clay court tennis and so glad the announcers gave him deserved kudos. Loved that Rafa said that he thought he could lose, because Mariano played awesome.

Liked that Mariono seemed to be happy in his defeat- if that is possible. He should be - he played his ass off to get to the final and then played his ass off in the final.

Loved the shot of Rafa crying into his towel. Awww...

And we got to see a bit of Jonas/Max in their doubles win.

Very, very happy tennis viewing for me today.

As a Federer AND a Nadal fan I wouldn't watch it. I was expecting an incredible match and that's not what happened. Roger was off his game from the start. It just didn't seem like the same guy at all. They both were off but I think it's more understandable from Nadal because it was his first GS final. But I don't understand what was up with Roger. It's not even like Nadal was giving him all that much trouble because he too was having a tough time. Roger was just missing shots he normally wouldn't miss. It was just a weird match and I had major trouble watching it.

Oh, but I'm not talking about emotion after the match. Hey, I'm all for that. I got emotional with him. And as I said, Nadal seems like an extremely sweet person. It's just his on court behavior that bugs me. And I have to be consistent. If Capriati's, Serena's, Sharapova's, Hewitt's (ESPECIALLY Hewitt), antics bug me, and I can't help rolling my eyes at Roddick when he gets cocky, and every time Hewitt screams "Come on" I cringe, then I can't really like Nadal's constant fist pumping, "Vamos!" screaming, jumping in the air, sprinting to the baseline, and boxer-like behavior during the coin-toss. It just bugs me. I could dismiss it before because he's young, not very experienced, and because he was the new boy in town. But he's only young now. So I have to finally accept that yeah, I don't like the way he behaves on the court. And I do believe he's a good sportsman and a good kid. I just prefer the quiet players.



I do too. Probably one of the reasons I was rooting for Nadal for so long. I'm biased for "los españoles" and "los latinos" in general. I accept it.

And about JCF and his bandana? How is it possible that Moya and Federer pull the bandana look so well and Juan Carlos looks like he just had brain surgery? Is his head THAT small?



They did that yesterday with Mary Pierce and Justine. I guess it's a thing at Roland Garros...

Heh, jimena - I just laughed out loud at this, because it's so true. Maybe he did, to be so potentially involved with Sharapova! [/catty comment]

I know well the argument you guys are making about the odd FO winners, but I do feel that if you specifically look at the last 10 years (as you cited, SpchProf), it's actually pretty incredible how many were all-surface players. Or at least consistent threats (Kuerten) on this one - rather than the one-slam wonders, as the media often cites.

And while I think a look at the long history of winners does call up quite a few names that make even the clay-court fan go "Who??", they really do seem to be interspersed among the leaders of the day. I hope this doesn't just feel like rationalizing for the surface (and indeed the Spanish/etc players who do so well on it), because I feel that that list (and deeper analysis into finalists, etc.) backs this up.

But again, YMMV. I actually think Nadal like JCF, Coria, and Moya will be interesting because his obvious strengths on other non-clay surfaces might help bring back public interest in the clay season. Will have to wait and see.

I have to agree with kathyjo and tell you not to watch the match, jimena. And it pains me to say that, because I have loved matches where Roger has lost - but this was certainly not one of them. It was so painful in the first set that I had to leave the room on several occasions.

Another instance, jimena, where I had to check if I had actually authored your post:



Get out of my head! Heh.

In the last 10 years- who's won the French?

2005- Nadal
2004- Gaudio
2003- JCF
2002- Costa
2001- Kuerten
2000- Kuerten
1999- Agassi
1998- Moya
1997- Kuerten
1996- Kafelnikov

So of all of these, only Costa and Gaudio could really be considered clay-court specialists. I think Costa is the real oddity here, because he really came out of nowhere to win it, and wasn't really considered among the top 5 clay courters at the time- unlike Gaudio, for example. To me his win was similar to Johansson winning the Aus Open in 03. Kefelnikov won the Aus Open also and was number one in the world. So was Moya, and JCF, and not only on their strengths on clay. Guga FINISHED the year at number one in 2000, winning the Tennis Masters Cup indoors- and beating Safin in the process, a tough task on an indoor court, plus a number of hard court titles. We all know Agassi.

I actually think that the perception people have about lots of RG winners coming out of nowhere doesn't hold much lately.

So when's tennis on the telly again?

An interesting thought: Roger was beaten by Safin at the Aus Open on Safin's birthday. Roger was beaten by Nadal at Roland Garros on Nadal's birthday. The semis at Wimbledon are on Joachim Johansson's birthday. I sure as hell hope he's on the other side of the draw.

Of the past ten champs only Agassi and Kafelnikov have won majors other than the French, and only Ferrero and Moya have made slam finals other than the French. Compare that with Wimbledon where out of the last ten champs only Ivanisevic and Krajicek failed to win another major. The Aussie Open where only Johansson and Korda have not won a different major. Or the US Open where Roddick and Rafter failed to win a major a different major, they both, however, made finals in other slams.



I gotta agree that the emotion after seemingly every point was a bit much. I hope as he plays more he loses it a little. It was kinda endearing at first, but it started to get old. My guess is that as he keeps on winning he will be more calm.

Oh, I completely agree. But I do think that although her commentary is generally tolerable, her keeping that bozo JMac in check is the only real satisfaction I get from listening to her.

The French is always an exciting tournament for me because the surface is such the challenge that a dark horse can win. Extraordinary gifts can carry a player through (hey, Roger...?), but it's unpredictable. Now, the unfortunate thing about the surface is I watched once with a friend who after watching still didn't "get" tennis. He's a hockey player. To him it was just fluttering the ball back and forth as his prejudices demanded he think. But there was a great camera angle that showed the sliding and running, and I wished they'd sustain these shots to get a full idea of what these players are actually doing for 2 hours.

Playing devil's advocate here: doesn't Wimbledon get a lot of people in the second week that haven't done much anywhere else? Wayne Arthurs, Alexander Popp, Vladimir Vlochkov... It's not just at the French.

And Guga may have underperformed at the other slams (though he did make the quarters of all of them)- but he did win TMC indoors, and beat Sampras, Agassi and Safin to do so.



And hockey is...? Pushing a puck with a stick until it hits a net? I mean, if we're going to come up with simplistic descriptions, I'm sure there's one for every sport. Golf, anyone?

Wonderful final between Nadal and Puerta. So sad to see Puerta serve for the 4th set then lose.

I am a tennis fanatic but I've never understood why there is such a short break between The French and Wimbledon. They are the only two majors played within the same month. It would make more sense to move it up a month or so. And yes, I realize that this would cause tournaments to be moved around but it would make so much more sense. Could someone explain why this is?

So happy for Rafa! So impressed by Puerta during the match as well, and I always love it when a Grand Slam final is a great match as it was today.

Personaly, I don't mind Nadal's on-court behavior one ioata. As others have said, he seems to be a real nice person in real life. His enthusiasm seems to come from within (did anyone catch how he made that little face before he came out on court) and does seem to be done to distract his opponents, but rather, just is what he does to show his own enthusiasm during his matches.

Some players act differently on court- I think these differences are good for the sport of tennis. I would hate it if everyone acted the same- talk about boring. I like that, for example, Fededer does best when he is calmest whereas Nadal does best when he is emotive. It is fun to watch these differences and I am glad that the players do not try to act differently from what they would naturaly just to please the audiences.

Nadal's after-match interviewonce again cracked me up. Loved how he fought to explain the dynamics of a point in English and then gave a couple of peace or V signs after he was able to explain it in English.

I was wondering yesterday why they didn't show any of the men's doubles but I am glad that they showed some today. Had to leave after that- did they show any of the women's doubles?

I agree with others that there needs to be a longer break between the French Open and Wimbledon. And I really wish that there was a Masters tourney on grass. You hav one on clay, regular hard courts, Rebound Ace hard courts, and indoor carpet. Why not grass as well?

Loving the soccer players. Nadal's soccer playing uncle was nice to look at (wish they had shown him some more) and the French soccer player from the trophy presentation was oh-la-la!

Removed.

Can SOMEONE, ANYONE at NBC realize that Bud Collins is way, way past his expiration date? If he was ever even remotely whimsical, he ceased to be that years ago, now he's just annoying. Thank God for the mute button.

Removed.

I can't stand how he talks to players who are not native-English speakers from Spain and Latin America. He talks to them as if they have IQs of around 60. Did it today to Puerta and Nadal.



A couple more reasons why I like Rafa. He does not just want to focus on sucess on the clay and really realizes what he needs to improve to do well on the fast courts. Also like that he plays a lot of doubles (he has played a ton this year)- from what my mom says a lot of top singles players used to play a lot of doubles but that is no longer the case. And since I am just varsity in tennis because of my stuff in doubles - I'm always happy to see dubs being a priority for the players who do well in singles.

Hitting a ball with a crooked stick, then walking after it, and then hitting it again.

Such is the nature of Golf.

</George Carlin>


Topic:

Bud Collins is a moron. He should be doing local sports news in BumFuck Middle of nowhere with Tim McCarver and Joe Morgan.

I swear I closed that tag

I got your back on this one HippyJoe. Why is he still around? Do the players enjoy him? I can't see that.

Hewitt [hate] is playing doubles with Philippoussis at Queen's. Weird. Johnny Mac was saying yesterday that he was working with Mark cause Mark is trying to mount a comeback. Mac sounded less than convinced that it was possible. But we all know Philippoussis is obsessed with the grass at Wimbledon.

I believe he is supposed to be playing at the Gerry Weber Open this week - the same grass event that Roger is playing in.


I totally agree! I love the grass court season. Wimbledon is my absolute favorite slam. I have been getting up on Sundays to watch Breakfast at Wimbledon since I can remember. The grass court season is far too short.

I am so jealous of people with TTC! I would love to watch Queen's this week.

This article has a preview of the grass court season and what the rankings at Wimbledon might look like.

I will board the Bud Collins annoyance train.


Since I usually read the interview transcripts after matches, I know he asks some pretty annoying questions sometimes. In fact, I've always loved this exchange between him and Andy Roddick at last year's Davis Cup final:



JuanitaSmi: Your Hewitt hate warms my heart.

Interestingly enough, John McEnroe was the biggest opponent to Mary getting to do commentary on men's matches. She was doing women's matches and expressed interest in covering the men (and she would do some lesser matches in lesser tournaments for the men) and John had the biggest hissyfit. He kept talking about how only men could work the men's matches. Awful.


Oh, me too.


And we got to watch it three times! I was royally pissed that NBC re-aired most of it after the women's final. There was men's doubles to be decided! Yes, I'm glad I got a token few games on Sunday, but they could have shown the whole thing on Saturday.


Yes, yes it is. JC is the most delicate-looking man around.


HA!


Why are you only looking at the Opens? There is a lot of tennis in a year and a lot of really quality tournaments out there besides the big four. I love the French. I think clay-court tennis is beautiful (I'm all about defense in every sport) and I'd rather see a great match then players I recognize.


Or how about the eye-rolling during the ESPN2 interview? Eyes roll, camera man cracks up, Rafa cracks up. It was beautiful.


Aw, but his "Bush (the original) used to be left-handed but his (grand)father made him go right, and they haven't been left since" cracked me up. Bud is outdated, yes, but what he did for the sport of tennis is remarkable--although, yes, retirement from being on the air might be in order.

Can we talk about how lousy a job all the commentators did this weekend? Do they not know that tennis needs better ratings? Constantly talking about the big blowout that was going to happen on Sunday (and where were the apologizes for botching that prediction?) was telling the viewers to not bother. Even I, who was not familiar with Puerta barely at all, knew that even if he was going to go down in three--it was going to be an entertaining three. Couldn't the commentators have mentioned that Puerta was beautiful to watch on court? That his shots were great? Every commentator was so concerned with being right (and they were all wrong) that they did the coverage, and the sport, a huge disservice.

I'm on the Bud Collins hate train. I suppose, despite the demographics y'all have shown here, that it is assumed the average tennis fan is around Bud's age and enjoys the tradition. Not me, however.

I was OK with the commentators for the final otherwise but I do wish JMac would stop harping on whatever issue is stuck in his head. OK, I get it, you thought Puerta's injury timeout changed the dynamics of the match. Just shut up about it already.

And I hope the King of Spain can get that clay mark out of his suit.

Wasn't there talk a while back of moving Wimbledon a couple of weeks later? Whatever came of that?

Hell and high water come to mind... I think the Aussie dates are changing and Roland Garros will change before Wimbledon caves.

I kinda like having the Slams around American holidays:
* Aussie: MLK Day
* French: Memorial Day
* Wimbledon: 4th of July
* US: Labor Day

Always can count on another day off to watch the tennis!

For some reason, Queen's isn't on TTC today. Looks like they are not showing any matches until the Semis on Friday. Damn it all!

I was looking at the majors because the conversation was dealing with the French Open specifically. There are certainly many tournaments throughout the year, but the majors are the cream of the crop. They are the ones that the player want to win the most. My point was not a criticism of clay court tennis. I enjoy the French as much as the other slams and love watching clay court tennis in general as well.



Absolutely, do the commentators know that this is a sport? Do they know that upsets happen all the time? Last year Coria was a huge favorite and he lost in 5. Hingis was an even bigger favorite in 97 and she lost. It's crazy that you would just hand it to one player before they even step out on the court.



I feel bad for Bud. He has been a fixture in the sport forever, but he is getting up there in age. Heck, he has been up in age for about 30 years, but I think the sport would lose something if he weren't there anymore. I would miss the loud pants, the nicknames, but most importantly the enthusiasm for the sport. He may seem incoherent at times, but he still knows his stuff, just read his articles or books. I'll never forget the story of a young bratty Agassi challenging Collins on the court and pelting balls as hard as he could and Collins actually getting the balls back. So, Bud at least has one fan on this board.

I hated the commentators. They just wouldn't shut up. JMac was as usual all about himself. I just wish someone would tell him to shut up. I can't stand the man. I have a lot more tolerance for PMac and his incessant gushing.

Ah, Bud. He was wacky to begin with for sure, but has really seemed to lose his grip over the years. NBC must have some clause of some contract somewhere to keep him on. I know he's a sentimental connection for many - even I have fond (I guess they're fond) memories of his commentating with Enberg over all the Breakfast at Wimbledon events.

But even in the press conferences, it's obvious some of the players have had it with him. My wish is that he'd remove himself from the journalistic side - it just feels slightly pathetic that he still wants to be kept on.

Like the old adage, "How can I miss you if you won't go away?" I think many of the viewers would feel better about him if he were brought in every once in a while for a special commentary from the studio and thus kept far from the players.

Anyway, just to clear up the original controversy (if it really is that) over the FO winners, the original comments by SpchProf were that the list of the last 10 winners read like a "Where are they now?" of tennis athletes, and I felt that the list (thanks, jimena) was anything but. I do think it's a special time of the year because it can bring out other talents and people we might not get to see, but to say it's irrelevant - I just feel sad that people feel that way. Though I can see where that opinion comes from.



I think we should send your paragraph to the networks, LT. I feel like that began with all the pre-Friday's-semifinal hype, as well. If the only match worth watching was Friday's, why should we even bother?

Let's hope the Wimbledon coverage is better, y'all.

And for those of you who missed it, atptennis.com has posted a transcript of the Mary C homage to clay courters. It's not quite the same without the visuals, but I guess the piece got a lot of response.

Bud Collins as an actual colour commentator in the 1980s was......... interesting.

He literally lived and died by the match (incessant "oohs" and "aahs"), and sure let the viewer know who his favourite was. He was also very eager to add in some non-sensical tennis trivia every now and then.

Still, whatever criticism Mary gets, I still take her over Chris Evert, who while she got better over the years, Chris simply didn't do her research before matches and couldn't really add anything insightful to the broadcast (splashed with a lot of "you knows").

Grrr! Hate that! [But I second this: Go Pistons! (Weird for a born-and-raised Arizonan, but Detroit has been My Team since the Bad Boys.) /ot]


I don't know if it's so much about underdogs and long shots except in the strictest sense of the terms. It's more about being fit and not relying on just hitting someone off of the court. Think of the fitness level of most past champs of both genders. A lot were dogged defensive types who could run all day. That is as important as being able to slide on the clay, IMO.


But that has had as much to do with the seeding policies at the Championships as anything. I remember when Corretja (love me some Alex) refused to go a few years ago because he was a top-10 player who'd just come off a FO final, but had a seeding in no way commensurate with his ranking. On the other hand, Sampras would come to the FO and get the #1 seed even though he'd never accomplished a damned thing on clay; then, he'd show up to Wimbeldon and be the #1 seed even though he wasn't ranked #1. That pissed off a lot of clay court "specialists" (and after the epic semi vs. Sampras at the US, whoever dares call Corretja a clay court specialist earns my undying ire) whose Wimbeldon seedings were based on past grass results, but didn't get the benefit of past clay results when FO seedings were put together. (All of the GS tournaments can set their seedings however they want to; only Wimbledon takes advantage, for some reason.)

And I'll take this time to put a third vote in as lover of Spanish & Latino players. (Even ol' "Tanker" Rios. That I loved Chino despite the fact that every commentator took a good deal of time to bash his "lack of commitment" is proof positive that a Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking tennis player can do no wrong in my eyes.)


I went in not really caring because Roger was gone. Puerta won me over, though. When he was unable to serve out the fourth, I was crushed. That's when I turned the match off.


Unlike the others you list here, Sampras just bored the hell out of me. Later in his career, after he started getting really hateful in the things he said about Rafter, boredom turned to loathing. The rest? ITA.


Oh, I can stand atop the mountain with pride now! BTW, get out of my head. Heh.


John has a history of this kind of sexist crap. He only started doing women's matches when the heavy-hitter era was in full swing. Before that, he said the most awful things about women's tennis. That has changed a bit, but there's still a sexist jerk lurking underneath that balding head.


Couldn't have said it better myself. As for "all about defense in every sport"? Again, I say: Go, Pistons!

ETA: Further feelings towards Sampras.

I think when the emotion becomes vile and antagonistic rather than exuberant, that's where a lot of fans draw the line. For example, Lleyton never looks like he's having any fun out there whatsoever. He can't even relax at 6-0, 6-0, 5-0 40-love. Marat fluctuates between joy and anger very quickly within the same match. Same goes with Andy. Rafael is demonstrative, but to me, it doesn't come off as crass as the other guys - he still looks like he's enjoying himself (somewhat).

I have never bought this as a reason why the clay courters wouldn't come to Wimbledon, to me it just seemed an excuse not to go because they wouldn't do well. Sampras had a fantastic Wimbledon record to back him up, that's why he got the #1 seed. And if the clay courters wanted higher seeds, they should have come and tried. Sampras couldn't ever win on clay, but there he was, year after year, trying to play.

However, I'm glad to see this trend changing.

I think the style Lleyton plays requires that he never relax. He can't really control a match. It's all about staying mentally and physically sharp at all times. It can get to be a little too much at times, but I still like him & I understand.



I would agree that some (many, even) of them, in essence, chickened out. However, I don't think trying = doing, so Sampras being given a #1 at the French was just b.s., IMO. I can see being pissed about that. Also, I think Sampras was there as much for "legacy" as for any kind of commitment. He knew that was the knock on him. Doesn't mean he should get a #1 seed there if highly-ranked clay courters don't get the same treatment at Wimbledon, IMO.

You know, I loved Sampras because I loved his game and admired his dedication and singlemindedness. But although he let "the tennis do the talking" and wasn't prone to tantrums or emotiveness of any sort, he was never really known as a nice guy. I think he gave himself ulcers trying to be nicer than what he really was.

But I loved Pete, regardless.

I've been meaning to ask this question forever, and this seems to be as good a place as any: What is with that noise that individuals in the crowds seem to make at european tennis tournaments (possibly aussie too, but I don't hear it at US Open)? It's kind of like a scooping sound, not a yodel by any means, and I think it's meant to be encouraging to someone, but for the life of me I can't figure out what they're saying or why.

Ratings about steady with last years



I do have to agree with you all who said that the commentators at NBC did not do a good job of inticing people to watch Sunday's final. If you are predicitng a blow out and the newpapers are saying that the real final occured on Friday, how is that going to generate interest?

Iirc, last year's crazy finals between Gaudio and Coria rose in the last hour. Kind of a case of people flipping thought the channels, hearing the announcers say stuff like "this is the craziest final!' and then staying to watch.

I do wish that this years Sunday final had better ratings, because it was such a high quality match (so much better than the gawdawful women's final). But if the stupid announcers on Saturday are making it sound like Sunday's final will be another horrible blow out like the Pierce/JHH match, why would they tune in?

Luckily, Sunday's final did do very well in other countires, including the UK. In Spain, the match had a 41% market share (wow!) and may have had the highest ratings ever for a tennis match.

What an exciting match between Nadal and Puerta. I liked both of them. Nadal deserved the win, although I find his fashion choices odd. Sleeveless shirt and capri pants? WTF? Is this what they wear in Spain these days?

I'm glad Nadal took out Federer. The official French Open site was so biased towards Federer. I think one of their articles was something along the lines of "Resplendent Federer is about to win it all again".

As far as commentators, I agree re Bud Collins. He has irritated me for years and his post-match interviews are nothing short of embarrassing. I'm not a big fan of the man-voiced Mary Carillo either. I prefer Chris Evert. She might not be the best commentator around, but at least she's a renowned champion who has actually been uber successful. Sure Mary may have played, but if she hadn't been a commentator she would be unknown right now.

I'm, like, the exact opposite. Soft spot for Roddick (hes really grown up, he was really nice to my tennis loving great aunt, and he brings the snark sometime. Ie: some of his comments at Wimbledon last year, and he seems to realize he needs to bring his game back up), whereas Lleyton annoys me. Nice arms or not.

Watching Nadal win it all at such a young age reminded me of some other players who showed early promise but seem to have fizzled.

1. Whatever happened to Magnus Norman? At one point, didn't he date Martina Hingis, and the two of them ruled the court?

2. This is a complete stab in the dark, but perhaps someone might now. About three years ago or so, there was another promising young Swede (not Magnus Norman), who showed a lot of potential. I don't think he won any majors but he must have done well enough for me to recognize the name. Does anyone have any faint idea who I might be talking about? Was it Thomas Enqvist? If so, what happened to him?

3. Did these people ever officially retire, and is it safe to say we will never see them again? Martina Hingis? Monica Seles? Anna Kournikova?

Yay! I'm so happy Nadal won. It was a great match and I was getting nervous there for a while. Nadal seems like such a sweetie (it was adorable when he was crying into his towel) and I, for one, LOVE his enthusiasm/energy on the court. For other players it can grate my nerves but not at all with Nadal.

I too have a soft spot for Hewitt, for whatever reason. I know he's a jerk but I can't help but root for him. I think he's one of the more exciting tennis players to watch. On the other hand, I really dislike Andy Roddick - I've always found that his attitude leaves much to be desired plus, compared to guys like Hewitt, Nadal, and Federer - that his game is rather boring. I do admit, though, that my sometimes inexplicable dislike of Roddick clouds my vision as to his game, personality, etc.

I hope Safin has a strong showing at Wimbledon but with Marat you never know what you're going to get.

Are you thinking of Robin Soderling? He's a 20 year old who had some big buzz a couple of years ago but has still yet to reach his potential.



But on the other hands you have the Mats Wilanders and the Agassis. Both Mats and Bjorg were babies (17 I think) when they won their first majors and they turned out fine. Sampras won his first GS at 19. So for all of the Changs and Medvedevs you can have your Wilanders,etc.

I think and hope that Nadal is more of the Mats variety, because I do love him so. I would love to have a DVD of all of his interviews in English. Too damn cute. How can I not love a boy who give victory signs because he is excited that he gave a long passage in English about an important point in the final?




I agree- that is something that kind of grates. That's what can make his "come awwwnnnnsss" seemed planned and as a way to thwart his opponent. Whereas Nadals emotiveness seems like it is just more real and just comes bubbling out from the joy or excitement of playing.

With Hewitt, it is like a yo-yo. He bugs, then I start kinda liking him again, then he does something like the glare-athon to the line judge at the Aussie Open, and once again I'm not really liking him as much. He will never be one of my favorites although I can respect his efforts. It seems the same with the tv announcers. During the Aussie Open in 2005, you could tell that they were sometimes were annoyed by him, but also respected that he kept fighting. I do miss him on the tour though and look forward to having him at Wimbledon.


Roddick used to annoy me around 2003, but I think that he has since really matured on and off court and now I rather like him.

Removed.

blackwing, I think we can safely say that Anna Kournikova is done with professional tennis. The only time we'll see her on a court is when she's brushing off unwelcomed advances from that creepy Apprentice Raj. Last I heard, she's writing a column now for some fitness magazine. Let's hope it has some pictures.

Martina Hingis retired about 3 years ago, I think. But she's only 24 now. I've heard she plays in some exhibitions, although her nagging injuries are always a concern. If she's healthy, I could totally see her unretiring and making a mildly successful comeback. I hated Chucky when she was playing, but I wouldn't mind seeing her battling it out with my new most hated women's player, Justine Henin-Hardenne.

I think Monica is also done. Haven't heard anything about her lately. She's probably living in Florida somewhere. Didn't like her much either when she was playing, but I guess I kind of miss those grunts of hers.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but Safin might not even be at Wimbledon. He hurt his knee yesterday at the Gerry Weber Open. I hope he can be there because I love the guy and Wimbledon would be much more interesting with him in the mix.




Heh, I'm the exact opposite. I loved Chucky when she played and I think JHH is the heir to Chucky's throne. JHH combines finesse and power and I love watching her play. She's the closest the WTA has to Federer.
Her personality is an acquired taste. She used to be pretty serious on and off court. But I've been following her rise since 2000 and it's clear she changed quite a lot since then. She seems happier and actually cracks a smile on court once in a while.

I was thinking Joachim Johanssen. He's Swedish isn't he? If it is him that you are talking about, he's still plugging away at the tour and is engaged to Lleyton Hewitt's sister.



For real. I used to hate her because she was so dour on the court and didn't really seem to be enjoying herself, but then the other day, I actually saw her smile! On court! Threw me for a loop.



I think that Anna has made her money and accepted the fact that she will never win a singles major because she plays head games with herself. Plus being a tennis model brings a hard schedule. As for Monica, she said in an interview last week, that she wasn't ready to retire just yet. Martina? Eh.

Andrei M. is a sad example of someone not living up to his potential due to injury and lack of discipline. I find myself thinking "what might have been" a lot with him. People often fail to remember how young he really was when he cracked the top 10 around 13 years ago.

On the other hand, Michael probably maxed most of his potential (nothing wrong with 4 Grand Slam finals), but poor coaching decisions and lack of development of a more all-court game probably hindered his challenge to Andre/Pete.

Untrue. I read about her in the paper this morning. She did a clinic on the USS Intrepid yesterday, is nearly recovered from her foot ailments and is hopeful that she will return for the US Open. She won't be ready in time for Wimbledon, but thinks US Open is a realistic goal.