I begrudgingly admit that you are correct in this assessment - Roddick did play a more interesting/better match than I am used to seeing him play. Anyway, good for him and I'm hoping for a good match versus Federer, but with Federer coming out on top.

Also, Safin's probably my favorite player on the tour. His power is balanced out by his finesse and brilliant shot-making (when he's not having a mental breakdown, that is). I still think about that match versus Federer at the Australian Open. Plus, he's drop dead gorgeous.

I think the dominance of Roddick's serve is probably off-putting to a lot of fans. It's perhaps the same reason many felt "bored" by Sampras. I personally like Roddick, but his game is certainly not as aesthetically pleasing as others. As for Sampras, I always thought that if not for his serve, people would have appreciated him more. He really had a beautifully complete game, with gorgeous classical shots. Big serves might not be exciting to watch, but they certainly win a lot of matches without as much effort as winning with your groundstrokes and volleys.



Hewitt certainly seemed a bit more subdued tonight against Roddick. Of course, since he's been such an insufferable ass in the past, I don't think that he'll win many new fans with his new attitude. Maybe, getting married and being an expectant father has mellowed him out. Hewitt is enjoyable to watch and it's nice to see a guy who wins with so much heart, but is is hard to separate the man from his game. Kinda the opposite of how people seem to generally like Roddick off the court, but find his game unwatchable.

True, and I think part of the appeal of Safin's game is seeing such a big guy exhibit such agility and finesse when he certainly could power his way through if he'd resorted to that kind of game. Now that I think about it, maybe the reason I liked Roddick's play so much today is that it was more like Safin's.


Yeah, I wasn't going to bring the part up, but since you already have . . .

On another note, what was up with Amelie and Justine's matching cold sores. Ick.

Maybe they're secret lovers. Heh.

Which is why all three of them annoy me when they're on the court. Roddick seems like a really nice guy off the court. He's not a sore loser for the most part, he's funny and he always gives props to his opponents. Nadal seems sweet, off the court, too. Hewitt? Not so much. But on the court? Boy, do they get on my nerves. All of them. Blech.

Roddick vs. Fed today. JHH vs. Clijsters. Go Roger! Go Justine!

I'm rooting for Kim. I think she'll take it in 2 hard-fought close sets. At least one tie-breaker, and at least 4 splits!

See I like seeing Roddick and Nadal and almost any other player's celebration for that matter. You have to be a highly competitive person to be a professional athlete and if getting pumped up keeps you motivated, then I say more power to you. I would think other professional athletes would understand that and not be bothered by it. Fewer people seem to have any qualms about football players trash talking or having outbursts of emotion. It seems to almost be accepted as a part of the game. Plus, I like seeing that the players care that much. I know it's not a popular sentiment but I do get bored with the lack of emotion from other players. Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful thing to watch Federer play but the occasional outburst is fine with me. That being said, I hate Hewitt because he is such an ass off the court. It's one thing to feel and act like you to want to kick your opponent's ass when you're actually playing but to talk all that shit and be such a sore loser off the court is appalling.

On topic? Just when I thought Andy had a chance, Roger just broke right back.

I'm tiring of Andy's "Aw, shucks" post-match interviews. How many times do we have to hear the same thing about how Roger kicked his butt? It's not a rivalry until you actually start to win some of these.

Roger - stop trying to be funny. You just look more of an ass. What's with calling Andy a "fair player"? Does it mean he doesn't cheat? Or does it mean he's just ok? And even though we know you were joking when you said you like playing Andy because you always win, it still makes you look like a snob.

On a completely shallow note, Roger's girlfriend is a cow. Those sunglasses were atrocious. And she looks like she's got some rather thick arms.

Agreed, and Andy said something to the same effect in an interview a while back, good to see he's got a firm grasp on reality. Sadly for rivalry's sake, I don't think the trend of him losing will be stopped any time soon.

I'm looking forward to the final on CTV (Go JHH), but if I hear Rod Black go on and on about how disappointing it was for Kim to lose early on as the #1 player in the world the last time the tournament was in Toronto I'm going to throw something at the television.

I hope you're not waiting for that to happen. Anyway, I still enjoy Andy's humility.


I thought Roger was charming and funny. ("I don't know this place." Hee.) The last thing he looks like is an ass. As far as calling Andy "fair," I think he meant good. Remember, English is his second or third language. He speaks it very well, but sometimes he has to search for words. This was just like him calling his friend Rochus a "cute player." What can I say? As much as I love watching him play, I think it's readily apparent that Roger is as great a person as they say he is.

On a different subject, I'm glad Carillo talked about how far behind the baseline Roddick plays. He's never going to threaten Federer if he's that far back.

Safin loses a match and they drop him from contender status? WTF?

I think by "fair" he means good. I think his use of the word fair might be result of his translating from his native language.


I thought they both gave pretty gracious sincere-sounding speeches. They both seemed like they were giving credit where credit is due, and I thought Roddick's "yadda yadda" comment was a nod to the fact the Federer always seems to beat him.

Falafaclese, we seem to think alike.

I know I'm a doubter, but I just get the feeling Clijsters is blowing her wad (so to speak) now only to flame out at the Open.

Mirka used to be a professional tennis player, I wouldn't exactly call her a cow. And I think both Roger and Andy were gracious during the post match interview.



I know what you mean, but I really hope that doesn't happen. Kim is such a nice person, a fine tennis player, and a good athlete. I am really rooting for her to win at least one grand slam. Hopefully this years US Open.

Phluff comment - during the Cincy final, while Roddick's foot injury was being attended to, I noticed he has nice feet for a guy. :)

I thought he was going to just give up before that last half-hearted game. Wouldn't that have been the second event in the Series decided by an injury/illness?

Agree Fed sounds like an arrogant arse in interviews - but I do consider it's because English isn't his first language. But I'm still bored by him as a player.

What zod said about competitiveness.
I've always been much less bothered by how players act towards their opponents than how they act towards the "lowly" linespeople and the umps.
I've probably mentioned this before - but one time Connors was bitching about a call and said something like, "Why do you let a woman be a linesperson?" At the time, the remark did not cause one bit of fuss in the media. (Kind of like how in some quarters people still get away with homophobic comments.)

So I sometimes disliked Connors, and positively hated JMac for his screaming at the officials. And yes, why I should in theory despise Hewitt. :P

In general, I like players who display a lot of passion but not brattiness. I like Nadal for his enthusiasm. I'm intrigued by Hewitt and Safin because of their emotionalism.
I used to dislike Roddick not because he was snotty, but because I sometimes found his personality kind of "cool" (in the not-warm sense) and distant.

BTW The past month I was a bit distracted by life (and also watching a lot of swimming on CBC and NBC during July/early Aug.). And also -I still think it takes a bit of effort to track down when tennis is going to be on, and what channel. (For instance, did ESPN2 show the Clijsters/H-H match from the top - I swear I checked awhile ago and it wasn't on - now they're in the 2nd set.)

I'm a bit bummed I've missed out on matches featuring Safin, Hewitt, etc. But I enjoyed seeing Nadal's win last weekend. I'd never noticed his quirks before until CBC made such a huge deal of it. I agree with the poster who said it's borderline OCD. Still, I love his energy and think he's the kind of star with a flair the game needs. If he was American, he'd get lots of attention in the U.S.

I find it hard to argue with you given her Slam history, but I hope not. She's been having a great year, and has been steadily winning more titles than anyone this year, I'd love to see her win in New York.


Yes, ESPN 2 started their coverage right at the beginning of the match, but I have been puzzled by the coverage choices over the past couple of weeks. Espn2 has covered a lot of the Western/Southern men's tournament, but I haven't seen any of the women's Roger's cup at all. I've been kind of disapointed about that . . . or maybe it's been showing so late at night that I've been missing it?

I agree. I liked Roger giving Andy a punch in the shoulder after calling him a fair player. And I like Mirka--she appears bright and intelligent and certainly not unattractive. And, ShellsandCheese, nice job on the final prediction--two sets and one was almost a tiebreaker.


Too bad I cannot take that man seriously after his daily column during last year's (or the year before) French Open made me actively dislike his sons.

I thought it was funny how Mary Carillo was saying that Andy was in a lot of pain and she couldn't repeat what he said even though we all heard him say "Oh shit" since they had the camera RIGHT in his face during the injury timeout.

I loved both Andy and Roger's post-match interviews. That's not the first time Roger has called Andy a "fair player" in an interview. What I love about an Andy/Roger match is that they both seem to really enjoy playing against each other and you can tell they respect each other. I thought it was interesting Roger said that he would like to have Andy on the opposite side of the draw at the USO. IMO, even though Roger has shown he can easily beat both Andy and Lleyton, I think he would prefer to play Andy just from a personality standpoint.

ESPN2 will be showing the Pilot Pen this week. Then it's USA and CBS for the USO. I'm sad we won't have any P-Mac, Cliffy or BG after this week. (Well, at least until Davis Cup.) I can't stand the commentating on USA (the NBC analysts) or CBS. It is so much more boring.


Yes, they were showing some Roger's Cup but it was later at night.

So both finals today (Roddick vs. Federer and Henin vs. Clijsters) were not that good.

I wanted to comment on CBS' injury timeout coverage of Andy's foot. Did anyone else think it was excessive? All the close ups of his face seemed too much. And the close ups of his foot? What happened to taking a commercial break during an injury timeout? What benefit is it for the audience to see him grimmace in pain? I was so hoping that Andy would curse out in pain so that CBS would get the message to not show this type of stuff.



Teehee. I was shocked to see that she has gained so much weight myself.



Me too. She's played three weeks in a row (I think) and three finals. Same goes for Roddick as he's played three weeks in a row (although he lost first round the first week).

The Tennis Channel had some of the early round coverage from Toronto. Tracy Austin was commentating, I love her!

He did. And they still didnt get it.

I kinda wish he was still with Mandy Moore, for completely shallow reasons, I always liked the outfits she wore to his matches, and shes a much more attractive actress wife/girlfriend to look at then Bec Cartwright (seriously, we maybe talking trash about Mirka, but dude? At least shes not orange, with a massive chin dimple).

Remember when Tracy Austen was all trash talking Steffi Graff back in the day? I saw it on Shaw tennis.

That's not what he said. He said he really enjoyed playing Andy and not only because he (Roger) wins. Andy laughed. The whole stadium laughed and applauded. It's part of the give and take between Andy and Roger when they play. They give each other compliments, and they poke fun at one another. Specially Andy. He's very good at that.

I thought when he nearly dropped the f-bomb and grabbed a towel to chew on so he wouldn't curse on national television that they'd get it. I'm kinda surprised they didn't. Not that I'm complaining - it's not pretty or very productive for CBS to show us such up-close-and-personal coverage of Andy's courtside treatment, but I'll never complain about more Andy coverage. Or Mary's silly comments from close by.

I miss Mandy, too, Kiran - my shallow reasons have more to do with the fact that he spent the last summer that he was with her winning everything under the sun, including the USO, before descending into the dark depths of Sir Winsalot's shadow. And yeah - she was much easier to look at than Mrs. Hewitt.



...back to lurkdom

I like Andy, and I like Roger so I really dont have a problem winning, however werent there rumors that breaking up with Mandy was part of the things that hurt Andy's game? I remember thinking it was a mix of pathetic/kinda romantic (shut up, I'm young), and there were these stories about him arguing with her on the cell or something. Which I thought was strange because he dumped her. But it was because of the hollywood thing so...

I don't think it's ok for Roger to jokingly say that he always beats Andy. It's a sign of disrespect. Roger knows that he owns Andy. Andy knows that Roger owns him. But he doesn't have to say it for the entire stadium to hear. And it's not ok to say it just because your opponent (sort of) laughs.

Andy needs to change his attitude. Instead of always post-loss interviewing that "Well, Roger basically whupped my ass...AGAIN", basically admitting that he's never going to win, he needs to come up with a different answer. He needs to get mad and to get the fire going inside. He needs to get so pissed off that he'll train harder, watch more tape, and prepare better mentally.

Who is Andy dating these days anyway?

Well, Andy brought it up first. Anyway, if anything Roger said it as a sign of respect. He mentioned how much he enjoyed playing Andy and, since the natural assumption is that he enjoys it because he usually wins, he said that wasn't the case. Imagine (before yesterday) that Hewitt said how much he loved to play Roddick. What would people think he meant? I imagine Roger likes to play Andy because he's a nice guy, a good competitor, and they have a great deal of respect for one another.


You don't think he's trying already? As much as I rag on it, his backhand is much improved. He's coming in and attacking more than ever. My tennis kids think I'm the most optimistic man alive ("there's always a chance you can win"), but there is something to be said about realism. Andy isn't giving up by any means, but I think he realizes Federer is just a bad matchup for him. Roger can neutralize his serve, he's more consistent off the ground, and he has a big edge in moving, returning, volleying, defending, and passing. There doesn't seem to be a lot Roddick can do. He's overmatched and, even worse, Federer doesn't really have any weaknesses he could exploit. That being said, I'll reiterate that Carillo is right about Andy needed to move closer to the baseline. He can't give up that much court to Roger.

Delurking again to comment...Andy's been reworking his game since he brought Dean in. Plus, he has said more than once that he knows that Federer is the standard bearer, but that he welcomes the challenge of constant improvement in the quest for an eventual second (third, fourth, etc) win in the H2H column with Roger. That having been said, Andy's game-face for the public has nearly always been one of humor - it's just how he is.

Looks like Distant Sun already beat me to Andy's defense...I second your comment on his baseline proximity (or lack thereof). I can't stand it when he's taking shots 8 years behind the baseline - it makes for lots of one-sided conversation with my tv.

I didn't find Roger's postmatch comments at all disrespectful - the two of them have always had great things to say about each other, both as players and as people. It is part of what makes their matches so fun to watch.

CBS rocks for showing us the trophy presentation, by the way - ESPN sometimes forgets to do that. Meanies.

I was happy to see Clijsters win. She looked good, although Justine didn't seem to put up much of a fight. Maybe this win will help her keep her confidence up through the Open. She's had a great year.



I agree. If he had played more like he did against Hewitt yesterday, it might have been a different match. Of course with Federer it's harder to set up a shot worth sneaking up behind, but if Roddick is focusing on that type of play during his training it could certainly make a difference.

On an only slightly related note. Although James Blake hasn't had a big win since he's been back, he's played some great matches against top fivers. He looked pretty good in the D.C. final against Roddick and the first round match against Federer in this most recent tournament. It'd be great to see him step up his game and finish up on some of those breaks he's been getting against top players.

Although I may disagree with some of Mirka's fashion choices, I like the fact that she's not some wannabe model/actress who only shows up only hoping to get her botoxed-lip-implanted face on camera. I like Roger more for the fact he dates someone "normal".

Thank You! I think Andy is a fine person, but act angry or something. It's to the point where you wonder if he can just give up because he has a ready made excuse.

I had to laugh at Federer's comments about needing a break from the press and phototgs. Honey, your match yesterday wasn't even mention on the NYC's newscasts.


Moo to that. I actually thought she was with child when at Wimb. I'm sure she is a wonderful person, but seriously, wtf was she wearing and could she coverup at the US Open.

Going into the Open: Is tennis better served by domination or competition?

My take on Andy being so self-deprecating regarding his matchups with Roger is that Andy is trying to combat the American media's (once) constant harping on their "rivalry." I think Andy is being a class act in this regard.

Distant Sun, do you teach tennis? 'cause I could really use some help. . .

Either can be exciting or boring, but there needs to be both over any long period of time. Thankfully, there almost always is. Last year was an exception. As excellent as Federer has been this year, Nadal has been almost as dominant as he has. A lot of other players have also had good years (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Gaudio, etc.). While we probably know who's going to win the Open, the journey will be very exciting. On the women's side, Clijsters is probably the only one to have an extended period of success. Unfortunately, since that parity is the result of injury, I'm not as excited. A story like Venus's unlikely Wimbledon win could emerge, but right now I think the excellent form and competition of the men's contenders is much more intriguing.

LT, I coach tennis in high school. Shoot me an email and I'll see what I can do.

I've been away from the PC (and TV) for personal stuff but I'm back and just caught this. Ha! If only that were available here....

I think it depends on if you're talking about viewership or development of the game/field. As far as worldwide viewership goes, competition is always best. When you have one player who is just kicking everyone's ass across the board, it makes for a boring final, which is what tends to draw the most non-avid fans. As long as you have 2 or three top players who are giving each other a run for the money, the development of the tournament becomes more interesting. It will be hard to tell how well the other players will be able to challenge Fed until they've all had a couple rounds under their belts. With the women there have been so many injuries and comebacks this year, it's almost like the Open will be a fresh start. It will be the first time we'll see almost all the top women together in quite a while.

With regard to development of the field, having one dominant player definitely forces everyone to change and improve their games to keep up and/or overtake. I guess overall I agree with Distant Sun; over the long haul you need both.

The only that bothers me about Roger's girlfriend is her ugly ass sunglasses.

I actually felt for Andy during that final, he was doing well, and imo actually had a bit of shot until the injury.

And that reflects badly on Roger or on NYC's newscasts?

Having heard Roger express himself many times on his respect for the other top players, I have no doubt that he just kind of mangled what he said at the trophy presentation.

I recall specifically in a pre-French Open interview during which he actually said he felt that all the attention that was focused on just him and Nadal at the French was extremely disrespectful of the other great players like Hewitt, Andy, Agassi, Safin and the other great clay courters. It was one of the few times that I've ever seen him with an angry look on his face, and I liked that it was on behalf of others.

I actually think Nadal might be the favorite for the Open. A lot depends on how high the ball bounces on the court surface and how the surface takes the spin he imparts. It would be so interesting to see him and Federer play again, because he is now the one player who Federer has not "solved." He might be able to hang in and win through sheer competitiveness (and I stand by my contention that Bam-Bam's stamina might not be all that - he tired noticeably in the Miami final), but he has not shown he can "handle" Nadal at all. It will be fascinating to see him try to solve the Nadal puzzle. He's a great thinker and has all the tools at his beck and call.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Nadal is great, but on a relatively fast hardcourt, Federer would still have to be the favorite. The courts at Miami are a bit slower and even in Montreal the courts were bouncing high. The courts at the Open are typically fast and bounce lower. The USTA wants to make sure the US players get to play on the court that suits them best. No question though, that Nadal is the player Federer has consistently had the most problems with this year. Especially since Safin doesn't seem to show up consistently. Nadal was quite impressive at the Canadian, but the only USO threat he faced is Agassi, so I wonder how he would fair if he faced Safin, Hewitt, or Roddick. As great as Agassi is, I think he is a bit below the others as far as the favorites go. Of course, if Nadal continues to improve at the fast pace he has been on, he could certainly prove me wrong.

He may win the tournament, but I still don't think we can call him the favorite going into it. He did an excellent job in Montreal, but keep in mind that's his only title on hard courts. Nadal has had an outstanding year, but think about this: Federer has only played one match all year (the loss to Nadal at Roland Garros) where he hasn't had a match point. He has to be the favorite.


I agree. Furthermore, keep in mind that the semifinals and final are played on back-to-back days. Regardless, I think it's going to be much harder for Nadal to make it to the final than it will be for Federer. It's possible he'll have to go through something insane like Safin or Agassi followed by Hewitt or Roddick. He hasn't really played the top players at all this year, so an upset there is possible. In fact, if one of the dangerous floaters gets hot, he could go out even earlier.

Nadal and Federer are 1-2 head to head; with Nadal defeating Federer at the French this year, and Federer coming back from 2 sets down to beat Nadal in Miami. (I think Nadal beat Federer back in 2004 as well) By comparision, Federer is 1-5 against Nalbandian. I think going into the US Open Federer and Nadal are probably the favorites. Followed by Roddick, Hewitt, and Agassi (sentimental). Safin could be in the latter group, but everything is mental with him.

I don't think at this point anyone can realistically predict how another Nadal/Federer match might turn out; or if Nadal is the one player Federer hasn't solved yet.

ETA: My prediction for the USO:

If Federer gets beat, it will probably be in one of his earlier round matches. If Federer makes it to the final, he'll win. I don't think Nadal will make to the final.

(If the final does end up being Federer/Nadal, I'm going with Federer; the man is practically unbeatable in finals. But of course there is always the chance that Federer might not make to the final, but I doubt it.)

Actually, he's 2-5 against Nalbandian, having won the last two meetings (2003 Masters Cup and 2004 Australian Open). In the last two years he's been defeating all of his old nemeses (Nalbandian, Henman, and Hewitt).

Lexus.com is doing live interviews for the next two weeks. They can be viewed on their website or downloaded as Podcasts. Here's the schedule:

8/29 - Billie Jean King
8/30 - Andy Roddick
8/31 - Nick Bollettieri
9/1 - Brad Gilbert
9/2 - Bryan Brothers
9/3 - Bud Collins
9/4 - Jim Courier
9/5 - Luke Jensen
9/6 - John Newcombe
9/7 - James Blake
9/8 - Gene Scott
9/9 - Luke Jensen
9/10 - Tony Trabert
9/11 - Rod Laver

Andy's new Lexus commercial is cute, but I'm sure I'll be sick of it by the time the USO is done.

My favorite phrase in all of tennis.


I thought the exact same thing.

Marat is in the September GQ (7 page spread!) and he looks very, very, very, very good. He is just a very handsome man. Raawwr! I wonder if they will talk about the pictures during the tv broadcast. I'm sure Cliff will if he is commenting because he adores Marat.

Oooh- looking forward to the Rod Laver interview. Wish they had some more active (non-American players) though.

Delurking to ask a question. I was in Cincy for the tournament and noticed that Hewitt wasn't doing the annoying fist pump or yelling come on. My question is for anyone who was watching on ESPN2. Was there any mention why he wasn't doing it. I'm not complaining. It was more enjoyable to watch with out it. I'm just wondering why he didn't do it.

zookeeper, here's what Hewitt said about it in his post-match presser:

Roger and the contents of his tennis bag are going to be featured in the first issue of Men's Vogue.

Thank you Watts. I noticed the camera focused inside Roger's bag. I thought that was kind of strange. Poor Guy no wonder he needed a break from the media.

They already mentioned it (during his win over Murray IIRC).

Okay, now to start wondering what is in there. voodoo doll of Andy ?

I was wondering what was in there that was so interesting. My guess is nothing. They were zooming in when he was changing rackets.