Clearly he's not half the prick Hewitt is, but he has been treated in the past like his behaving like a prick in any way whatsoever would be unthinkable. But he's always shown assy tendencies on the court. Hewitt's an asshole of the highest measure and Nadal will never reach that level, but it doesn't mean that his every action is coated in a golden hue of his own super-specialness either. But he's getting called on his gamesmanship now, so at least there's some perspective creeping into his coverage.

His comments about how he felt "sheepish" about complaining just make me think that he knew exactly what he was doing when he sat down and it was involved a certain amount of gamesmanship. He may be smarter than we think, but he's still a bit weak on covering his tracks, if his classic "busted" non-denial denial of getting coaching from the stands is any indication.

If he were genuinely distressed to the point that he couldn't wait until the legitimate break he wouldn't have been weighing his options. He was able to drink water before the trainer came out, and there was some power behind his voice when he was talking to whomever (they showed Uncle Asshole making the "I don't understand you?" hand gesture and Nadal repeating, in a loud voice if not a full yell "PLATANOS PLATANOS PLATANOS") so he was put out but not incapacitated to the point of needing immediate attention.

If Roddick couldn't get his legitimately injured ankle retaped during a legitimate changeover because the set had already started, Nadal shouldn't be able to say "Ooh, my throat feels funny so I'm going to sit here for 2-3 minutes until the crowd's calmed down...I mean until I swallow the piece of banana" and not get at least warned for delaying the game and unsportsmanlike conduct.

It may not have been Henin-Hardenne throwing the AO final because her tummy hurt, but it was still a shitty move that he should be called on.

They sort of did, which I loved. They were like, "Uh, why didn't you take a drink of water right after taking a bite of bananna, you idiot?" I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea.

Ugh, I can't stand Nadal. He's a greasy capri pants wearing on court asshole snob.

I'm going to cry.... life sucks!

I started watching the tennis coverage on NBC and caught the end of the "epic" 5 set match between James Blake and Gaël Monfils. I liked James Blakes net approaches but the crowd was just being rude when he was serving for important points. I liked Monfils mid-air walking and the slide on clay. I was happy of the outcome no matter what, however would it affect the result of the match if Black was able to convince the umpire that he lost 3 points because of the crowd at the end of the match?

Question: Are we allowed to discuss the results of matches? If so, when?

I am happy with the outcome of one of the women's match...

I'll edit later for other comments.

Blake's horrible, horrible 5-set match streak continues.

Monfils played better than he did from what I saw in his earlier matches. I did agree with the announcers in that the crowd was surprisingly subdued for a good bit of the match, although they finally got into the match at the end.

I will be rooting for Gael to exact revenge over Novak in the next match.

I'm wondering why Blake was complaining at the end of the match and why NBC was so desparate to show it and try to pick it up on their mics. The crowd yelled a few times during the match, but the crowd was hardly out of bounds, especially when you consider what the little band of Blake-sters did last year (cheering faults and generally obnoxious behavior). How could the chair ump have possibly called a let when a fan screamed out?

I really like Blake as a player, but he really does like to kvetch a lot.

Mauresmo!!!!! *cries*

Why, why, why....





On another note, the women should really play best out of 5, best out of 3 really doesn't always determine the best player. This is not the first time I've thought this. Isn't there a tournament on the tour that has the women play a best out of 5, I think I remember Serena playing a 5 set game once?

Oh Amelie. Fire your sports psychologist, STAT!

I'd like to see the women play best of five also, but in regard to Mauresmo I don't think it would have made a difference. She had the lead multiple times in the first set and kept letting Vaidisova back in. She's lucky she didn't lose in straights.

I am so with Mary on this coaching thing. First off, as I've pointed out here before, NOT all the players travel with coaches because they don't all make enough money, despite what McEnroe said yesterday. What about those wild cards, qualifiers and lucky losers? Plus I think it's so wimpy to have to rely on a coach on court. Sport should test the physical and mental. A player should be rewarded when he or she can think while under emotional and physical stress. For instance in the Evert-Navratilova rivalry, Evert would have lost some of her mental advantage had Navratilova been able to have a coach with her on court. The rivalry would have been more lopsided surely.

I'm so disapointed for JB. I think it was that damn missed volley he had right up at the net to give Monfils 5-4 in the fifth. It must suck when you're playing strong aggressive tennis to have the match turn on a shot that looked like such a gimme. I'm not blaming him obviously,and of course there was more to Monfils winning than that one point, but it's just that my heart sank when I saw that.

Congrats to Monfils for hanging tough in that match though. Three five-setters in a row is no joke. I hope he wins against Djokovic.
I'm also glad to see that Venus and Dinara made it through.

Yea, it might not have helped Mauresmo in this match cause she obviously wasn't playing her best, but I've seen many a mens game where one opponent (ususally the better one) was playing horrible the first two sets or two out of the first three and because they have that extra set they're able to get their game back on track and pull it out in five.

The better player has more of a chance to prevail in five sets. On the womens side if your games out of wack, you're done. You lose one set, start the game off bad and you're fucked. A bad/average player can beat you in a best out of three... a bad (or average) player most likely wont get the better of you in a five setter.

I don't see why the women can't play five sets... like I said I'm pretty sure I saw Serena or someone on the womens side play a five set game. I remember the comentators making note of it saying something to the degree of, "don't ever say the women can't cut it in a longer game."

Are the commentators seeming more inane than usual today to anyone else? Jmac went on for a while about how unsportsman-like it was for Ancic to take a injury break for cramping late in the 5th set against Robredo. He of course completely ignored (or perhaps didn't know?) that Tommy also took a break a couple games before that AND Ancic was apparently ordered to take the break by the chair umpire after he had thrown up and was obviously cramping.

Facts are a good thing ya'll.

I also agree that women should play best out of 5 sets but on Grand Slam events only. Tournament coordinators already are complaining about seeded man players passing the regular events due to exhaustion (e.g. Federer and Nadal skipping the Hamburg event).

I liked Vaidisova in her match against Mauresmo. It was funny when she gasped/screamed when she missed one of her points in the tie breaker. I always thought she was simply Maria Sharapova 2.0 but I like her fearless attitude against higher ranked players.

EDIT: DId I just saw Vaidisova scream at the ballboy when she was leading 4-1 15-30?

The women tried out the best of five final match at the year-end championships and then decided that since they don't play best of five the rest of the year, they shouldn't have to play it at the year-end championships. I, too, agree that they should play best of five at the Slams, just like the men, because it's not like the men play best of five most of the year, either. But the WTA has managed to quash that line of thinking while moving forward with the equal pay argument. So good for them.

One of the top players, I think it was Davenport, actually said in a moment of surprising candor, said that in some ways it's actually easier to play in a Slam since they have two weeks to win seven matches whereas all the other tournaments they only have a week to win five. When stated so plainly the women have no reason not to play best of five.

And Jer, I'm glad I'm not alone in my utter disdain for Nadal. I try to be as fair as possible, but he's just such an annoying and self-aggrandizing pitbull with bad hair and Federline pants. I don't care how "nice" he is off court when he's so obnoxious on.

Pyro- I agree that JMac needs to shut it sometimes. Way to paint a one sided picture.

Kudos to Mario for having another great win on clay, this must have felt particualry nice to him since Tommy beat him in a tough match in the Hamburg finals. Mario has often been painted as just really a threat on grass courts, but he has shown that is not the case. It is also neat how he is more an old-school serve and volley type player. With he doing well here and Henman reaching the semis in 2004- maybe s&v isn't dead after all. I'm frankly surprisded that Mario's great clay court season and his finally getting over his reputation as someone who blows matches hasn't been given more notice by the tennis writers.

I'm worried that Mario may not have enough in the tank to have a good match against Federer, but I would love to see a well-contested match between the two of them.

vallegirl- I agree that Ancic's voice does seem kinda filthy, but in a very, very good (sexy!) way. His baby face + deep voice + the fact that he is still trying to study law while touring = intriguing hottie.

Since there is just doubles and four men's matches on tomorrow- maybe his fellow Croatian Ljubicic will finally get some screen time. Sheesh- he is only ranked #4 in the world- perhaps it is time to show a snippet of some of his matches. I like Luby's game and want to be able to see it more during the slams- and now that he is finally progressing further in the slams, I would like for them to show it. Most of my viewing of him has been via Masters Cup coverage and Davis Cup. And frankly, since they always like to have sob stories, I am surprised that during the Aussie Open, they did not go into more detail about his very, very tough background. I remember reading - maybe in Duece- that he started to lose his hair when he was a young teenager because of all of the stress of fleeing wartime Croatia. Maybe if he goes further through we will hear more about it.

Congrats to Nalby for his win today. He and Federer are the only current men's players who have reached the quarters of the last four slams. David is still frustrating to me because he has way, way to much talent to have such a small number of titles.

I am very, very sad that Maruesmo lost. Are she and Venus wearing the same tennis dress? The list of those I want to win in the ladies side is getting thinner and thinner as my faves keep falling. I guess that I am now rooting mainly for Safina (her refusal to die in her match against Maria was awesome)- although I would be pleased with a win by Myskina (boy- zero attention has been paid to her, besides by my husband who finds her quite attractive and keeps asking is she has won), Svetlana, or the winner of the Hingis/Peer match (which was suspended due to darkness with one set each). I'd like for Venus to do well, but frankly there are others who have either never won a GS or have not won one as recently that I would like to win more. But I am still sad that the two that I most wanted to win, Petrova and Momo, are gone. :'(

I sort of doubt it, just because I assume Venus wears her own designs. I wish, however, that Venus would wear sleaker skirts like Amelie does. I don't know what they're called in actual fashion terms, but those skirts that stick out like 50s skirts are the ones Venus wears, and I don't think they do her any favors. Particularly when paired with the June Cleaver (tm Carillo) pearls.

More fashion: I thought Maria S looked the best she's ever looked today when she was wearing the top in the contrasting lighter color. The contrasting color and the fluffier skirt gave her more curve. She too often favors monochromatic, straight lines, which only emphasizes one of her few bad features, her very long, straight torso.

? Is this a common nickname for Amelie? I've never seen it before.

Re Mac's comments about Ancic, it sounded to me as if he had just gotten a report from the Ancic-Robredo match and was doing some aggressive conclusion-jumping. Too bad we won't see any of that match. It seems as if ESPN is going all-Maria/Martina this afternoon.

I, too, am looking forward to seeing more Lubicic. I enjoy his game. But I think a semi with him-Nadal could be grisley on clay.

She looked good, except for the yellow panties. I'm so sad she lost. Now Chucky is my only hope. I don't really like any of the others. Oh God, ESPN coverage just finished and no Nalbandian from them. Well, there's still Today at The French Open to go. I have a smattering of hope still.

I actually want to see Shahar Peer win. She is setting history, trying to be the first Israeli women to reach a quarterfinal of a grand slam.

I saw that too! What could you possibly be bitching about, bitch? (Sorry, players lose me completely when they abuse people who are probably doing their best and thrilled to be so close to the game.)

Also, James Blake? I usually love him for being so classy and the whole overdone sob-story thing. But geez, complaining after the match is over at the ref isn't going to change anything and just makes you look like a dick. Even if you were in the right, which he wasn't this time.

Poor Mauresmo - I was kinda rooting for her. Sigh.

Ah, but he is the nicest, classiest player ever so it doesn't count when he acts like an ass. (For the record, I like Blake but the constant worship by a majority of the tennis world bugs)

I believe that Vaidisova did something similar like that...or had an incident with pretty bad behavior in the last U.S. Open. I don't remember exactly....but it really doesn't surprise me that she was screaming at the ballboy.

ESPN just finished the Hingis-Peer match....I'd never seen Peer play before and she really is good. But I think Chucky is gonna pull it out tomorrow. I'm Jewish and I know I'm supposed to root for my tribe but I just can't in this case. If I'd been around when Sandy Kaufax was playing, I promise I would have.

And that Jensen fool just said Hewitt was gonna beat St. Rafa manana. I suspect he'll eat his words.

I really like Suzie Kolber on these late nice ESPN tennis shows. She's good during football season and during tennis, too. Not to mention she grew up in Philadelphia. She can be my new girl-crush and we can talk about cheesesteaks and Hymie's Deli.

Edit: typos. Put down the vodka.

Blake was interviewed after the match and said that the discussion with the chair umpire began as an apology for being assy towards him during the match regarding not doing anything about the crowd making noise during the point but eventually became a theoretical discussion about whether or not the chair umpire should do something in that situation.

I believe him since he admitted to the bad behavior during the match, but it also sounds like NBC was making a bigger deal out of it than it was. Blake wasn't acting like an ass during the discussion. He, and the umpire, were animated but neither was being rude or abusive toward the other. They were just debating whether or not the chair should intervene when the crowd is disrupting play. I don't remember them making too much noise during play so Blake may have been looking for an excuse, but the way he handled it was fine.

Oh, Lleyton continues to be a stinker. The announcers during today's Nadal/Hewitt match said that Lleyton sent Rafa a bunch of bananas before the match. lol

I'm looking forward to the Clijsters-Hingis matchup. It looks to be the most interesting of the women's quarters.

I'm starting to feel like there's way too many commentators, without a central personality to form around. I wish Cliff weren't sick. There's something steady about him. Everyone else...to many opinions, predictions, analysis, stories, reactions, controversy. Leave the most part of that to the audience, ESPN. Calm down.

The ESPN mics picked up Blake saying something along the lines of "Have you ever played tennis at a professional level?" in a rude tone to the umpire. It wasn't the worst thing ever but it was definitely rude and he seemed to be implying that the ump didn't know what he was talking about. It annoyed me also that Blake didn't own up to it after the match and just said they were having a friendly discussion.

They mentioned during Hingis' match that she and Martina Navratilova were supposed to face each other in mixed doubles later in the day. I would have thought, even with ESPN's aversion to doubles matches, they would have shown something from that, certainly over an instant replay of the Nadal/Hewitt match.

They couldn't show the match, Hingis and Bhupathi pulled out before it started.

But that's where it becomes a matter of interpretation and context. The comment, without context, sounded rude but within context of the conversation they were having, which was about whether or not Ramos should stop play and have them replay a point when the fans are disrupting the flow of the match by making too much noise during a point, asking him whether he'd ever played high-level tennis was a fair question, because if the answer was no, as it was, then he really doesn't know how the sudden noise disrupts the flow of the game. He may be a well-trained and fair umpire, but he has no direct experience with the way crowd noise can adversely affect play. And more importantly, that seemed to answer Blake's primary question about why he chose not to stop play.

Blake was disappointed and Ramos was defensive but I don't think Blake was being particularly rude just because he wasn't being obsequious. The reason I give Blake the benefit of the doubt is that he never denigrated Ramos' ability to officiate the match, nor did he question the outcome. He was disappointed about some things he found questionable that turned against him and he questioned the person in charge of officiating. Maybe he shouldn't have said anything and just picked up his bags and walked away, but in the realm of ways to handle disappointment and conflict, he handled it in a mature and respectful manner.

Did anyone who watched the Williams-Vaidisova match see if the ball really was out in the first set? Williams was serving for the game to go up 2-1 and thought she had won the point, but the umpire ruled it out, and Vaidisova forced deuce and went on to break. Did ESPN Shot Spot (or something similar) show whether it was really out?

Well once again, I am frustrated by being a Venus fan. Despite everyone saying she had an easy march to the finals, I knew in my heart that it wasn't going to happen. Too often in the last few years she implodes when she shouldn't, breaking my heart every time.

On si.com sometime recently, one of their writers was talking about Venus' strange mental state on court-- that she will fight to the death against people like Davenport and Hingis, and roll over against others. It makes me wish that Venus had squared off against Hingis today, because she really could have used some of that fighting spirit in the third set.

I am sad. Neither the [women's] winner of Berlin or Rome will win Roland Garros this year and history won't repeat itself for the 7th time in 37 editions. :(

EDIT: It's always nice to be precise.

I'm so bummed that Venus lost. The whole time it felt like she was a few good shots away from taking contol. She can be so frustrating some times. Oh well, on to the grass court season I guess. I now want Kuznetsova to win, but I think JHH will edge her out in the final.

Men's side...

Looks like it is possible that the top 4 seeds will be in the semifinals.

Women's side.

Vaidisova? Bleah...she can be quite immature.

Really wanted Safina to win...but oh well. Hoping that Svetlana Kuznetsova takes out Vaidisova.
Interesting semifinals as well.

A matter of opinion, I guess. I didn't really listen to any of the commentary afterward, but what I saw/heard from him that got picked up by the mic/camera looked and sounded aggressive to me. YMMV.

Poor Venus. The women's draw is losing all my favorites.

I'm transferring my hopes to Clijsters, even though the BIG STORY of her Grand Slam drought is dead in the water.

I was bummed out by Vernus' loss at the French, but I do like that she's slowly rebuilding ranking points each week by playing alot more. She's going to be seeded nice and high at Wimbledon since she's defending champion and I really thought she was trying out her Wimbledon game at this tournament. Her service percentage kept going up throughout the tournament and I think she is building. I have to realize that it's not realistic to expect that Venus can play two warm up tournaments and win a grand slam just like that, no one else does it so we shouldn't expect it from her. I see her being a huge factor at the Championships though.

I don't know about that, Falafaclese. I wasn't impressed with JHH's performance against Groenefeld and I'm a JHH supporter. She's going to have to up her game a great deal against Clijsters, who looked pretty comfortable against Hingis, despite Martina's tactical game.

You could very well be right ruach, to be honest, I haven't seen any of JHH's matches during this tournament . . . in fact, now that I think about it, I haven't seen any of Clijsters' either. Hmmm. At any rate it should be an interesting match between those two regardless, but I'd still love to see Koozy in the final, and I'd love it even more to see her win after all her troubles with consistency last year.

As for Venus, BoozeGood, I think you make some good points. Unfortunately for her rankings, she's got a lot of points to defend at Wimby, and it looks like she's skipping the warm-ups again this year. Hopefully she'll be able to make a strong run through the summer hardcourts. Last year she only played one besides The U.S. Open. Over all I think she had a good run at RG considering how little she's played this year and that clay's not her forte, a win from her would have been icing.

This summer should be very interesting. In addition to it looking like most the top-ranked women will be active and healthy at the same time, there are all those youngsters in the 11 to 30 rankings who seem poised to make some serious noise.

I picked Clijsters at the beginning of the tournament and she's still in it! She's a class act and incredible athlete. I hope she can get past JHH.

I do hope Roger wins -- how incredible would it be for tennis fans to see a men's player win the Grand Slam (even non-calendar year).
Nadal is exciting, but really, we don't need another clay-court dynamo. Buddy hasn't even made the quarters of any other Major yet.

If Roger does win, though, I sincerely hope he doesn't refer to it as the "Roger" Slam. A little piece of me dies every time ESPN shows that clip because it's such a stupid and vain thing to say and he says it so earnestly. Since he's neither stupid nor vain, and I'm not nearly objective enough, I'm choosing to interpret his tin ear in that one instance on him not being an American and not realizing just how dumb a thing that is to say. But still, knock it off.

Sport-wise, everyone has to be hoping for Federer to win the French. Nadal would be an anti-story. The expected with little payoff. He's already gotten his little to-do about breaking Vilas' record, so for him to repeat would just keep tennis off the cover of SI for another year. But Federer holding all four majors at the same time IS a story and just about the only thing that will make tennis front page news. At least here in the States.

I do think he will prove to be more than just a clay courter- although folks are quick to pin that label on him. In fact- I already think he is more than just a clay courter - he won two Masters on hard courts, for example. (I don't subscribe to the theory that Grand Slams are the only measure of a player's surface ability, although I will admit they are the largest yardstick used by tennis fans and I guess the only one used by the more general public.) Yes- clay court is his best surface and the one that he has done the best in the slams at by far- but I don't think it is fair to say that he can just play on dirt, as his four harcourt titles will attest. He is improving skills that will bode him well on faster courts, his volleys are actually surprisingly good for example, and at just turned 20, I am not ready to dismiss him away yet as someone who will just be a clay courter in the GS. I think he could have done quite well at the Aussie Open this year for example, and think that he will likely win that some day and maybe even the USO down the road.

I do think if Roger wins RG, he may actually finally get a big picture on the cover of SI. I also think that if he wins he will be in the zone to get the calander year Grand Slam and will then finally be named the Associate Press Athlete of the Year.

I do think that folks, including those in the media, are putting the cart before the horse. A Federer/Nadal final is not a given. There is no guarentee that Nadal will make it to the final and certainly no guarentee that Federer will beat Nalbandian. People keep talking just about Roger and Rafael, but Nalbandian has a lot to prove in this tournament as well. He is known for his inability to win the big matches in GS tournaments and is widely regarded as the best player to not yet have won a grand slam. As the announcers always say- he strikes the ball cleaner than anyone on tour. I think that Federer will likely win their match, but I put it at a 60% chance and therefore not a given. And I don't agree with Gilbert, who said that Roger will win in three.

I was unscientifically calculating Federer's chances to win the French in my head last night and came to the same conclusion about his match against Nalbandian. He'll likely win but it will be the first real test on how confident he is on clay. I'm hoping for a straight set win, but just knowing that Gilbert predicted it makes me think it's at least going to four with at least two tiebreaks in the mix. Gilbert's a gasbag who fancies himself John McEnroe, so he often seems to make outrageous proclamations just to get a reaction. (Roddick at 60% can win a clay court match anyone?) But I wonder if he makes these predictions with the confidence that his head is so far up his ass that the opposite will happen. I mean blind guessing should produce a better record than Gilbert has in predicting matches.

I should take back at least some of the tone of my comment. I do realize that Nadal isn't just a one-surface wonder. I think my main point is that I find this split between who contends to win RG and who contends to win all the other Majors more than a little off-putting -- in fact I think it's one of the major problems with men's tennis. That's why Roger having a real shot at RG is so exciting. And equally, I think Nadal making a good run at one of the others would be good for tennis, and would make his rivalry with Roger that much more compelling. But Nadal winning the French for several years while not making a dent in any of the others? That would just be Guga version 2.0. It has a dullness to it that belies each of these player's charisma. I sincerely hope that Nadal lives up to the potential he's shown on other surfaces.

Thanks for the clarification LawBoyTV Addict and I understand your point. I do agree that it is a shame that there is such a dichotomy between the winners of RG and their performance on other surfaces. However, I think times may be changing. Moya and Ferrero did come close to winning other titles, with reaching the finals of the Aussie and USO respectively – and showed commitment to other surfaces. And a lot more players from clay player nations are now making a real effort to improve and do well on other surfaces besides clay. I think that we will see the results of this in the GS.

If Nalby does win this RG, I would not be surprised if some who are not in the know in the media described him as a clay courter because he is from Argentina. He really is an all surface player that is the only one out of Roger that is ever tossed about as the possible winner of whatever GS it may be.

Congrats to Ivan for making his first GS semis! Wow, first time since 1985 that the top four number seeds the men’s semis at RG. And I agree with whoever it was, PMAc? Chris? Brad? Who said that it would be fitting if all four made the semis because they really have been the ones who have been above the other players in terms of play.

I've been a Nalbandian fan since he made the finals of Wimbledon. He has a very efficient-looking game, and he's quite a fighter. And really, his career highlights have been on grass (Wimby) and hard (US Open, Masters Cup) -- which I too hope the media remembers!

I also hope he manages to bag a few Majors before his career is done. That said, as someone who is fascinated by the history of this sport, I would be upset if Federer lost this semi to him and missed out on an opportunity to complete the Slam.

I want to see a Fed-Nadal final, I feel like a 4 year old child who balls up his fists and shouts "I want it!!!" It will be cool for tennis, it probably will be rated higher than any other final. I love Federer but if its a great 5 setter than I'll be happy either way. Also it has to be said. The combination of Chris Fowler and Brad Gilbert in the announce booth is enough to make me hate tennis for life. They suck so. much. ass. Like get a room you too, time to make out.

I think the problem lies mainly with Gilbert. He talks out of his ass because he can't shut up and Fowler is more of a host. He's tolerable when he's doing his interviews and interstitial analysis. But in the booth, Gilbert just shoots his mouth off and Fowler responds to him and they both forget there's a match going on, and then Gilbert randomly inserts a comment about "Mr. Agassi" or Nadal or Federer into a match in which none of them are playing, because he so deserpately wants to be relevant to the sport again, and it makes me long for that British gasbag on TTC.

I hope ESPN realizes just what they have in Cliff Drysdale. I've been watching tennis on ESPN since the days of Drysdale, Stolle and Carillo, and Cliff was always my favorite of the three. Such a positive and pleasant presence. Knowledgeable but not obnoxious and always willing to let the other person not only have his or her say, but have the last word. And such a beautiful accent. Please, don't let him leave!!