Yesterday afternoon I left you from a Rogers Cup
site that looked something like an oversized soup bowl. Against all odds, though, the water dried and the players were dragged bleary-eyed from their hiding
places in the lounge, handed racquets and balls, and forced to run around under the lights. You know
how on Monday I listed all the reasons I could never be a pro? Chalk this
up as another: Having to start your match five hours after you had originally
prepared your mind and body to play it. In those kinds of cases, whether it's tennis or some other nerve-wracking activity, there typically comes a point when I just say: I don’t care what
happens, I just want it to be over. That must a reaction that every pro has had
to ignore or fight off hundreds of times.
Monday’s second half. Ernests Gulbis won a tennis match. It's true, even if only a handful of people witnessed it—you really could hear crickets chirping all around the court. Gulbis was sharp to start
against Thomaz Bellucci, but exceptionally tense when he was ahead. Gulbis lost
the first three games of the second set, won five straight, then did his best
to blow that lead. When he was down on his serve, though, he threw bombs,
kept his composure, and even—now and then, here and there, you’d miss it if you
blinked—showed some positive energy. Of course, there were a few vintage Ernestsian
moments. When he was he was down 0-3, he walked past his coach, who gave him a
fist-pump and said, “Come on!” Gulbis only response was to raise his right eyebrow skeptically, as if to say, "Really? Did you just watch the last three games? What are you so excited about?" Later, after missing a backhand, Gulbis looked at his camp and said, “I
don’t feel it. I can’t feel it,” as if all was lost. On the next point, he wrist-snapped
a brilliant short backhand up the line for a passing shot winner that gave him a break. There’s a touch of the tortured genius in Gulbis, though the emphasis so far in his career has been on the first word. A W is a W, but the main
reason he won this match was that Bellucci, whenever it mattered, was reliably godawful.
post-Wimbledon press conference. This was notable for (1) the length of Federer’s
answers—did he miss us? (2) his professed willingness at some point to play
doubles with Rafael Nadal; (3) his assertion that he’ll do a trial run with
Paul Annacone as coach through the U.S. Open; and (4) his upbeat attitude about
having his kids on the road—“we put tennis first and family first.” Federer
also referred to his life as “superstable.” All in all, sitting in a civilized and untwitchy posture, with his legs crossed in front of him, he appeared to be a man naturally and powerfully drawn to success.
I am now officially waiting for a “Roger Federer’s 7 secrets to living your dream
life” book series (really, I am, I can use it).
and Connors did it in 1976. While Rafa and Nole weren’t as odd a couple as
those two must have been, they didn’t exactly gel as a team, losing to two gawky young
unknowns in a super-tiebreaker. With the no-ad scoring and the promise of
fireworks afterword, there was an exhibition-like feel to the evening. I didn’t
see the whole thing, but from what I did see, Nadal looked energized while
Djokovic looked flat. He missed returns and didn’t close at the net (a classic singles player mistake).
Their opponents were tall and rangy and knew their doubles. They beat
Nadal and Djokovic a number of times by simply going up the middle on them.
single-handedly won the doubles event at Indian Wells this spring, and the
format gives him a chance to show a more aggressive and creative side to his
game that he subdues for practical reasons in singles—he really can hit a stab
volley lob winner. But I’m not really all that surprised. They would have had
to play again this afternoon, and their partnership had already caused the
tournament headaches. Before the event, officials had tried to sell tickets by
announcing that Djokovic would play Tuesday night. That didn’t work with his
doubles, so they had to move him to Wednesday afternoon. Big-name dubs will
never be a sure thing on this tour. The Lavers and Rosewalls of the world played it because
they needed the money. Now the top singles players run the show, and they obviously
don’t need the extra cash. Conflicting agendas can make these
partnerships as much trouble as fun. Still, a Federer-Nadal combination would
be more than worth whatever it takes to make it happen.
***
One is coming off a Wimbledon final, the other an upset of a former Top Tenner. How
good is the late-blooming Stakhovsky? This may give us an idea.
Nalbandian. This potentially superb matchup will hang on Nalby’s fitness.
Unfortunately, that’s never something you want to hang anything on. Ditto for
Baghdatis vs. Chardy on the Grandstand.
there ever was one. Gulbis finished late last night, so you have to like
Soderling.
Querrey and Michael Russell, face off. It might not be much of a battle,
considering that Russell lists Querrey among his least-favorite opponents right
on the ATP’s website. But this 32-year-old has plugged away and survived
for much longer than anyone would have expected. Russell also plays with
pleasure and perspective, rather than the vicious focus that’s been the norm
for so long. We'll see where that gets him, and what kind of form Sam is in.
***
PS: Can someone name the song where I got the (admittedly odd) name of this post?