Federer Wins 800th Tour Match

The Paris Masters tournament is heating up and Roger Federer made history by winning his 800th ATP tour match by defeating Juan Monaco of Argentina 6-3 7-5 to reach the semifinals. There he will face Tomas Berdych who ended World #3 Andy Murray 17-match, 3-title winning streak with a thrilling, nail-bitingly close 4-6 7-6(5) 6-4 win.

Federer's 800th win puts him at #7 on the all time list, which is headed by Jimmy Connors at 1,242.

1,242— Jimmy Connors
1,071— Ivan Lendl
923— Guillermo Vilas
875— John McEnroe
870— Andre Agassi
806— Stefan Edberg
800— Roger Federer

Anyone think Rafael Nadal will get to 800 wins? I'm sure one of Federer's goals is to get into the Top 5 on this list, but I think getting past Agassi and McEnroe will be difficult, especially if Federer retires at the end of 2012, which I suspect will happen.

Nadal Loses in Shanghai; Djokovic Clinches #1

Novak Djokovic has clinched the year-end #1 spot for the first time thanks to World #2 Rafael Nadal's shocking loss at the Shanghai Masters in the third round to Florian Mayer. Djokovic has been ranked #1 since July 4, 2011.

The ATP reports:

The 24-year-old Belgrade native is the first Serbian man to finish No. 1 in the history of the ATP Rankings (since 1973). It also marks a record eighth straight year a European is the No. 1 player on the ATP World Tour. For seven years from 1985-91, Europeans finished No. 1.

Djokovic is the first player other than Roger Federer (2004-07, ‘09) or Rafael Nadal (2008, ’10) to finish No. 1 since American Andy Roddick in 2003.

[...]

En route to a 64-3 match record, he has captured a record five ATP World Tour Masters 1000 titles in a season, in Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid, Rome and Montreal. He has also compiled a 20-2 mark vs. Top 10 opponents, defeating rivals Nadal six times and Federer four times so far in 2011.

Djokovic becomes the 16th person in the history of the ATP rankings to end the year at #1.

US OPEN 2011: Playing Tennis While Black? #PTWB

The first video above shows the soon-to-be notorious incident which happened at 2-6, 30-40 with Serena Williams serving to Samantha Stosur during the 2011 U.S. Open Women's Final (won by Stosur) for which Serena was assessed a point penalty for deliberate hindrance for shouting "come on" before the point was over. Darren Cahill first posted on Twitter a link to this video of an identical "hindrance" incident with Serena playing Svetlana Kuznetsova two years ago, bizarrely with the exact same referee Eva Asderaki officiating last night. Then it had no more than 600 views. Now it's up to 13,000 and rising LOL. The comments on the second video claim that because Doha 2009 and US OPEN 2011 were played under WTA and ITF rules, respectively, the umpire was correct in awarding a point (and thus a game) penalty to Serena Williams.

Let's go to the text shall we?

The ITF rules on "hindrance" state (Rule 26):

"If a player is hindered in playing the point by a deliberate act of the opponent(s), the player shall win the point. However, the point shall be replayed if a player is hindered in playing the point by either an unintentional act of the opponent(s), or something outside the player’s own control (not including a permanent fixture).”

The WTA rules (pdf) on "hindrance" state:

If a player hinders her opponent, it can be ruled as either involuntary or deliberate. 

1. Involuntary Hindrance 

A let should be called the first time a player has created an involuntaryhindrance (e.g., ball falling out of pocket, hat falling off, etc.), and the player should be told that any such hindrance thereafter will be ruled deliberate. 

2. Deliberate Hindrance 

Any hindrance caused by a player that is ruled deliberate will result inthe loss of a point.

My issue is with the interpretation of the rule. In what way did Serena's scream hinder Stosur in returning the ball? How do Azarenka's and Sharapova's shrieks not hinder the player on the other side of the net? If grunting is not involuntary hindrance than neither should screaming "come on!" If one takes the position that screaming out a word right before one's opponent is going to hit the ball is involuntary hindrance then a let should be played. It was very clear that Serena had hit a winner and was screaming out "come on!" as almost all tennis players do at that point. No human in that position was going to get that ball back in the court. Stosur happened to get her racquet on the ball before it bounced twice but no way was she going to get the ball back into play. If it had been some other event which had interrupted play the umpire should rule that Stosur had no play on the ball and give the point to Serena. But umpires often do interpret the rule (wrongly, in my view) that if the player gets a racquet on the ball (or is even in the vicinity of the ball when the incident happens) then the entire point needs to be replayed.


So the ruling by the umpire was the Serena deliberately hindered Stosur by screaming "come on." This is absolute bovine excrement and must be reported as such. Why is it deliberate hindrance to scream out "come on!" before an opponent hits an unreturnable ball? If the ball WAS returnable, then I think one could rule it was a deliberate hindrance. Because, the player was deliberately hindered from returning it into play. But the ball was not playable so regardless of what Serena said or did that ball was not coming back into play. The bigger question is, why did the same umpire rule differently at the US Open than two years ago at the Doha 2009 tournament, under essentially the same rules in an identical situation? That umpire, Eva Asderaki like the notorious Marina Alves, should never be allowed to referee a Serena Williams match again.


But the bigger issue is with the ability of umpires and officials to make calls which videotape allows the fans and observers to know are incorrect. That is what used to happen with line call and now (thanks to the 2004 U.S. Open quarterfinals match with Jennifer Capriati and Serena Williams when repeated, obvious line calls were made against Serena by Referee Marina Alves) we have electronic line calling. And tennis is much better for it. Ask Maria Kirilenko!

What drives us observant followers, fans and players of the game insane is that there are a LOT of these subjective interpretations of the rules in the game of tennis and more often than not they seemed to be interpreted arbitrarily (or to the detriment of Serena at the U.S. Open). My point is that there should be an increased attempt to REDUCE subjectivity in tennis and have all umpire calls appealable by going to an objective source such as videotape (where available) and then a ruling by the tournament referee using the objective source.

Incidents such as "not up," "foot faults," "non-racquet contact with the ball" are all examples of situations which could be resolved by going to the videotape. You can also find multiple examples where umpires have made questionable (and incorrect) rulings against Serena Williams, Venus Williams and James Blake where the video shows pretty clear that the umpire was in error. What do these players all have in common? Hmmmmm.

There are video cameras in the cars of police officers all around the country to prevent incidents of what is known as "Driving While Black or Brown)." 

All players need the ability to review video of incidents on the tennis court to substantiate umpire rulings!

Until that time, anyone playing in an official match, especially if they have "dark" skin may be subject to an incident of "Playing Tennis While Black"!

US OPEN 2011: Stosur Outplays Serena To Win 1st Major

Defying nearly universal predictions of defeat Samantha Stosur of Australia, 27, played the match of her life to defeat a listless, unusually slow Serena Williams and win her first major title at the 2011 U.S. Open 6-2 6-3.

Although Serena started the match with an ace it became clear very soon that she was not moving well and not serving well. If she was playing at 80% to win against Caroline Wozniacki on Saturday night, Sunday afternoon she was at around 50%. I don't know if it was something physical or not, but she as clearly the same player who had shown up for the first 5 rounds of the tournament.

Regardless, Samantha Stosur took a page out of Francesca Schiavone's book and played the smartest match of her life, maximizing her chances and optimizing her talent. She served well, volleyed well and was aggressive with her best shot, the forehand, especially in the return of service. Since Serena's serve was surprisingly slow, Stosur repeatedly hit it back for a clean winner, something Serena usually does to her opponents.

The oddest moment of the match came in the first game of the second set, when Serena was serving at 30-40. She served, got a weak return and hit a blistering forehand into Stosur's backhand corner and screamed  "Come on!" a split second before Stosur, scrambling to her left, managed to get her racquet on the ball. Immediately, the commentator John McEnroe said "Well, they have to play a let now." Instead, bizarrely, the umpire claimed that instead of winning the points she was awarding it to Stosur, due to the "verbal hindrance." Since it was a breakpoint, this meant that Serena not only lost the point, she lost the game. Serena was obviously displeased by this turn of events and asked the umpire "Aren't you the one who screwed me no this court a few years ago? That's not cool." The incident managed to completely turn the crowd in Serena's favor (and against Stosur) and they cheered vociferously until Serena won the next 3 points on Stosur's serve to get triple breakpoint, eventually breaking back on her 3rd chance. After a few games the crowd settled down and Serena's game returned to her listless level, unable ot move her feet to get tothe ball, while Stosur continued to hit the ball sharply and cleanly into the corners.Eventually Serena was broken and Stosur consolidated the break and on the next service game, down 2-6, 3-5 Serena faced double breakpoint which was also double championship point. She was able to save one of them, but on the second one Stosur hit a clean inside-out cross-court forehand winner, winning the point, set and match.

Overall, it was an excellent result for Stosur, who became the first Australian player since Patrick Rafter in 1998 to win a major championship (also the U.S. Open). Regardless of the "hindrance incident" Stosur was the better player on the day and deserved to win the match. It also brings to a close an interesting year for the slams on the women's side where three of the four winners were brand new: Li Na in Paris, Petra Kvitova in London and Samantha Stosur in New York.It should be interesting to see which of these three wins another one first. I would put my money on the Czech lefty.

2011 FRENCH OPEN: Men's Final Preview

FFT

Roger Federer SUI (3) vs. Rafael Nadal ESP (1). For the 25th time, the Spanish lefty and the Swiss righty who have dominated men's tennis for the last 7 years will meet in an ATP tour match, with Nadal maintaining a 2:1 winning ratio, 16-8. The two have met in 7 major finals (3 in Paris, 3 in London and 1 in Melbourne) so far, with Nadal leading 5-2 (only losing the 2006 Wimbledon and 2007 Wimbledon finals). The vast majority of their meetings have occurred in championship matches, often when the two were ranked #1 and #2 in the world. In these 18 finals, Nadal leads 12-6, and 9-2 in the clay court finals.


Federer won one of his best clay court matches ever on Friday when he ended Novak Djokovic's undefeated year with a 7-6(5) 6-3 3-6 7-6(5) victory. He served astonishingly well, with 65% first serves in and 18 aces (including one on match point) compared to a mere 2 double faults. Federer defended well, gliding around the court as if he was not a father of nearly 2-year-old twin girls and strongly hitting his topspin backhand down the line and knifing the backhand slice.


The perplexing problem is that the match up between Nadal's game on clay and Federer's game greatly favors the Spaniard. Nadal's topspin forehand jumps up high to Federer's backhand side, making it difficult for Federer to defend that side. Although Federer's forehand cross-court outmatches Nadal's backhand cross-court it is often very difficult for the Swiss player to win points that way due to Nadal's ferocious defensive skills. The two wins on clay that Federer has in his career over "The King of Clay" arguably came when Nadal was not at his best physically (2009 Madrid) or a court on which Federer was incredibly confident (2007 Hamburg). The last time they played the final in 2008, Nadal mercilessly pummeled the Swiss player, relegating him to a mere 4 games in a 3-set match, 6-1 6-3 6-0.


I do think that the match tomorrow will be their closest Roland Garros contest, maybe even a 4-set or 5-set affair, but in the end Nadal's 43-1 dominance on the court will prevail, allowing the World #1 to tie Borg's record of 6 clay court majors.


PREDICTION: Nadal.

2011 FRENCH OPEN: Men's Quarterfinals Preview

Fabio Fognini won his marathon 4th round match to a chorus of boos and cheers and
then withdrew from the tournament prior to playing the biggest match of his career.

(Photo credit:  Benoit Tessier, REUTERS)

Here are my predictions for the men's quarterfinals at the 2011 French Open. Last year, I correctly predicted 2 of 4 men's quarterfinals correctly.

Rafael Nadal ESP (1) vs. Robin Soderling SWE (5). The dream quarterfinal. Rafael Nadal has only ever lost one match at Roland Garros, and it was to his quarterfinal opponent, the World #5 tall, muscular Swede Robin Soderling. He defeated the 4-time defending champion in 2009, in one of the greatest upsets in sports of the last decade; Soderling followed up that upset by repeating it the following year by beating the defending champion Roger Federer in the quarterfinals to end Federer's incredible streak of 23 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals. Nadal does not appear to be playing his best tennis this year but still must be considered the favorite considering his overall clay court record. However, Nadal's confidence must  be shaken by his two recent losses to Djokovic in two clay court Masters finals this season. Soderling does not lack confidence, and if he plays his best tennis against Nadal's not-best tennis, he will repeat his 2009 result. If Nadal plays at his 2010 level, then the defending champion should get through and possibly win a 6th Roland Garros title, tying Bjorn Borg's record. PREDICTION: Soderling in 4 sets.  

Andy Murray GBR (4) vs. Juan Ignacio Chela ARG. Andy Murray's dream draw turned into a nightmare during his 3rd round victory over a lefty qualifier Michael Berrer when he badly twisted his ankle in a 3-set win. He started his next round gingerly, losing the first 5 games of his 4th round match with Serbian Viktor Troicki. The World #4 came within one point of drawing even in the first set but ultimately ended up losing the first two sets 6-4 6-4. However, his movement and attitude visibly improved  and he was able to force a fifth and deciding set before darkness fell. I presume he will be able to win the deciding fifth set when play resumes on Tuesday and should have no problem dismissing the 31-year-old Argentine clay court specialist playing in his 3rd career major quarterfinal on Thursday. PREDICTION: Murray in 3 sets. 

Gael Monfils FRA (9) vs. Roger Federer SUI (3). Federer continues to write his name in the tennis record books by reaching his 28th consecutive major quarterfinal with an efficient dispatch of countryman Stanislas Wawrinka in the 4th round. While Djokovic is winning universal acclaim and attention by continuing his flawless 2011 season, Federer continues to demonstrate why he has been at the upper echelon of men's tennis for the last seven consecutive years. There are few players in the Top 10 who have even played 28 consecutive major tournaments, and Federer has been in the last 8 or better in 28 consecutive major tournaments. His opponent is the Pride of France, "La Monf" who is in his 3rd quarterfinal at Roland Garros in 4 years. Unfortunately for the Frenchman, he has never won a match on clay against Federer. In fact, last fall in front of a Paris crowd, Monfils won his first match ever (in 6 tries) against the Swiss Great when he saved an incredible 5 match points and went on to win one of the best matches of the year in three tiebreak sets. However, getting through a tough 5-set against the always hard-to-beat David Ferrer in the 4th round was another indicator that the excessively talented, prodigiously athletic Monfils' results may start matching his potential. Federer is yet to lose a set in his 2011 appearance at Roland Garros, and while I expect that streak to end, I also expect he will again find a way to yet another major semifinal and a historic showdown with Novak Djokovic. PREDICTION:  Federer in 4 sets.

Fabio Fognini ITA vs. Novak Djokovic SRB (2). The quarterfinal that wasn't. The puckishly handsome Italian showed he was more than just a pretty face by outlasting clay court specialist Albert Montanes 11-9 in the fifth set despite being unable to move due to suffering a muscle tear (or cramps?) in his leg at 5-6, 15-30. Fognini basically started blasting winners into all the corners on the court to erase 5 match points and controversially emerged with the win. However, he knew that he would have no chance against the red-hot Serbian who has yet to lose  a match in 2011 and thus withdrew (on advice of his doctors, who confirmed a 1cm muscle tear via MRI). This is both good news and bad news for Djokovic. It means that he is at least one round further in the tournament than he was last year, which is good news for his campaign to become World #1. He just needs to win one more match to reach his first French Open final and he will attain this goal of being acknowledged (by the computer) as the #1 player in the world. All Djokovic has to do is either beat 16-time major champion Roger Federer or hometown favorite Gael Monfils coming off the biggest win of his career in the semifinals on Friday. Getting to this point via walkover is bad news for Djokovic because he doesn't get credit for the win, so his streak remains at 41-0 for 2011 and that means he can only break John McEnroe's 1984 streak of 42-0 by winning the entire tournament. Plus it means he has a bizarre 4-day break in the middle of a major tournament after playing 3 consecutive days. It will be interesting to see what, if any, these factors have on Djokovic's play in the semifinal. I suspect nothing will deny Djokovic's date with destiny.