This week TENNIS.com is featuring one of our blog regulars, Asad Raza, who is in Rome for the men's Italian Open. He'll be writing back and forth with me here a couple times; reporting on the home page; and blogging over at Pete's as well.
Asad,
We’ve caught you on TV a couple times this week, during the Rafa loss and the Roddick win. From that angle, you look like you've got a Jeff Goldblum kind of thing going. But studious and attentive to all details, of course. Call me perverse, but there are few things I savor more than watching a tennis match by myself in a half-empty press section in some far-off city, knowing I’m going to be writing it later. There’s nothing quite like that to focus the observational mind. Have you enjoyed the Roman crowds? They’re more playful than the French, and slouchier.
It’s been an unexpected tournament, as I’m sure you’ll agree. Nadal and Federer down, Roddick up. Has this made it more exciting around the grounds, or is there an air of disappointment or anti-climax? I think the clay season needed this. It’s a breath of fresh air in spring for the first time in three years. We’ll get plenty of Rog and Rafa in the next few weeks, but what are the chances we’ll see the Dirt Worm performed again? Watching on TV, I didn’t get the feeling the crowd was all that thrilled to see Stepanek do his dance. It doesn’t matter, he played much more proactively throughout and deserved to win. Federer spent a lot of time hanging back and waiting for him to create something in the rallies. I wonder if a reverse pressure got to him after Rafa lost and the draw was his.
It was a fun match to watch, perhaps because of the conditions. You’ve been talking about the varieties of clay, and I’m sure there are many gradations. One other variable is the weather; clay matches seem to be affected by sun and heat more than others. Nadal vs. Ferrero was clearly played in “heavy conditions,” and it slowed everything and everyone down. I’ve always thought of Nadal as a great heat and sun player—he seems to feed on it, and perhaps a faster clay court suits him.
Today the stadium was hit by that golden afternoon sun that I associate with tennis in Rome. If the ball was flying faster, Stepanek used it to his advantage. I’m still amazed that he was the one who found a way through both tiebreakers just when it could have gone the other way. I’ve written before that he’s much better to watch live than on TV. You can see his variety, his craftiness, his ability to slow points down and use every part of the court, including the center of it. He also plays at a nice, natural rhythm—not deliberate like Nadal and Djokovic, or semi-frenetic like Roddick. I loved his down-the-middle, chip and charge plays today; it doesn’t get any more old school than that, and they worked. What did you think of seeing Stepanek live this time?
As for the rest, I’ve only been watching in bits and pieces. Here are a few of my couch potato observations:
—Djokovic has a solid game for clay, but I wonder if he has the mental patience. When he started to go south in the second set against Andreev, he was testy and incredulous, and pretty much packed in a couple games. I think he has to guard against impatience against lower-ranked players; the clay greats have always been mentally steady through the ups and downs of a three-hour slog. He did come back to win in the the third, which shows again his overall confidence. But he tends to expend a lot of energy proving what he knew all along—that he was going to win.
—Nadal’s performance reminded me of the one he put on last year in the semis in Rome against Davydenko. He had just come off two unreal blow-outs, against Youzhny and Djokovic, and I expected him to stay at that level all the way through the French Open. Well, that’s not how it works for anyone. Every day is a new one, and subject to a hundred variables, including the weather—your confidence can literally be blown away in the wind or suffocated in humidity. Nadal hit short against Davydenko and had trouble generating power, though he pulled it out in the end.
This year, he came into Rome after another high-flying performance, against Ferrer in Barcelona—for much of that match, he was at his very best. But right from the start against Ferrero, you could see Nadal didn’t have it, especially on the forehand side. I believe he was injured, but I think Bodo had a good point when he said that his recent negativity about the schedule may have caught up with him. Nadal almost seemed to be trying—subconsciously, perhaps—to prove that he was right to complain. Or it may have given him a reason in his mind for an off day. He was right, of course—there was very little chance he was going to run the table this time. And you were right: A Nadal presser is always a lesson in coming to terms, honestly, with what you just did on the court.
—Blake: I like watching him more on clay than other surfaces, because he has to hit a few balls before pulling the trigger. He and Monfils played the most entertaining match of the 2006 French Open, with lots of touch and long, athletic rallies. Watching him today, I kept seeing Blake as a batter on a baseball field. His returns are swings from the plate, as if he’s timing the ball for a line drive. As for Wawrinka, the guy’s game doesn’t do it for me. His brand of bruiser-ball is impressive in its way, but still bruising.
Who do you have in the semis, Asad? I’ll take Stepanek and Roddick. Would that be an anti-climax? I don’t think so. We'd have another chance at spotting the (perhaps rightfully) elusive Dirt Worm.
Enjoy the weekend,
Steve