Was it a terrible week for pro tennis? Most outside observers would say yes, considering that a recreational-drug case on the women’s side was added to the ongoing revelations of match-fixing on the men’s. And if you really, really care what Tony Kornheiser or the talking suits at SportsCenter think of the game, you would probably agree.
As someone who actually watches tennis matches, I thought the week on the whole was a positive one, for three reasons. (1) On the men’s side, the finale in Paris featured all the top players and meant more than it has in years, which could signal the beginning of the long-hoped-for rejuvenation of the Euro-indoor season. (2) We saw the continued renaissance of the seemingly-in-decline David Nalbandian; by beating the two top players in the world in consecutive tournaments, he’s shown us another version of what dominant tennis can look like. (3) Lindsay Davenport won again, which gives the WTA a desperately needed new story for 2008.
I’m out sick today, with a cold that had me up all night—or was it the disaster known as the Philadelphia Eagles that kept me from sleeping? I’m writing from my apartment, which isn’t as bad as I thought it might be. I usually don’t like to take days off during the week; seeing people working and kids heading for school makes me feel weirdly outcast. Anyway, with Horace Silver as soundtrack and muted NFL highlights in the background, here’s a CE short-list of relevant people and events from the week that was, and the one that will be.
1. David Nalbandian: At the start of his final against Rafael Nadal, Nalbandian looked extraordinarily calm. He never seems hurried, but this time there was assurance in his eyes and in his heavy walk. I thought the match would be an intruiging contest between his calm approach and Nadal’s typical edginess.
Well, we saw how it turned out. Nalbandian had good reason to be calm. He took care of his serve from the beginning, and then opened up on Nadal’s at just the right time. He broke at 4-4 and in the process showed off the variety in his return game. Early in the game, Nalbandian sliced a backhand return at a sharp angle wide. Nadal got to it but was way off court. He tried a go back crosscourt but the angle was too difficult and he sent it into the alley. (The wide-angle backhand was a shot that Nalbandian used effectively all week, particularly against Federer. It’s not an easy shot with two hands, but the Argentine did a little hop beforehand to get more angle; it’s the first time I’ve seen a legitimate use for the jumping backhand.) Then, at 15-40, Nalbandian took the simple route to break, stepping around a weak Nadal second serve and knocking a forehand return winner into the corner.
Federer wins with elegance, Nadal with bruising athleticism. Nalbandian beat them both with a textbook complete game. He has the classic simplicity and well-measured versatility of a champion player, but his will to impose that game has failed him in the past. Suddenly, at 25, with a new coach and a more consistent serve, Nalbandian is imposing it without trying to do too much. We’ve seen this before, of course. Two years ago, he beat Federer at the Masters Cup and looked ready to take his place at the top of the game. He’ll be in the same spot—facing another career moment of truth—as 2008 begins. The men’s game will be better for it.
2. Rafael Nadal: He lost in the final in part because he played a guy on a roll, but also because he played too safely. Nadal was content to move the ball around, but not to take charge of points. Still, he broke out of his late-season doldrums and reached the final of yet another Masters event. His versatility in these tournaments is impressive: Cincinnati is now the only one where he hasn’t played on the final Sunday.
Bonus points: Nadal was also part of the match of the week, against Marcos Baghdatis in the semifinals. It was a war of attrition and a roller coaster at the same time. Nadal was down a set and a break, but slowly turned the tables and ground Baghdatis down. Just when you thought Baggy was through, however, he willed himself to hit a couple spectacular winners and began to celebrate wildly, despite being well out of the match. It made for an action-packed ending, as Nadal had to work even harder to hold on. Baghdatis just missed a spot in the Masters Cup, but this was a valiant end to his season, and one example of how the race to Shanghai can bring out a player's best.
3. Paris: Like Hamburg, this event got a major boost in 2007, mainly because it was the first time that Federer and Nadal had both entered it. In the past, the fall European indoor tournaments have been the territory of second-tier guys like Michael Stich, Brad Gilbert, Tomas Berdych, and Nikolay Davydenko, who struggled to play their best at the Slams but feasted on the depleted draws and lower pressure levels here. At first glance, Nalbandian fits their profile perfectly, but he went through the best in the game in both Madrid and Paris and showed again that his skills are hardly second-tier. For the first time in years, Paris, the finale of the men’s regular season, had a sense of legitimacy as an important tennis event. It will get more help in 2009, when Madrid moves to the spring and the Masters Cup moves closer, to London. Who says the season is too long?
4. Madrid: Meanwhile the women end their own season this coming week with the eight-player, round-robin WTA Championships. Looking at the draw, it’s clear that this has been an unexpected transition year for the tour, as big names from the very recent past, like Clijsters, Mauresmo, and Petrova, have been replaced in Madrid by newcomers named Chakvetadze and Ivanovic, along with the surprise veteran Daniela Hantuchova.
The two round-robin groups are split like this: Henin, S. Williams, Chakvetadze, Jankovic on one side; Kuznetsova, Sharapova, Ivanovic, Hantuchova on the other. The first group is where the action will be, obviously, as Henin will face two of her main rivals, Williams and Jankovic, yet again.
Still, it’s hard to pick her to lose. Henin has won 20 straight matches and four straight tournaments, dropping just two sets during that time (her last last loss was the Bartoli head-scratcher at Wimbledon). The second semifinal slot may come down to Williams and Jankovic. It’s been a long season for the Serb, and she’s shown signs of burnout lately, losing her last two first-rounders. Will she have enough for one more run? She’s 2-2 against Williams, but she lost badly the last time they played, in Australia early this year. As for Serena, she played some good tennis recently in Moscow before going out with an injury in Zurich a couple weeks ago. She sounds motivated for this one, though, and I’ll take her over Jankovic and Chakvetadze to make the semis.
The other group is, if anything, tougher to call. Kuznetsova is the top seed and best athlete here, but she’s consistently inconsistent and hasn’t done much in her last three tournaments. That’s even more true for Sharapova, who has played—and lost—just one match since the U.S. Open, as her injury troubles continue (nice to see her making an effort to play this event). Ivanovic won in Luxembourg this fall, but went out quickly to Golovin in Zurich more recently; she’s always a threat but remains prone to the occasional disaster. Hantuchova, unlikely as it sounds, is coming in playing the best tennis, having reached the final in Luxembourg and won her third career title in Zurich. But she may be too nervous to keep it going in Madrid.
Semifinals: Henin d. Ivanovic; Williams d. Kuznetsova
Final: Henin d. Williams
5. Martina Hingis: Hingis was one of the game’s all-time great naturals, someone born to be on a tennis court. How did all that talent lead here? I don’t have any idea whether she took cocaine. Her denial is certainly a strong one, but they usually are. Where does Radek Stepanek fit into it? They broke up about a month after this test was administered, but before Hingis was made aware of the positive result.
I don’t particularly care whether she’s guilty, but I do care that I won’t get to see Hingis play tennis again. She’ll go down as an unfulfilled figure, someone destined for more but who had to watch the game she played as skillfully as anyone pass her by. It’s not surprising that her career would end in frustration—she had too much pride to be content losing in early rounds. Or losing at all.
I’ll remember the little heel-toe dance she did to get in serving position—the rest of us take little steps before our ground strokes; Hingis did it before she served. I'll always be able to picture the rhythmic quality to her movement around the court (“court sense” is what the coaches call it). And as for her shots, it will be her unmatched ability to change the direction of any ball at any time that will come to mind. It's the best example I can think of a pure tennis talent.