Now that Andy Roddick and Andre Agassi have suffered early demises in D.C., let’s take a minute to look ahead. Monday will mark the return of the big boys to North America, as the summer’s first Masters event begins in Toronto and the U.S. Open Series hits high gear. Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are scheduled to make their post-Wimbledon debuts. It will be interesting to see Nadal in particular match up against the world’s best on hard courts. Despite the fact that Federer skipped this event last year and Nadal claims he has been training “slackly,” it’s pretty much a lock that one of them will take home the winner’s trophy. How can I make this prediction? The two have, outrageously, won 12 of the last 14 Masters events (the exceptions came in Paris in 2005 and Hamburg in 2006, and only because neither entered those tournaments). Couple that with the fact that they’ve also won six straight Slams and you have to wonder: Who else in the near future on the men’s side has a chance to win anything bigger than the Tennis Channel Open or the Umag Classic? More to the point, does anyone other than Federer and Nadal have a chance to win in Toronto, or the following week at the Masters in Cincinnati? Let’s go down the short list of contenders and pretenders.
Ivan Ljubicic
The 27-year-old has performed consistently enough to climb to No. 3, though I question whether he’s really a worthy No. 3—Looby has only made one Slam semifinal in his career, after all, and he has a habit of losing the big match you think he should win (Baghdatis in Melbourne, anyone?) But he has made a few Masters finals, losing, naturally, to Nadal in Madrid last year and Federer in Key Biscayne in March. I think he can beat Nadal on hard courts, but not Federer. Let’s just say he’s got as good a shot as anyone to make a final in Toronto or Cincy.
David Nalbandian
He’s been hurt recently, and I’m not sure he’ll be in Toronto (he is still listed on the tournament website, for what that’s worth). If he does play, he’s one guy who’s proven he can beat Federer, and there’s no reason his steady, deep-ball game can’t hold its own with Nadal on a hard court. The question is whether Nalbandian has the drive to become a guy who wins big tournaments, rather than someone who does well week in, week out but can’t finish (Baghdatis in Melbourne, anyone?).
Andy Roddick
Believe it nor not, Roddick only turns 24 at the end of this month. He’s right—he really isn’t washed up! Canada was the site of his lone win over Federer, three years ago. I doubt he can duplicate that this summer, but I would love to see him play Nadal at night in either location. Roddick got off to a strong, newly aggressive start in Indianapolis; maybe too aggressive, because he hurt himself in L.A. the next week, which means his immediate fate is up in the air. If he’s healthy, I think he’s ready to play some good tennis. And while he’s dropped in the rankings, he’s still at least an even bet on hard courts against everyone other than Federer.
James Blake
The No. 1 American should be looking at the next two weeks as the biggest moment of his career to date. At 27, he finally has a real opportunity to come up with a breakthrough Masters title. He’s been on an upward trajectory for a year now, having made the final in Indian Wells after beating Nadal. (That’s another night match I want to see.) He’s as explosive as anyone, but is he ready to beat Federer? Not at the U.S. Open itself, but at the Masters level, yes. The question may be whether he can beat Nadal for a third time—you have to believe Rafa would would want that one badly (no?).
Marcos Baghdatis
The 21-year-old is No. 10 in the world but hasn’t won anything yet. He has shown, though, that he likes the stage, and that he can at least hold his own with Federer there. The trouble is Nadal, who beat the Bag man badly at both Wimbledon and Indian Wells. There’s a quarterfinal in him at one of these tournaments.
Fernando Gonzalez
Gonzo has a smart new coach, Larry Stefanki, and is serious about improving his backhand and his return of serve. Perhaps this will get him over the hump at a Masters event, where he has never reached a final. But I didn’t like his court positioning in his loss to Dmitry Tursunov in L.A.—too far back for hard courts. Tursunov actually out-hit the Chilean—has that ever been done before?
Lleyton Hewitt
He could be the wild card of the next month, depending on his tenacity level, which has wavered over the last year. He’s at his best grinding away on U.S. hard courts, and he gave Nadal a run on clay in Paris. Still, a win over Fed is highly unlikely, and he actually looked outclassed by Baghdatis at Wimbledon. We’ll see whether that was just a one-day aberration.
Dmitry Tursunov
OK, I may have misspoken when I called him a surfer (thanks for the info, Miguel; it's good to have you back to set things straight). But on court he does seem like a laid back guy—until he explodes. The Russian/Californian is playing the best tennis of his life, and if he’s dialed in, he would appear to be a threat to Nadal on hard courts. He’s got the big serve, and he should have time to run around and hit his monster inside-out forehand off the Spaniard’s topspin, à la Blake.
Tommy Haas
OK, here’s one guy who is not intimidated by Federer. He knew Rog back in the day, before he was the king, and he beat him then, too. Haas probably feels like that could be him. They played a five-setter in Australia, and Tommy looked good last week in L.A., fighting through to win a final when he wasn't at his best. But while he has a nice record this year and three titles, Haas has always tended to go away in the later rounds of the tournaments that matter.
Wrap Notes
Next week, I’ll be joined each day by Toronto’s own Kamakshi Tandon, who runs the outstanding Court Coverage website and will be on site at the event. We’ll probably start on Saturday with a look at the draw.
To the poster who said that The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle is somewhat more than a story about a lost cat: You couldn’t have been more right.
To the (many) posters who disagree with me about coaching: I guess I just believe that, coach or not on court, singles is always an individual game.
And to the poster who wants me to write more: OK, I will try.