Category archive: Andy Murray
Let's take them in order of ranking:
ATP No. 1 Novak Djokovic: Given what Djokovic did in 2011, it's easy to forget just how tough Rafael Nadal is on clay. Djokovic has said he feels under no obligation to repeat his feats of 2011, but even a slight drop in his level of intensity would open the door for his rivals. Nole has said he's targeting the French Open title, but his prospects of winning it will decline if we see a Nadal resurgence.
No. 2 Rafael Nadal: Can you say "payback"? This is the first time since he was ambushed by Djokovic in 2011 that Nadal will be back on his home turf of Euro clay, starting Monday in Monte Carlo. He's been the champ for seven years in a row (his record at the Monte Carlo Masters: 39-1). Given that, it took guts for Djokovic to enter Monte Carlo. Should they meet in the final, the results will probably have long-term repercussions.
No. 3 Roger Federer: At 30, and with his record, Federer has nothing to prove. But another excellent clay-court season will keep him in good shape physically and mentally for Wimbledon and the Olympic Games, both of which will be on grass. And bear in mind that it was Federer who ended Djokovic's unbeaten streak in 2011 in the Roland Garros semis -- proving, once again, that for most of his career he's been far and away the second-best player on clay (behind Nadal).
No. 4 Andy Murray: He came into the clay-court season last year in a serious slump, and used the red dirt to sort out his game and get back in his top-five groove. This year he'll sally forth more confidently, having avoided another post-Australian swoon. I don't think Murray's full clay-court potential has been tapped yet. Last year he played a sneaky-good four-set match against Nadal in the Roland Garros semifinals. He could surprise everyone and bag his first major on red clay.
No. 5 Jo-Wilfried Tsonga: The Frenchman made great progress over the past six months, but he's had serious trouble cracking the code on clay. Admittedly, this is kind of a French thing; you do well at Monte Carlo or Rome and -- heaven forbid -- the next thing you know your countrymen are thinking you might win at Roland Garros! Tsonga didn't win three matches in a row on clay during the entire spring last year; he needs to show he can perform on the dirt and contend for his national championships.
No. 6 David Ferrer: It's simple. This guy needs to show that he can beat the top players in the top events. Beyond that, it's all been-there, done-that for Ferrer at this time of year.
WTA No. 1 Victoria Azarenka: I don't know why there's so much talk about Azarenka's need to demonstrate that she can play on clay; she won Marbella last year and lost only to players who went on to win the title at every other spring clay tournament but one (Stuttgart, where Azarenka retired during her first-round match). But given her start to the year, she needs to do well on clay only to enhance her chances at the French Open.
No. 2 Maria Sharapova: I'd bet she wants to maintain the momentum she's built up this year, to keep the youngsters ranked below her at bay. And that is a tougher job for her on clay than any other surface. Last year, Sharapova surprised everyone, including herself, when she won Rome. But she has a lot of points to defend and will certainly feel some pressure.
No. 3 Petra Kvitova: She came within a hair's breadth of taking the year-end No. 1 ranking in 2011, but she's been a bust since she made the semifinals of the Australian Open two months ago. She needs to win matches. Many matches. And soon.
No. 4 Agnieszka Radwanska: This young lady has one big problem: It's called Azarenka. Radwanska has lost to the No. 1 four times this year, and she's won every other tournament she's played (we won't count that match she had to surrender via walkover in Kuala Lumpur). Radwanska has to put her foot down and take a stand, because her tricky, counter-punching game is ideal for clay.
No. 5 Samantha Stosur: It's getting to the point that she needs to do something, and pretty quickly, to retain her credibility as a player of the first order -- a reputation she earned with that great win at the U.S. Open last year. You can play your way back into form on clay (just ask Murray, who did it last year), and that's just what this former French Open finalist needs to do.
No. 6 Caroline Wozniacki: The assignment is simple: Stop the bleeding. Wozniacki embarked on the year at No. 1, but she's been eclipsed and has left many thinking that her window of opportunity to win a major is closing -- fast. She needs to show that she can fend off the threats represented by vastly improved players like Kvitova, Radwanska and Azarenka, as well as veterans like Sharapova, Li Na and Serena Williams. It's a tough assignment for the defense-minded Dane.
That's how life is these days for the all-time Grand Slam singles champ. He's won 33 of his past 35 singles matches and carried off five singles titles -- including that of the 2011 ATP World Tour Finals. Not bad work for a guy who's over 30 and thus, at least theoretically, is going downhill.
With the win over Andy Murray in Dubai the other day, Federer has also beaten another member of the elite big four in the final of a single-elimination non-major tournament for the first time in well over a year (the previous time was 2010, when he got the better of Djokovic in Federer's home town of Basel, Switzerland).
Now he's got people wondering: Can he really surge and threaten the two men who have stolen his thunder for two years now, or has he pulled off this streak with smoke and mirrors, accessories provided by the fast indoor and outdoor courts on which he's flourished -- slick surfaces on which no Grand Slam events are played?
It's a fact that nobody, but nobody, can match Federer's versatility and shot-making prowess on courts at the fast end of the spectrum. Murray, who beat Djokovic in the semis at Dubai, conceded as much. Analyzing how Federer won the tight first set (the scores were 7-5, 6-4), the No. 4 player recalled a few critical Federer winners and told the press: "You get a lucky shot here or one great shot and you can break the set wide open. So I think that was the difference in the first set."
He added: "I think that the indoor season and the surfaces like this one, I mean, if there were more tournaments on these courts, I think [Federer] could definitely be No. 1 in the world for the next few years. It really suits his game well. Just so many of the courts are so slow now."
Then Murray summed up Federer's dilemma neatly when he noted: "Indian Wells and Miami are going to be very, very different to here. Much slower court, which hopefully will suit my game a little bit better."
Last year, Federer made the semis at both of the upcoming Masters. At Indian Wells, he lost a close three-setter to Djokovic -- but remember it was before anyone, perhaps including Djokovic himself, understood just how glorious a run he was embarking on. At Miami, Federer played one of the worst matches of his career on a big stage, losing to Nadal 6-3, 6-2 in a listless, almost petulant performance.
Djokovic has good reason to be wary of Federer, especially if he can't muster the same form he had last year at this time. That's a real possibility, as we saw in his loss to Murray. And the last time I checked, Federer and Nadal are 5-5 on hard courts, although Nadal recently has carried the biggest days on outdoor hard courts (two wins at the Australian Open and the one in Miami in their past three meetings).
We don't really know much about Nadal's prospects; he hasn't played since he lost that Australian Open final to Djokovic. Federer, on the other hand, is an open book.
And after he won in Dubai, he said: "I think I was just confident. I was playing aggressive. I was focused. I didn't doubt my ability. I'm defending much better than maybe I was in the middle of last year, where I felt like I couldn't come out of tough defensive positions anymore."
If Federer's own assessment about his ability to transition from defense to offense is accurate, he may be a tough out in the upcoming Masters events.
It sure beats watching Novak Djokovic beat up on beleaguered Rafael Nadal yet again, right?
Of course, Nadal wasn't in Dubai to challenge Djokovic, or anyone else. He may have regretted that decision to skip the Arabian shootout when he saw how easily Murray -- whom Nadal beat in three Grand Slam semis last year -- crushed Djokovic.
On the other hand, Federer licks his chops when he gets Nadal in his sights on a fast hard court, so maybe it was a good idea to fight shy of this event and leave it to the two other members of the big four to vie for the prize.
In some ways, it's a welcome decision here because Federer-Murray is the rivalry nobody talks about. (There's only so much ink, real or digital, that anyone can expend on rivalries.) But I can think of at least three reasons it may be the most interesting:
1. The head-to-head: Murray leads the rivalry 8-6, and there's nothing misleading about that stat. Incredibly, all their meetings have been on hard courts (as is the upcoming Dubai final) and neither man has been able to dominate since the beginning.
Murray had a four-match win streak spanning 2008 and 2009, but Federer responded immediately with three wins of his own. It's a much less lopsided H2H than, say, Federer versus Nadal, or Nadal versus Djokovic.
2. The matchup: The first big question in this one will be: Are Murray's defensive and counterpunching skills up to the task of blunting Federer's offense? But there's a related question in play, too, which is: Is Federer's return game good enough to worry Murray?
In the semis, Federer had six break-point opportunities against Juan Martin del Potro but was unable to convert any of them. Murray, by contrast, made good on four of the five break points he saw in his win over Djokovic.
The good news for Federer fans is that the ATP No. 3 allowed DelPo no break points at all, while Murray allowed Djokovic three. (He converted one.)
3. The stakes: This is where the mental and emotional factors may come into play. Although this can't be called a "must win" for either man, Federer needs to reaffirm that he can win big matches during the regular season (he does just fine at the ATP World Tour Finals).
Federer hasn't beaten a fellow member of that big four in the final of a non-major elimination tournament since his win over Djokovic in Basel (Federer's hometown tournament) in October 2010.
For Murray, this match provides an opportunity to build on the momentum he accumulated in Australia, where he slugged it out with Djokovic in a grueling five-set war. The brutal final (Djokovic over Nadal) overshadowed that match, but that semifinal performance by Murray rekindled his self-belief. And unlike last year, when Murray went into a terrible slump after losing the Australian Open final to Djokovic, the Scot hasn't missed a beat in Dubai, his first tournament since Melbourne.
Murray hit No. 3 for a brief period last fall, only to see Federer regain that spot with a strong late-season drive. If Murray can handle Federer in Dubai after eliminating Djokovic, he'll have every right to feel like he's right on the rear bumper of the top two players in the world, and that constitutes progress in his continuing effort to win that elusive, first Grand Slam title.
Murray has the toughest first-round match of the top four seeds, unless Pete Sampras has been practicing under cover of night using a different name, and made it through qualifying. The other members of the big four (Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer) all get to play qualifiers in the first round in Melbourne, while Murray drew bright-eyed, bushy-tailed, assertive and sincere Ryan Harrison.
But wait. If Murray gets by Harrison, he may face unpredictable shot-maker Xavier Malisse, followed by Michael Llodra or Ernests Gulbis. Llodra is a wild man with a huge serve and a fearless attacking game. If Llodra gets by Gulbis, a talented head case, you know he's playing well enough to threaten anyone. So if Murray says that he's not looking beyond his first round, that he's taking it one match at a time, blah-blah-blah, take his word for it. He's no dummy.
The Murray-Harrison match is right up at the top of my list of must-see first-round confrontations. But if I were an Australian, I probably would sub that one out with local favorite Bernard Tomic versus Fernando Verdasco. Seeded No. 22, Verdasco has a big game (he's been in the top 10) but an unstable temperament.
Tomic is just 19, but a few days ago, John McEnroe said he was the best young prospect in the men's game. However, Australians of recent vintage have struggled to play up to their potential at home. Even Lleyton Hewitt, a guy on the short list of all-time competitors and a Wimbledon champ, couldn't close the deal in Melbourne.
Andy Roddick, seeded No. 15 and struggling to remain relevant, also has his work cut out. He opens against Robin Haase of the Netherlands, a tall, powerful, talented ball striker who hasn't lived up to his potential. Haase, 24, lost to Roddick in four sets in the third round of the Australian Open last year, but Roddick was No. 8 then, and now he's No. 16 and 29 years old. It's the kind of match that could do wonders for Haase and has to make Roddick a little anxious.
On the women's side, No. 2 seed Petra Kvitova opens against No. 84 Vera Dushevina. It's not the toughest match imaginable for Kvitova, but it bears watching because of the way she collapsed while leading Li Na in the semis at Sydney the other day -- with the world No. 1 ranking there for Kvitova's taking.
Granted, Li is a Grand Slam champion and an unpredictable factor, but you have to wonder whether Kvitova really is ready to unseat Caroline Wozniacki at the top of the WTA. It will be interesting to see how Kvitova responds to the pressure at a major after making a hash of it in Sydney.
No. 6 seed and U.S. Open champ Samantha Stosur is another of those Aussies who has crumbled under the pressure of playing at Melbourne Park. She's the U.S. Open champ and a French Open runner-up, but she's been as far as the fourth round at the Australian Open just twice in 11 tries (most recently in 2010, when she lost to Serena Williams). Stosur plays Sorana Cirstea of Romania, who's No. 80 -- with nothing to lose.
Then there's Williams, a deceptive No. 12 seed, going up against Tamira Paszek, a 21-year-old Austrian who put up a few eye-opening wins last year. Paszek prevailed over Francesca Schiavone in a third-round match at Wimbledon (11-9 in the third set, no less) and upset former No. 1 Jelena Jankovic in Beijing later in 2011. Serena will need to pay attention.
It's a pity that we've flagged the two best American players (Roddick and Serena Williams) of the past decade as endangered in the first round of the first Grand Slam of 2012. Call it a sign of the times, and if you're an American partisan, keep your fingers crossed for Ryan Harrison.
Actually, the third event was also won by a big man, albeit one who doesn't play what you would call a big game. Andy Murray won at Brisbane, and while he's 6-foot-3, he often plays as if he's emulating David Ferrer, or Nikolay Davydenko.
If you watched that Doha final between Tsonga and his French countryman Gael Monfils, you may have noticed how thoroughly Tsonga imposed himself on his pal. This had nothing to do with size. Monfils is beanpole thin, but he's a full 2 inches taller than Tsonga.
At least, that's according to the ATP's media guide, but I'm withholding my opinion until I get my next chance to stand alongside Jo-Willy.
But even if Tsonga is merely an "L," his game has at least one "X" in front of that letter. And that's just not true of merely tall men like Murray, Marin Cilic or even Tomas Berdych (except on that rare, great day). They often play as if they wish they were smaller. Robin Soderling and Juan Martin del Potro come closer, but you can't have a truly big game if you're not eager to leave the baseline.
You can change my mind about that, but I'll have to see a Cilic or Soderling crush a forehand and then follow it up with a half-volley winner plucked off his shoe tops if you want to convince me. That's something Tsonga does routinely. Does anyone, including Roger Federer, have softer hands and quicker reactions when a volley is called for?
Tsonga is all about controlling the court; he makes it seem smaller than it really is because he's always of a mind to move forward. Combine that sensibility with a monster serve and you have the proverbial "big game" that nobody else seems to have developed recently.
Embarking on 2012 with a career-high ranking of No. 6, Tsonga could do a lot of damage this year. There isn't a player out there, including Djokovic, who can stand up to his combination of power and aggression.
Tsonga has shown some softness, though -- notably his susceptibility to injury and his mental and physical stamina. We can't predict his health, but Tsonga seems to have taken a quantum leap as a warrior over the past 12 months. And his fitness looks improved.
And then there's 21-year-old Raonic, the Canadian lad who emerged as a sensation in the first half of 2011 but went down with an injury that pretty much ruined his year (and required surgery). This kid may not have the cat-like quickness or touch of a Tsonga, but he's an Isner-ish 6-foot-6 and knows how to employ that massive serve.
Raonic rained down 35 aces on poor top-seeded Janko Tipsarevic in the Chennai final, and won it 4-6, 7-6 (4), 7-6 (4), showing competitive zeal and skill that takes others years to develop.
"Tipsarevic took it away in the first set," Raonic admitted. "But I took my opportunities in the second and third. My serve is a big factor in my game -- in 99 percent of my matches. My job is to take care of my serve."
Tsonga may articulate his own job description a little differently, taking into account the overstuffed nature of his tool box. But in the end, it amounts to the same thing. Both of these big men know that to play a game as big as you are, you need to impose yourself and take command of the action. And both appear willing and eager to do that.
• That wretched performance against Novak Djokovic in the Australian Open final.
• That February/March swoon, including those cringe-inducing losses to a pair of "Jrs," Donald Young and Alex Bogomolov.
• His stall -- once again -- at Wimbledon, this time in the semis.
• The four spankings he endured at the Grand Slam events.
But if you look at the big picture, there were mitigating circumstances attached to all those disappointments, and 2011 may go down as a year in which Murray took a huge step forward -- and set the stage for a potential breakthrough in 2012.
First of all, keep in mind that in 2011, Murray faced the first true crisis of his pro career -- that terrible span following his dispiriting, straight-sets loss to Djokovic in the Australian Open final.
Nobody other than Djokovic won more titles on the ATP Tour this year than Murray, and his 4-1 win-loss record in finals includes triumphs at two Masters Series (Shanghai and Cincinnati, where Djokovic retired while losing to Murray) and a notable 6-0-in-the-third win over Rafael Nadal in Tokyo.
But we're getting ahead of ourselves.
In retrospect, that hapless and helpless effort against Djokovic in Melbourne at the outset of 2011 doesn't look so awful. Djokovic spent the first nine months of the year bringing his rivals to their knees in like fashion.
We might have guessed what lie in store when Djokovic knocked off Nicolas Almagro, Tomas Berdych and Roger Federer in succession in Melbourne -- all in straight sets -- to get opposite an equally in-form Murray. But nobody could have predicted just how sharp, confident and fit Djokovic had become.
Murray seemed emotionally crushed by that painful straight-sets loss to Djokovic and went into a comprehensive funk over the ensuing weeks. He even lost his No. 4 ranking to Robin Soderling for a spell. But even those three straight losses looked less severe when you take into account that Marcos Baghdatis (defeated Murray at Rotterdam) is always dangerous, and Young and Bogomolov were, like Djokovic, in the early stages of career years.
The Euro clay did wonders for Murray's game, probably because he got to groove his game and find his rhythm in those long, rolling rallies. He was a new man by the French Open, even though he lost to Nadal in the semis. Who doesn't lose to Nadal at the French Open?
Murray won at Queens, firing hopes once again for the long-awaited British Wimbledon champ. Once again, the faithful were disappointed as Murray was beaten in the semis -- again by Nadal. Relegated to No. 2 by Djokovic, Nadal seemed to take his frustrations out on poor Murray, beating him yet again in the U.S. Open semis.
You know the rest: Murray caught fire and went on a remarkable tear, which was finally halted by Tomas Berdych in the quarters of the Paris Indoors. It was a four-title, 28-1 run going all the way back to the dog days of August, incorporating that win in Japan over Nadal.
You can wag your head and object that Djokovic and Federer were nowhere to be seen through much of that fall run, and everyone knows that Nadal isn't the best autumn warrior. But that's not my takeaway.
What I see in Murray's year is a quantum leap forward, because buried in all the drama of 2011 is the fact that Murray had by far his best year at Grand Slam events, including -- yes -- the Australian Open. The most pertinent and damaging criticism of Murray for years has been that he's not a two-week player -- and thus not a legitimate contender at the majors.
Murray showed in 2011 that he has the physical, mental and emotional stamina to contend at majors -- a final and four semis at the majors add up to a very, very good effort. If Murray has a problem now, it can be summed up in two words: Rafael Nadal.
If Murray can get that Spanish obstacle out of his road, the Wimbledon loyalists may yet see a British man hoist a singles trophy at a Grand Slam event for the first time in ages.
You remember how Murray made the Australian Open final in January only to be demolished by Novak Djokovic. Murray's subsequent skid was, well, scary. He lost three consecutive first-rounders, starting in Rotterdam, and hit the European clay in a terrible frame of mind. He turned his season around at the French Open, where he made the semis (losing to Rafael Nadal).
Fast-forward to Sunday in Shanghai, where Murray established himself as tennis' Mr. October (or a poor man's Djokovic) by applying the finishing touches to a three-tournament run. That he won three successive events (Bangkok, Tokyo and Shanghai) without a break is the kind of thing only No. 1 Djokovic has been doing lately. In fact, the hot Scot has lost just one match (to Nadal at the U.S. Open semis) since his 25-1 run began in Cincinnati during the summer.
Murray's exploits across the Pacific have earned him the No. 3 ranking, although there's no guarantee that he'll hang on to it once Roger Federer, the player he displaced, decides to get back into the fray. (He's scheduled to start the last leg of his year in his hometown of Basel, Switzerland.) Federer is out of the top three for the first time in more than seven years, and he's probably not thrilled about that. But his decision to cut back and marshal his energy and resources in a more targeted way could make him dangerous for the rest of the year.
That could prove problematic for Murray, because a surge by Federer would make it look as though we've just witnessed a real-life illustration of the proverb, "When the cat's away, the mice will play." Without Federer or Djokovic swinging a stick since the Davis Cup week right after the U.S. Open, Murray has enjoyed a field day. Although winning back-to-back-to-back tournaments is a major achievement, the more intriguing aspect of Murray's run has been that Nadal, who played two events in Asia, was unable to spoil it.
Murray was the top seed in Bangkok and surprised nobody by winning. But Nadal was the No. 1 seed and favorite in the next two events that Murray won, Tokyo and Shanghai. Murray took Nadal down in the Tokyo final, and in Shanghai, Florian Mayer stopped Nadal before he could get to Murray.
The major roadblock for Murray this year has been Nadal. The brutal beating that Djokovic laid on Murray in the Australian Open final looks less humiliating for Murray now, given what Djokovic went on to accomplish in 2011. But after that dispiriting loss, Murray was frustrated in the semis at the next three majors by Nadal. His head-to-head record against Nadal is a lackluster 5-13. Get Nadal off the chessboard, and Murray could capture a major crown.
Murray has had trouble figuring out the Grand Slams. (He's much better at one-week Masters events, regardless of the competition.) If his recent results leave him better prepared for the majors of 2012, this year will have been a smashing success. He may find his way to that place called "greatness" yet.
Given the premium put on (top) player participation at any tournament (it's the baseline for the significance of the event), and the fact that the ATP presently is ruled by a quartet (the aforementioned players, along with No. 2 Rafael Nadal and No. 4 Andy Murray), you could say that Shanghai is operating at less than 50 percent of its potential horsepower, which undermines the idea behind the Masters Series.
Let's face it, Shanghai is not much stronger than the ATP 500 event that just ended in Tokyo, and it could very well cough up the same two finalists -- Nadal and Murray. They're seeded Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. That's a bummer for Shanghai -- or it was until just two days ago, when Murray upset Nadal in the final of Tokyo.
Murray has had any number of problems in his career, starting with some rotten luck -- and form -- in Grand Slam finals. He's played for three major championships and walked away empty-handed each time. And if anything, he's played worse in each successive one; he lost to Federer in two finals (U.S. Open of 2008 and Australian Open of 2010), both times without winning a set. And Djokovic demolished Murray in similar fashion in Melbourne to start this year.
Over time, Murray also had developed a pretty significant Nadal problem, which is why his win in Tokyo looks so big -- and injects much-needed hype into the Shanghai Masters. Nadal took the measure of Murray, who's almost a full year younger, in their first five meetings, but Murray cracked the Rafa code in the semis of the U.S. Open in 2008. Murray went 4-3 against Nadal afterward, which was all the more impressive because Nadal was arcing toward his peak.
But that period of genuine rivalry was short-lived. Nadal had won another five in a row going into the Tokyo final, including critical semifinal confrontations this year at all three majors after the Australian Open. Among the ruling ATP quartet, the most lopsided head-to-head is Nadal-Murray. Nadal led Murray 13-4 going into last week's tournament.
Had Nadal walked away the winner in Tokyo, Shanghai would be a whole lot less interesting. Murray, whose year has been wildly unpredictable, has threatened to make big moves before, only to come up a little short. He's had a lot of trouble breaking out of that No. 4 position; he hit No. 2 in August 2009 and No. 3 in February 2010 but spent a grand total of just five weeks up in those positions.
But in what may be a sign of the times, certainly as far as Federer's impact and future is concerned, Murray has a big lead over Federer in the telling year-to-date ranking (which is based on points earned this year, rather than on the rolling 52-week "official" ranking). Murray is the de facto No. 3 thus far in 2011 and likely to finish the year there.
He can do that without recording any more big wins over Nadal, but we know that Murray's goal is not to reclaim No. 3 in the world. He wants to win majors -- first and foremost. In order to do that, Murray will have to deal with his Nadal problem. He's won 21 of 22 matches since the middle of August, but the one he secured in Tokyo may be the most significant of them all.
The only predictable element of the weekend was Andy Murray's triumph over Young, although that 6-2, 6-0 score had to make you wince. I guess Murray is getting a little bit tired of young Donald nipping at his heels. This was their third meeting of the year, and Young's win over ATP No. 4 Murray at Indian Wells was not only a painful blow to the ego of the then-swooning Scot, but it also helped launch the resurgence (if that word can be used to describe the career of a mere 22-year-old) that has vaulted Young up to No. 43.
They might have called this one "Microcosm Weekend," because it seemed to put the present, different nature of the two tours into sharp and accurate perspective. On the men's side, the big four (working bottom to top in the rankings: Murray, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and No. 1 Novak Djokovic) do an excellent job hogging the glory (and beating up on each other) whenever they enter a tournament.
Thankfully, that's often. One or another of them is usually around to play sheriff when the cowpunchers get a little bit too rowdy. So though it's nice to see a popular guy like Marcos Baghdatis get back into the limelight (as a finalist in Kuala Lumpur) and to witness Tipsarevic, the poor man's Novak Djokovic, grab that maiden ATP Tour win there, it's even more comforting to get a good sense of just where they fit in the pecking order.
The contrast with the WTA situation is instructive. The big takeaway from Tokyo is that it's just like the ATP -- or would be, if you locked Djokovic up in a tower, shackled Nadal to the mast of a ship, buried Federer in sand up to his chin and marooned Murray on a desert island.
Serena Williams is frequently out of commission, and despite legitimate injuries, she knows she can play as much or little as she wants and get away with it. Justine Henin is so long gone she may as well be locked up in a tower. Kim Clijsters is injured (or on a hiatus, or a paid leave, or a sabbatical ... whatever). Fashionista Maria Sharapova has never been accused of cross-dressing, but she may be the Andy Murray in this WTA crowd.
Give Sharapova credit: She's the only one in the WTA quartet cited above (loosely, they comprise a generation) who is out there plugging away on a daily basis. If she hadn't gone down with an ankle injury in Tokyo, she might have asserted her authority and positioned herself even more favorably to unseat Caroline Wozniacki -- one of the weakest No. 1 players the WTA has ever produced.
But even with Sharapova down, neither Wozniacki, nor No. 3 Victoria Azarenka, nor 2010's two-time Grand Slam finalist Vera Zvonareva, nor U.S. Open champ Sam Stosur, nor Wimbledon champ Petra Kvitova, nor former No. 1s Jelena Jankovic or Ana Ivanovic -- all of them and more, including former Wimbledon finalist Marion Bartoli, were entered in Tokyo -- was able to (wo)man up and win this Tokyo thing. The title went to No. 13 Radwanska.
A little unpredictability is a good thing. A lot of it merely spells C-H-A-O-S.
It all began with Andy Murray back during those gloomy rain delays during the U.S. Open. He groused about the players having too little say in the decision-making process (in that case, when it was safe and reasonable to resume play). It was a somewhat valid complaint, but soon Murray also declared that should the U.S. Open go to a 15-day event (like the French Open did, with a Sunday start), he wants to see prize money increased "substantially." Note that though the tournament would start earlier, neither Murray nor anyone else would be playing more matches than he already does.
Pretty soon Rafael Nadal chimed in (again) with the complaint that the season is too long and warned that the players might take "strong action" if the calendar isn't improved. The No. 2 player directed his criticism toward Davis Cup, whereupon ITF promoter of Davis Cup Francesco Ricci Bitti noted that Nadal had a right to be tired because he's played 70 matches this year. But he's played Davis Cup only three times in the past two years.
The next thing you know, Martina Navratilova jumped in to fray to declare her support for Murray: "You cannot maintain that level of intensity and not put your body in a hospital eventually. I don't know why Andy Murray should be criticized for taking charge of his life."
Oh. And just when did this discussion turn into a self-actualization seminar?
The next thing you know, No. 70 Somdev Devvarman, a journeyman player, is generating headlines as well. He thinks the players ought to form a new union and get more of the cash. "We only get 12 percent of the revenue when it is we who generate the revenue."
Try walking into your boss's office and dropping that line sometime.
Somdev, how about trying to create a tournament and raising a lot of money while not knowing whether the guys -- or fans -- will show up?
Ironically, a new union would be a risky undertaking for the top players, if not for Devvarman. For the naked truth is that unless the top-five players are in charge (which kind of undermines the idea of the union, right?), the rank-and-file will push for more job opportunities rather than fewer ones -- and those jobs can't exist if the tournaments weren't able to attract some names that can be converted into ticket sales.
Beyond that, even Murray admits that the ATP demands mandatory participation in tournaments only to the tune of 18-weeks (mainly Grand Slam and Masters Series events). That's it. And though a ranking is computed on the basis of 18 tournaments (as opposed to weeks), nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head to force him to load up on tournaments to beef up his ranking, his endorsement bonuses or marketability. And certainly nobody is forcing guys like Nadal and Murray to participate in remunerative exhibitions -- or to take the huge appearance fees paid by lower-grade (ATP 250) tournaments.
Of the players' willingness to play those events, Murray lamely says: "When we play the Masters Series and the Slams, we're playing against the best players in the world every time. Sometimes it's nice to go to a tournament like [an ATP 250, with its lavish guarantees] when you don't have to kill yourself in every single match."
For gosh sakes, Andy, how much easier do you want it? Or perhaps I should ask, how many different ways do you want it?
One relatively sane voice in this growing debate is that of former Wimbledon champ Michael Stich, who told the BBC the other day: "Perhaps [the players] need to look out for their bodies and pick their tournaments better? . It's not a dream world out there. It's a job and if you take that on you have to deal with the situations you find."
Stich makes a good point (his comments are worth reading in full). None of the guys complaining about the schedule are fulfilling their commitments to the tour, calling it good, and still complaining about the workload.
Lastly, lodging these complaints at this time of economic uncertainty (wait until tournaments start going under -- then we'll see how arduous the calendar is) seems at best tone deaf, especially in a world where nobody's life is being lost or saved because of tennis.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Peter Bodo
Peter Bodo has been covering tennis for more than 30 years, most of them with TENNIS.com and TENNIS Magazine, where he is a senior editor and author of the popular blog, Peter Bodo's TennisWorld. A two-time WTA writer of the year, Bodo has also written numerous books, including "Tennis For Dummies" with U.S. Davis Cup captain Patrick McEnroe.