ESPN Tennis

The Australian Open draw is out, and the tennis gods have spoken. Unless I'm mistaken, what they've said is: "Not so fast, Andy Murray. You're going to need Ivan Lendl -- and a whole lot more -- in order to get to the final for a third year in a row and finally win this thing."

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.

Grand Slams are critical events for all players, but there's critical and critical, as in, OMG, what happens if I have a lousy tournament? In that regard, some players always have more at stake than others. So let's look at the players who can make their lives a lot easier if they do well at the U.S. Open:

1. Caroline Wozniacki: She's been No. 1 since October of last year but has yet to win a Grand Slam event. Sure she's just 21 years old, and while it's cool to be old in the WTA these days, windows of opportunity can close -- and fast. Tongues wag more boldly with each passing Slam Wozniacki fails to win (thereby justifying that No. 1 ranking), and no player on earth can ignore -- or enjoy -- that kind of pressure (just ask Dinara Safina). Wozniacki made the final at Flushing Meadows in her breakout year of 2009. Last year, she stumbled in the semis. If she doesn't win this thing, her credibility as a first-tier champ will take another major, perhaps fatal hit.

2. Andy Roddick: Maybe it's just me, but it seems like just yesterday Roddick was a bankable top-five player, yet he's seeded No. 22 because he has quietly fallen out of the top 20 in the course of a year that can only be described as "miserable." Roddick needs to stop the bleeding and end his Grand Slam year on an up-note, otherwise people will start tossing around the "R" word. Roddick is most dangerous at Wimbledon. On the other hand, this is the only major he's won, and as a patriotic dude, he will want and need to take full advantage of the sentiment dividend. It's time to get inspired and salvage a grim year.

3. Rafael Nadal: He's the defending champion, but has anyone else noticed how all the talk about Nadal perhaps eclipsing Federer as the most prolific Grand Slam champion has died down? In fact, the silence on the front is deafening. The bad news for Nadal is that Novak Djokovic is in his head. The good news is Nadal knows it and seems to have tackled the problem directly. Nadal has had foot problems since Wimbledon, but he claims he's feeling fit and fresh. He needs to stop the Djokovic juggernaut, or risk basing too much of his legacy on the red clay of Paris.

4. Serena Williams: Sure she's earned her spurs, and we discuss her career and talent with the reverential tones we reserve for the Federers, Henins, Nadals and Grafs of this world. That also means that for Serena, it's all about the Grand Slams, and it has been over a year since she won her last major. Serena hasn't won here since 2008, and this is, after all, her home tournament. Nobody knows just how much longer she can miss large chunks of the year then jump right back into the fray to dominate. Her performance at the Open will go a long way toward answering the question.

5. Juan Martin del Potro: He's the least "at-risk" player in this group. Still, two months ago, it looked as if Delpo was perfectly positioned to realize his ambition to be fully ready for the U.S. Open -- where he's sort of a defending champion (he hasn't lost a match here since he won the title in 2009, having missed last year's event because of injury). Unfortunately, Delpo hasn't been entirely convincing during the hard-court season. He lost in straight sets (to Marin Cilic) in Montreal and in the second-round (after his first-round opponent retired) at Cincinnati to Federer (the man Delpo beat for his '09 title in New York).

Delpo is just 22 and has plenty of time to recover his 2009 form. And he needs to do that to prove he wasn't just another youngster who rode a wave of emotion and energy to an unlikely Grand Slam triumph. Delpo's ambitions are complicated by the fact that he's seeded only No. 18 and may have to beat Robin Soderling, Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal (in that order) to make the final.

On paper, it was a yawner. The U.S. beat beat Chile 4-1 in a first-round Davis Cup World Group tie in Santiago. The Chileans didn't even have the use of their heavy cannon, as former Grand Slam finalist and top-10 performer Fernando Gonzalez is still on the mend following hip surgery.

But the on-the-ground reality was different. Jim Courier, who sat in the U.S. captain's chair for the first time in his life at this tie, can attest to that. Courier certainly wasn't rattling the change in his pockets, examining his fingernails or glancing at his wrist watch during the second match of the tie, featuring relative newcomer Long John Isner against Chile's No. 1, Paul Capdeville.

Isner, 6-foot-7 and ranked No. 32 in the world, won the first two sets over Capdeville, who's four inches shorter and more important was ranked 133 places lower. But the American gradually melted away in the heat of the moment like a tall wax candle. Patrick McEnroe, whom Courier succeeded as captain, knew what his pal and successor was going through on the U.S. bench. McEnroe, agonizing back at home in Manhattan, N.Y., was moved to tweet: "Wow. 4 sets no breaks. Welcome to Captaincy Jim. Let's get this 5th."

Nor was there much stretching, napping nor yawning when Andy Roddick dropped the first set to Capdeville in the fourth match Sunday and then found himself in the crap-shoot commonly called the tiebreaker. Had Roddick faltered there, the entire tie would have been on the shaky racket of Isner in a sudden-death fifth, decisive match.

But there's a reason Team USA members call Roddick "The Closer," even if it isn't the nickname he gave Sunday when he remarked to the press following the win, "I don't get a chance to clinch without Mike and Bob [Bryan] putting me in position 11 times." It was a reference to the outstanding doubles work done once again by the Bryan brothers, who put the USA up 2-1 with a win. "Just because they play on Saturday doesn't mean their point is worth any less."

It was gracious of Roddick to give the Bryans their due, but his 12-0 record finishing off opponents is remarkable, especially when it's considered that nearly half (five) of those clinching wins played out on another nation's home court. Roddick is a perfect role model for Isner, who clearly needs one.

Davis Cup is funny. Some great players and numerous ordinary ones simply never take to it, often because their early experience leaves them permanently gun shy. Davis Cup pressure is unique in number of ways, and so is the challenge of operating as a team member.

Isner, a graduate of the University of Georgia, loved playing on a team, so he has that part down pat. It's the other things, such as playing with "USA" instead of "Isner" on the scoreboard and playing on a surface he's not crazy about before a hostile crowd and against opponents who may be relatively unknown but understand how to push his buttons, that appear to give him trouble.

Isner is 0-3 in Davis Cup singles, but remember that every match he has played has been on clay, away. There's nothing to be ashamed about, losing to Novak Djokovic on clay in Serbia. And Isner has shined in doubles, winning both the matches he's played (partnered with Bob Bryan in Serbia and Mardy Fish in Colombia).

With Isner's pal and wingman, Sam Querrey, struggling, it looks like Long John might inherit the mantle of leadership from Roddick, 28. Isner couldn't learn at the feet of a finer master, but until he absorbs the lessons The Closer doles out Courier won't have to worry about some cameraman catching him asleep -- no matter where the U.S. plays.

For a while there in Memphis, it looked as if 20-year-old Milos Raonic was going to steal the thunder of Andy Roddick. And that's no mean feat, because Roddick has big thunder, and lots of it. Besides, Roddick was already a two-time Memphis champ, having won the event the first time in 2002, when Raonic was -- yikes! -- 11 years old.

Guess what, folks. Andy Roddick is an old dude, even though he's only 28. As it turns out, he and Roger Federer are the only two guys laboring on the ATP Tour who have won at least one singles title in each of the past 11 years. That's not bad company for Roddick to keep, even though Federer has broken Andy's heart numerous times, most notably at Wimbledon.

Life has been full of travails and challenges that made for a serious gut-check for Roddick, and Sunday was no different. For one thing, Roddick was glassy-eyed and under the weather. If you watched the trophy presentation, you saw how often he turned away from the suits to exercise his hacking cough. More important, Roddick was playing for his 30th career title in his 50th final against a man-child who is not only in the midst of a career-establishing run, but whose serve is a weapon comparable to Roddick's own. And that has to be unnerving. Or at the very least, really irritating.

But Roddick managed to keep his cool and pull this one out, despite the sangfroid Raonic demonstrated in fending off three match points in the second-set tiebreaker. Raonic wouldn't give an inch -- until he surrendered the proverbial mile at 5-6 in the third set.

I'm not sure that losing a match can ever be said to be a "good" thing, but falling just short in this one may prove a valuable reality check for the youngster Raonic. He slashed his way to the title in San Jose just last week, after putting together an Australian Open run that put him on our radar. (He lost in the fourth round Down Under, but played the same number of matches [including qualifying] as the eventual champ, Novak Djokovic.)

Raonic's breakout is reminiscent of the way John Isner blasted his way into our consciousness in 2007, knocking guys unconscious with a big serve and a knack for winning tiebreakers and three-set matches. And Isner's debut reminded us of the way we first learned of Roddick, circa 2002, the year he first won Memphis and beat Pete Sampras to take the title in Houston.

All this brings up an interesting point. You can ride a big serve and a strong, aggressive, young heart quite a long way in tennis. More than anyone else, the man who can serve big -- whether he backs it up with the volley or not doesn't even matter -- can take a shortcut from point A to point E or F. It demonstrates the enduring value of the big serve.

Roddick didn't win this tournament thanks to his serve, though. He won it because of everything else he's added to his repertoire, including intangibles like patience (not a noteworthy quality among many big servers), resolve, good instincts and experience. His 30th title was thoroughly earned, and it provided the raw talent, Raonic, with a good glimpse of how much more than a big serve goes into long-term success.

Jim Courier, the new U.S. Davis Cup captain, recorded his first big win the other day even though his team hasn't played an official tie yet. That comes later -- a World Group first-round battle in Chile, where the hosts undoubtedly will choose to play on Andy Roddick's least favorite surface, red clay.

Roddick's decision gives Team USA an enormous boost; Courier is a rookie captain (but a veteran Davis Cup performer) with a great doubles team (Mike and Bob Bryan) at his disposal. Right off the bat, Roddick has provided the American singles players with a good reason to ratchet up their games because Courier's choices are expanded.

John Isner, who's 25, and 23-year-old Sam Querrey both played Davis Cup this year, and the twin towers appeared to be the heirs apparent to the singles jobs. But this past summer, a resurgent Mardy Fish inserted himself into the conversation, and he ended up as the hero of the September playoffs-round win over Colombia. Suddenly, the line of succession isn't so obvious.

Granted, the tournaments early next year will have a major impact on team selection, but it's hard to imagine that Roddick would be left off the squad that travels to Chile shortly after the Australian Open. It's hard to imagine that Roddick won't be on that team. And Bob and Mike Bryan have been as stalwart in the Davis Cup effort as Roddick. And that's where Courier is likely to meet some intriguing problems.

Having a go-to doubles team such as the Bryans has been a godsend for the U.S., but dedicating two places on a four-man team to players who can't really help you in singles carries some risk, especially when you don't have two singles players (such as Roddick and longtime top-10 player James Blake) who figuratively tower over their compatriots.

Former U.S. captain Patrick McEnroe faced this dilemma in advance of the World Group playoffs this September, when the team traveled to Colombia. Fish, Isner and Querrey were similarly credentialed singles competitors but also excellent doubles players. McEnroe toyed with the idea of taking along just one Bryan as a doubles specialist, thereby broadening his singles options.

But the Bryans, with their outstanding 16-2 record in Davis Cup, don't like to be broken up. I'm not even sure they would agree to the move (note that neither of them ultimately made the trip to Colombia), and trying to force them to accept the de facto demotion would guarantee Courier a healthy dose of controversy at the start of his tenure.

If this is indeed going to be a problem, it's unlikely it will surface in the opening tie. Fernando Gonzalez, Chile's sole singles star, might not even be ready (he had hip surgery late this year, plus he's over 30 -- a daunting combination). And veteran Nicolas Massu is even older than Gonzalez. His last result was a singles loss to Ivo Minar of the Czech Republic earlier this year. Massu won all of five games, but it was a moral victory for the AARP contingent.

If the U.S. survives Chile, in all likelihood it will host Spain. And in close ties, having a third man who can play singles, as Serbia and France demonstrated just a few days ago, can be an enormous factor (both teams elected substitutes to play the fifth and decisive rubber).

Roddick's decision to play this year both clarifies and muddies the Davis Cup picture for the U.S.

While all eyes are on the Davis Cup World Group semifinals, being fought out starting today in France and Serbia, the U.S. team is playing a tie that may be second to the final in significance and potential repercussions.

A green American squad led by veteran Davis Cup captain Patrick McEnroe (it's his swan song as U.S. captain) is bunkered up in the Plaza de Toros La Santamaria in Bogota, Colombia, and fighting to retain its place in the World Group. Any time a team plays an away match in a Spanish-speaking land and in a stadium including the world toros (bulls), it's potentially in deep doo-doo, I don't care how poetic the entire five-word string sounds. Santamaria!

The genius of the World Group concept, much like in the divisional format of soccer, is that job No. 1 for any team that hopes to contend is remaining up in that elite first division, or World Group. Each year, half the teams (the losers in the first round) have to battle to keep their places in the World Group, and the alternating choice-of-ground rule (all teams take turns hosting ties) guarantees that they can't take anything for granted.

For example, the U.S. (without the services of its veterans, Andy Roddick and James Blake) is in a do-or-die situation because the squad lost to Serbia, on indoor clay in Belgrade, back in March. It must now beat Colombia this weekend to vie for the Davis Cup in 2011. If the U.S. loses in the Colombian bullring, it will have to battle its way back through zonal competition in hopes of getting back into the elite first division for 2012.

The last time the U.S. team was in a comparable situation was in 1987 when the team, led by Patrick's brother John McEnroe, was upset in the first-round of World Group play at Paraguay. Guess who the U.S. drew for the critical "playoff" or "relegation" round? Germany, led by some kid named Boris Becker.

It's never known which teams will run into each other in these situations. Compared to a World Group playoff tie, a quarterfinal and even semifinal is a piece of cake, with nothing but up-side.

The U.S. lost that last playoff-round match at Germany on outdoor clay, and had to fight through Peru and Argentina to get back into the World Group, in which it visited a little payback on Paraguay, winning 5-0 at home. Two years elapsed in the interim.

I expect the U.S. to survive this playoffs, despite the relative inexperience of the squad (for the first time since forever, the Bryan brothers aren't making the trip). I think the North American men will be motivated by a desire to send McEnroe -- one of the most popular U.S. captains, ever -- out with a win. Mardy Fish brings just the right veteran leadership to inspire Sam Querrey and John Isner, who have both developed in 2010.

The elevation at the Plaza de Toros (over 8,000 feet) might appear to be an asset for the U.S. team, given how balls fly at altitude, but the Colombians chose to use pressure-less Tretorn balls. They play like little rocks. So the U.S. men have their work cut out for them. "We have to play really aggressive early," Fish said after the draw ceremony. "We are looking to strike first and finish the point early."

Those are scary words, given the balls and surface. The U.S. obviously is going to roll the die. All in all, this tie, and all the issues it engenders, is a pretty good example of Davis Cup at its best. It is also the most nerve-wracking.

Call Juan Martin del Potro the X factor for the upcoming U.S. Open. He's the defending champ, and the guy who first demonstrated that if you play a sufficiently big, physical game, you can take down the Roger Federers and Rafael Nadals of this world (Robin Soderling and Tomas Berdych clearly were paying attention).

As few as two weeks ago, del Potro's prospects for playing at Flushing Meadows looked dim. But now, the news out of Argentina is that del Potro has recovered from the surgery on his right wrist, is hitting tennis balls and is on track to defend his title in late August.

That ought to give the top contenders the heebie-jeebies.

When del Potro manhandled Federer in the final of the U.S. Open last September, it seemed like an epoch-ending match. For the first time in a big match on a surface other than clay, Federer met a man who could play him on Federer's terms and still win. It was no one-off performance, either. In the two previous rounds, del Potro had knocked off Marin Cilic and Nadal.

And del Potro backed up that inspired U.S. Open triumph. In the ensuing weeks and months, he beat Federer again and put up a good win over hard-charging Soderling. His year-end head-to-heads looked like this:

Vs. Federer: 2-0 in the latter half of '09, despite trailing 0-6 after his loss to Federer at Roland Garros in the spring.

Vs. Nadal: 3-0 in '09 after Indian Wells, where his record slipped to 0-4.

Vs. Andy Murray: 1-5, with two losses to Murray on hard courts in the summer. Del Potro's crafted his lone win over Murray in Madrid (on clay) in the spring.

Vs. Novak Djokovic: 0-3 -- but no matches after Rome.

Vs. Andy Roddick: 2-0 in '09 and 3-0 in his career in two finals and one semi.

Del Potro took the big step into the first tier of players during the hard-court season. The only guy who still appeared to have del Potro's number by the end of last year was Murray. And Djokovic, who's showing signs of resurgence, is a big question mark.

Murray, a former U.S. Open finalist, looms as the main, proven stumbling block to del Potro when he returns -- if del Potro can muster the kind of tennis he was playing at this time last year.

That's a big "if." Del Potro hasn't hit a ball in competition since January, and he isn't the kind of player who is likely to benefit from the extra rest provided by his enforced absence. In fact, del Potro is just 21 and is blessed with Ironman propensities. Remember, he first appeared on the radar in 2008, when he won four straight events at the most demanding time of year -- in the summer, after Wimbledon.

That streak was a testament to his versatility, too. He won the first two titles on clay and shifted to his preferred hard courts without missing a beat. He won in Los Angeles and Washington and showed no signs of slowing down until Murray (him again!) finally quelled the del Potro insurgency in the quarterfinals of the U.S. Open.

A year later in New York, del Potro won the title.

The Argentine likes to go on rolls; it appears to build his confidence. His results in 2008 were impressive, but that win at Flushing Meadows last year didn't come out of the thin air, either. He won Washington and lost in the final of Cincinnati in the two events he played before the U.S. Open.

The big question is not whether del Potro will be able to play in the U.S. Open, but whether he'll get enough matches before the event to be at his best. I'm predicting that he'll play at least one event before he defends his title, and the news that he's hitting balls again supports the idea that he'd like to get a little match play under his belt before the last major of the year.

But consider this: The guy who beat del Potro in the final at Cincinnati last year was … you guessed it, Andy Murray.

So the X factor has an X factor of his own with which to contend.

The American hard-court season received two pieces of good news these past few days, one of them coming from all the way down on the Pampas -- if Juan Martin del Potro's hometown of Tandil is in fact anywhere near the great plains of Argentina.

First, Andy Roddick accepted a wild card into the maiden ATP Tour event (the ATP 250 begins next week) in Atlanta, Ga. It's about time that Atlanta, the most tennis-crazed, tennis-conscious city in the U.S., had a pro tournament again. And it's appropriate for a star of Roddick's status to help inaugurate it. I always felt that the U.S. Open Series was a great idea, although the global shift of power and the declining level of player commitment during the USO Series has diluted the product.

Del Potro's recent declaration that he hopes to be back in action to help Argentina survive the Davis Cup semifinal round (which is played right after the U.S. Open) is also a pleasant surprise. Just weeks ago, he was still looking at the fall indoor season as his potential date of return. Del Potro suggested he might even be available to defend his title in Flushing Meadows, saying, "Davis Cup is a good date for returning to tennis, but I hope I can come back sooner."

There's a connection between these two items, and although it's tenuous, it's still fun to think about. Del Potro has been the missing X factor in tennis this year. The guy was 0-6 against Roger Federer as of last August, but he overwhelmed Federer in the U.S. Open final of 2009, then showed it was no fluke when he also hammered Federer at the World Tour Championships in London a few months later. Those two wins were both on hard courts -- one outdoors, one indoors.

Rafael Nadal beat del Potro the first four times they played, but del Potro has torn apart Nadal in their past three meetings, all in 2009, all on hard courts. The message at the end of last year was clear: Tennis had a new potential game-changer, especially on his preferred hard courts.

In fact, del Potro is the paragon for an entire class of player that has given fits to the two men who have dominated the tour in recent years, Federer and Nadal. Robin Soderling and Tomas Berdych are built on a similar platform and play a game more alike than different from Delpo's. That the towering, 6-foot-6 baseline slugger has been sidelined by an awful wrist injury since early this year may be the greatest single factor in Grand Slam results this year (Nadal has won two, Federer took the other).

We don't know what the future holds in store for Delpo. Confidence and routine play enormous roles in tennis, and no player in his right mind assumes that he's going to return to his or her previous form after an extended layoff. It's usually an incremental process, and nothing is guaranteed. Just ask Justine Henin or Kim Clijsters. But Delpo is just 21 and he has the resilience and hunger of youth on his side. Chances are he'll zoom right back to the top.

All this may, in some convoluted way, work to Roddick's benefit at the U.S. Open. Previous history means a great deal in tennis, and Roddick's history with Federer and Nadal isn't exactly encouraging (he's a combined 5-24 against them). But he has played only three matches against Delpo, none before a semi or a final. And although Roddick lost all three, two of them went the distance: Roddick lost to Delpo in the semis of the Canadian Masters last year, 7-5 in the third. He also lost the title match to Delpo in Washington a year ago, 7-6 (8-6 in the tiebreaker) in the third.

That's not a lot of history, nor is it a crushing narrative for Roddick. Put yourself in his shoes. Who would you most like to play for the U.S. Open title: Federer, Nadal or del Potro? And if Delpo can knock off Federer and/or Nadal, so much the better for Roddick. It would certainly make his mission less impossible.

Of course, this scenario is loaded with "ifs," but that's what an American tennis fan has to live on these days.

Here's something interesting: Of the 64 matches that will constitute the first round of play at Wimbledon, 40 (by my count) will be between men who have never met before on a court with intent to hurt. That statistic, more than any other, demonstrates that despite all those familiar names and rivalries, your basic 128-draw Grand Slam event is part clash of the titans and part journey into the wild blue yonder.

What do you think the head-to-head record is between Dmitry Tursunov and Rainer Schuettler, two household names (in homes where tennis players or fans live, anyway)? Try 0-0. When the two veterans meet, it will be for the first time in an ATP Tour-level match.

How about Nicolas Almagro and Andreas Seppi? Believe it or not, 0-0. And Nicolas Mahut and John Isner? Actually, there is a record there: Mahut beat Isner in their only previous meeting, at Queens club in 2008.

Ah, the joys of bracketology.

I've considered previous history -- or I should say, the lack of history -- relevant ever since Pete Sampras admitted that he always found it tough to play guys for the first time. No matter how much scouting you've done, or how much better -- or worse -- your ranking is, you just don't know what your opponent brings to the game, like the unique way he moves, hits the ball and reacts to your own shots.

Only one first-round men's matchup features players who have met on more than four occasions, which is close to the baseline where the head-to-head becomes statistically significant. Those players are Marc Gicquel and Paul-Henri Mathieu, who have a five-match history, with Mathieu out in front by a nose, 3-2. None of those matches were on grass. I'd say that if you want to watch a potential barn burner in which only a crazy man would pick a favorite, this is it. Call your cable operator and demand that it broadcast the match, live.

Let's look at the top six seeds and see what comfort level they might feel going into their first-rounders:

No. 1: Roger Federer will be on familiar ground, having played Alejandro Falla four previous times. He won each encounter, and that includes two on grass. So far, Falla has won a set off Federer -- that's if you add up all the games Falla won in the course of the five sets they've played on grass (one match was at Wimbledon, the other at Halle a few weeks ago). Game, set, match, Federer.

No. 2: Rafael Nadal has played just one match against comeback kid Kei Nishikori. That was in 2008 at Queen's, when Nadal had to go three sets to beat young Kei. Advantage, Nadal.

No. 3: Novak Djokovic finds the shoe on the other foot, and he's got plenty of reason for concern. He's lost three of his four previous meetings with Olivier Rochus. But his lone win came on grass, via straight sets, at Halle last year. Still, the set scores were fairly close (7-6, 6-4), so Djokovic might have pregame jitters. Advantage, Rochus.

No. 4: Andy Murray meets Jan Hajek for the first time, but given how inconsistent Murray has been this year, and the pressure on him at Wimbledon, this match is no gimme. Advantage, Hajek.

No. 5: Andy Roddick will play Rajeev Ram for the first time, and his situation is oddly similar to Murray's. Many people would love to see Roddick win Wimbledon, and he himself burns for it. Self-inflicted pressure is better than outside pressure, but it will still make it a little harder to swing freely and play relaxed -- especially against a guy who plays with what can be called a similar American mentality. Still, advantage, Roddick.

No. 6: Robin Soderling meets Robby Ginepri, against whom he is 1-1. You have to assume that Soderling's firepower will be enough to overcome Ginepri's defense and counterpunching ability, and it will help Soderling that he's taken the measure of Ginepri's game before. Soderling knows the problems he's likely to present. Advantage, Soderling.

Me, I'm looking forward to the first clash between Mardy Fish and Bernard Tomic, which will pit the resurgent American, out to reverse his surprisingly disappointing history at Wimbledon, against a maturing prodigy who's been hailed as the savior of Australian tennis.

They have no previous history, and that just makes it all the better.

As we hurtle toward Wimbledon so soon after the French Open, you have to wonder: What could Wimbledon do for an encore, after those exceptional performances in Paris by Francesca Schiavone and Rafael Nadal?

A rematch of the epic Battle of the Century between Nadal and Roger Federer? Yeah, that works for me. So would Serena Williams versus Maria Sharapova or, say, Kim Clijsters on the women's side. But even those marquee matches would be hard-pressed to equal the Roland Garros singles finals, simply because the women's final in Paris was such a fetching combination of the unexpected and enchanted, and the men's had such an intriguing backstory.

The two Roland Garros finals had one thing in common: The level of execution by both champions was, cumulatively, the best combined performance we've seen in ages in a pair of major finals.

Schiavone played out of her gourd -- but in a way that highlighted, rather than transcended, her great grasp of strategy and technique. Nadal walked the tightrope of champions, allowing Robin Soderling -- his nemesis of 2009 and a winner this year over Roger Federer -- to convert not a single break point. The execution level of Schiavone and Nadal was off the charts.

So what can Wimbledon do for an encore?

Let's start with an Andy Roddick win over Federer in the final. We'll have to switch to the women's side for a moment to get a full sense of the rich context in play. When Schiavone, a 29-year-old veteran, won in Paris, it wasn't long before pundits started to compare the story she crafted to the saga of Goran Ivanisevic. Ivanisevic won Wimbledon in 2001 as a wild-card entry in the waning days of his career, after having been runner-up in three previous years. He lost two of those finals to Pete Sampras, who also stopped him in a Wimbledon semi.

Roddick has done Goran one better, having lost to Federer four times (three semis and a final), including last year's epic. Roddick is a more accomplished player than Schiavone. And he's a different, far more dangerous player on grass than on any other surface. So despite his dismal overall 2-19 head-to-head record against Federer, Roddick will have a chance if he can get to the final.

Schiavone reminded us that in tennis, anything can happen. Now it's up to Roddick to prove it.

On the women's side, a Justine Henin win over either Williams sister would pass muster as a grand Slam performance. Venus and Serena own Wimbledon, yet Henin has a game (and more important, the mobility) that can and ought to pay huge dividends on grass. She has been to the semis or better a whopping five times, and lost two finals -- one to Venus Williams and one to Amelie Mauresmo. She has lost three times at Wimbledon to either Venus or Serena.

Federer, Williams and Nadal fans might grumble about this, but we could do a lot worse than crowning Roddick and Henin champions at Wimbledon in a few weeks' time.