ESPN Tennis

The ATP, as you probably are aware, decided to crack down on slow play this season. The tour has had a 25-second time limit between points for years, but in the past it was very loosely enforced. Its edges have been pushed and often overrun for years by many players, including two of the best, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. Rallies were lasting longer, and the rest time between them seemed to have been unofficially lengthened as well. Rafa and Nole managed to make a three-set match, in the 2009 Madrid semifinals, take more than four hours. It was a classic, no doubt, but it took a while.

The tour's patience was finally broken by another, longer epic between them: a 5-hour, 53-minute Australian Open final last year. Nadal and Djokovic were the game's marquee players, the ones playing all of the Grand Slam finals at the time, and the specter of ever longer contests between them wasn't one that the ATP, or its TV partners, wanted to contemplate. Nadal and Djokovic staged grueling rallies, but it also seemed that, because each of them played slowly, they felt liberated to take even longer when they faced each other.

The tighter time enforcement that began at the start of 2013 has had its ups and downs. The players' reactions have been a mix of anger, disbelief and occasional acceptance, and the chair umpires haven't always used their best discretion in punishing them. Calls for a shot clock for the players to see on court have multiplied. Nadal himself has continued to criticize the enforcement, saying that it would destroy the modern game. If we wanted the epic rallies and matches, he said, we had to give them time to recover.

All of that was a prelude to this past Sunday, when Rafa and Nole played their first match under the new system, in the final in Monte Carlo. The ATP brought out its best umpire, and the one who so far has had the most success in enforcing the time rules, Mohamed Lahyani. It was a smart move, and the result was a step forward for the new rules. For the first time we could see that they make a difference.

Nadal and Djokovic played 21 games in Monte Carlo; they lasted 1 hour and 52 minutes. Last year, in the Rome final, on the same surface, they also played 21 games; those took 2 hours and 20 minutes. There were, as far as I saw, no official time warnings handed out by Lahyani, and both Rafa and Nole were moving with dispatch between points. Over the course of the tournament, it looked to me as if Nadal had even stopped cleaning the entire baseline with his foot before he began his return games, proof that he can give up at least one his rituals and still be OK -- though having lost for the first time in 10 years in Monte Carlo, Rafa may not see it that way.

Points were shorter than they have been in some of their past matches, but the play between Nadal and Djokovic was just as high quality as always. The physical push and pull of their rallies was just like old times, and if less recovery time made them try to be more aggressive and end points a little more quickly, I'd say that's a good thing.

This isn't the end of the growing pains, by any means. There will be more arguments, more bad decisions by umpires, and more (unwarranted) talk of a shot clock. For now, I would recommend one thing to the ATP: When Rafa and Nole get together, do what you can to get Lahyani in the chair.

It's a sign of the times that only two of the ATP's big four reached the semifinals at Indian Wells. Next up is Miami, the second leg of tennis' monthlong, cross-country hard-court tour; two-time champion Roger Federer and newly crowned Indian Wells champ Rafael Nadal are absent; they are skipping this Masters event."

So if you think Indian Wells offered up some surprising results, odds are that Miami could be even more chaotic.

But we have to put that statement in relative terms. "Surprising results" these days consist of Juan Martin del Potro, ranked No. 7 in the world, beating a man just four places above him, Andy Murray. Now, del Potro's follow-up win over world No. 1 Novak Djokovic was undoubtedly a stunner, especially considering the Serb led 3-0 in the final set. But Djokovic, who headed into Indian Wells unbeaten this year, can certainly be forgiven for losing to a fellow top-10 player. Right?

To even think of asking that question, let alone posing it, is another testament to the top tier's unquestioned authority.

As for the "chaotic" nature of Indian Wells, well, that refers to del Potro, Nadal and Murray being joined in the semifinals by a true "Cinderella" & the world No. 6, Tomas Berdych. George Mason or VCU he ain't, college hoops heads.

What I'm getting at is, even though Roger and Rafa are removed from the Miami draw, look for much of the same come late next week -- a top-heavy final four.

In particular, look for Djokovic and Murray to erase any thoughts of temporary decline you may have experienced after watching them fall like redwoods -- OK, tall cacti -- in the California desert. The two have combined to win four of the past six Miami Masters, with Nikolay Davydenko (in 2008) and Andy Roddick (in 2010) the only others to do so in that span. The only other active player to have won Miami is the missing-in-action Federer (remember, the now-retired Roddick will be watching on TV along with you and me).

That said, chalk doesn't always advance, as many of you will discover once the NCAA basketball tournament gets under way. Which players could bust the men's Miami bracket?

Even though Thomaz Bellucci has struggled badly this season, I think he is the unseeded player with the best chance of causing a major upset. Like Ernests Gulbis, who beat two seeded players and nearly ousted Nadal in Indian Wells, Bellucci possesses the powerful shots needed to challenge the elite. He'll need to stick around long enough to prove that, of course. Bellucci lost his opener out west, but shouldn't in Florida, where he'll face wild card Christian Harrison. Bellucci should be well-rested and, perhaps more importantly, eager to perform in front of a South American-friendly crowd. Remember, the Brazilian beat Murray and Berdych in the 2011 Madrid Masters, and won a set versus a practically invincible Djokovic. As for seeded players, keep an eye on Nicolas Almagro (No. 10 seed), Milos Raonic (No. 14) and Sam Querrey (No. 17). They all own huge serves, yes, but they're also each in Berdych's quarter of the bracket. The Czech is a big beneficiary of the big-name pullouts this week, but he's earned his good fortune with a splendid 18-5 record this year. But as good Berdych is, he can still throw in the occasional clunker. Almost all of his losses in 2013 have been to upper-echelon players, but I think it's asking a lot of Berdych to go deep yet again, right after Indian Wells. One of these three ball-bashers should be able to take advantage.

Speaking of beneficiaries, David Ferrer, who fell to No. 5 in the rankings Monday, gets to lead a quarter as the third seed. In his Indian Wells opener, the Spaniard was unlucky to face Kevin Anderson, but nonetheless disappointed in a three-set loss. Ferrer should fare better in Miami, though Jeremy Chardy or Kei Nishikori, the Bollettieri Academy product who should have plenty of local support, could prove troublesome in the fourth round.

But it's the quarterfinal round where I see Ferrer's run ending. That's when he should meet del Potro, who will surely be inspired at the Grand Slam of Latin America. The Argentine couldn't have asked for a better draw, and if he hits his forehand as well and as consistently as he did in Indian Wells, a semifinal rematch with Djokovic looms.

It was a bit of a surprise to see that semi last week, but it wouldn't be a shock at all if it came to pass in Miami. But I think the more things change, the more they'll stay the same. Meaning, look for Djokovic to earn some revenge; the Serb has held the key to winning Key Biscayne in each of the past two years.

Petra Kvitova made the Dubai hard court look like a sand box. Kvitova's deep blasts displaced opponents who looked like they were spinning their wheels on sand in a futile effort to gain ground on the 2011 Wimbledon champion.

Kvitova shook off a second-round Australian Open loss by leveling the field. She sandwiched sweeps of former No. 1s Ana Ivanovic and Caroline Wozniacki around a quarterfinal thumping of fourth-ranked Agnieszka Radwanska before defeating French Open finalist Sara Errani, 6-2, 1-6, 6-1, to take the title.

Changing direction of her flat drives brilliantly, the 6-foot Czech's all-court attack made even clever counter-punchers feel as though they were operating at the wrong end of a shooting gallery.

"It was just two short balls and it's over," said Radwanska, who fell to 1-4 lifetime against Kvitova. "It's a bomb coming from the other side."

The left-hander's ability to detonate points with a single swing disarms opponents, denying them the rhythm that comes from playing longer rallies while presenting a fundamental problem. How do you solve an opponent who refuses to let you rally?

"The problem is not that she's tall; the problem is that she serves very good. She hits so strong," Errani said. "It's tough to move her. It's hard to play because her ball is very flat. I don't have time to do the points that I want to do, to play the game that I want to play. All the points are very short, and it's very tough."

The powerful performance served as a reminder that Kvitova, who was two wins away from the No. 1 ranking at the 2012 Australian Open before stumbling through a trying season plagued by inconsistency and illness, can be a force at the top of the game when she's right.

Kvitova's course to her 10th career title and first since she won New Haven last August was considerably smoother given the world's top three players -- Serena Williams, Victoria Azarenka and Maria Sharapova -- did not play Dubai. And though this is a significant step, she's still facing a desert-sized gap to regain a spot in the top three.

The world No. 7 trails the top-ranked Williams by more than 5,000 ranking points; she is not nearly as quick around the court and doesn't deploy the array of spins Serena can, particularly on serve. She's not as consistent as Azarenka, whom she has not faced since the 2011 WTA Championships final, and she doesn't evoke the fierce ruthlessness of Sharapova on a point-to-point basis. That explains Kvitova's combined 6-10 career record versus the world's top three, including an 0-4 mark against world No. 1 Serena and a 2-4 record against third-ranked Sharapova.

Yet those stats don't detract from the fact her upside is immense. Kvitova, who celebrates her 23rd birthday on March 8, is the second-youngest player in the top 10. She can dictate on serve, dominate on return and owns the most complete game of any woman not named Serena. She is an all-surface threat who has won titles on hard court, grass and clay and has reached at least the semifinals of every major except the U.S. Open.

When she's on her game, Kvitova is a brilliant ball-striker, whose shots are as tough to read as an SOS message scrawled across the surface of a lake.

"Petra played unbelievable; I think she was just hitting shots I had no chance to get," said Serena after roaring back from a 4-1 third-set deficit to defeat Kvitova in Doha earlier this month. "I don't think anyone on this tour could have gotten them."

Though she was prone to periods of erratic tennis last season, Kvitova is much more than a mindless baseline-blaster. Her frontcourt finesse makes her backcourt power even more menacing. When opponents drop back behind the baseline and defend in an effort to coax errors, as Wozniacki did in Dubai, Kvitova is comfortable closing at net. She won 15 of 17 trips to net versus Wozniacki, unleashing drive, drop and angled volleys to create closure.

She must still sharpen her shot selection. When the 5-foot-4 Errani rushed the net with regularity in the second set of the final, Kvitova opted to try to drill flat passes by her rather than playing high-percentage lobs over the diminutive Italian's head. And sometimes it looked like Kvitova was oblivious to the situation when she sails returns beyond the baseline. But the fact Kvitova captured the title while her longtime coach, David Kotyza, was on vacation, should give her confidence in her problem-solving skills.

A year ago, Kvitova often looked like she was battling two adversaries during singles play: Her opponent and her asthma, which is exacerbated playing in heat. She looks fitter and fresher now, has won nine of her past 10 matches, and if she can sustain her health and current level of play, look for Kvitova to gain ground at Premier events in Indian Wells and Miami, where she won just one match last season.

NEW YORK -- He sprinted out to the service line at Madison Square Garden as the applause swelled.

Cliff Drysdale is 71 years old and has spent most of his life playing, organizing and broadcasting tennis, his sport of choice. Monday, he was introduced as a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame's class of 2013, along with Martina Hingis, Charlie Pasarell, Ion Tiriac and Thelma Coyne Long.

Drysdale left the court almost as swiftly as he entered; his ESPN2 broadcast was only minutes from starting. Looked after by a security guard, he jumped into an elevator.

Was he surprised to be named a Hall of Famer?

"Yes," he said, looking touched. "It was very nice."

And then he jogged to the broadcast position, where he called the exhibition match between Serena Williams and Victoria Azarenka with partner Mary Joe Fernandez.

Although Drysdale was a formidable player in his day -- he was a finalist in the 1965 U.S. Open and a doubles champion there in 1972 with Roger Taylor -- perhaps his greatest contribution to the game was as an organizer. He was a co-founder of the ATP in 1971 and its first president.

Hingis, obviously, is the marquee name at the enshrinement ceremony set for July 13 in Newport, R.I. She slipped into the major mix after Steffi Graf and Monica Seles dominated and was fortunate to win five Grand Slam singles titles before the coming of the Williams sisters. Hingis, along with Justine Henin, was among the last of the mortal-sized multiple-major champions.

Pasarell, a nice player, too, joins Drysdale as an enshrinee in the contributor category. He was the No. 1-ranked United States player in 1967. More important, he was one of those who helped launch the ATP, which gave the players greater control of their collective destiny. He was an involved board member from 1971 to '78 and went on to build Indian Wells into one of the world's best tournaments.

This year, the ATP World Tour will stage 62 tournaments in 32 countries. Prize money is expected to exceed $95 million by 2014. Drysdale and Pasarell established the foundation that made it all possible.

Would Rafael Nadal be making a reported $1.5 million for a two-hour exhibition Monday night if those players hadn't been so brave?

This question was posed just as Nadal walked by Pasarell's front-row seat.

Pasarell smiled, shrugged and shook his head.

"Cliff and I were part of a very special generation of players," he said. "When the tennis went from the amateur days to the open days for professionals, that did not happen by chance. The best players were all pushing for that."

Although Roger Federer and Nadal have been vocal at times about the state of the game for the athletes themselves, they have done little to mobilize the players. The Grand Slams have increased prize money, but imagine if Rafa and Roger and their friends actually threatened a shutdown? That's what happened back in 1973, when the players united behind a suspended player, Niki Pilic, and threatened to walk at Wimbledon. The All England Club capitulated.

"We were made to look like the bad guys, but we did what we had to do," Pasarell said. "I'm not sure today's fans, or even the players, know much about any of this. We're proud that we helped give the players a say in how the business operates."

Petra Kvitova made the Dubai hard court look like a sand box. Kvitova's deep blasts displaced opponents who looked like they were spinning their wheels on sand in a futile effort to gain ground on the 2011 Wimbledon champion.

Kvitova shook off a second-round Australian Open loss by leveling the field. She sandwiched sweeps of former No. 1s Ana Ivanovic and Caroline Wozniacki around a quarterfinal thumping of fourth-ranked Agnieszka Radwanska before defeating French Open finalist Sara Errani, 6-2, 1-6, 6-1, to take the title.

Changing direction of her flat drives brilliantly, the 6-foot Czech's all-court attack made even clever counter-punchers feel as though they were operating at the wrong end of a shooting gallery.

"It was just two short balls and it's over," said Radwanska, who fell to 1-4 lifetime against Kvitova. "It's a bomb coming from the other side."

The left-hander's ability to detonate points with a single swing disarms opponents, denying them the rhythm that comes from playing longer rallies while presenting a fundamental problem. How do you solve an opponent who refuses to let you rally?

"The problem is not that she's tall; the problem is that she serves very good. She hits so strong," Errani said. "It's tough to move her. It's hard to play because her ball is very flat. I don't have time to do the points that I want to do, to play the game that I want to play. All the points are very short, and it's very tough."

The powerful performance served as a reminder that Kvitova, who was two wins away from the No. 1 ranking at the 2012 Australian Open before stumbling through a trying season plagued by inconsistency and illness, can be a force at the top of the game when she's right.

Kvitova's course to her 10th career title and first since she won New Haven last August was considerably smoother given the world's top three players -- Serena Williams, Victoria Azarenka and Maria Sharapova -- did not play Dubai. And though this is a significant step, she's still facing a desert-sized gap to regain a spot in the top three.

The world No. 7 trails the top-ranked Williams by more than 5,000 ranking points; she is not nearly as quick around the court and doesn't deploy the array of spins Serena can, particularly on serve. She's not as consistent as Azarenka, whom she has not faced since the 2011 WTA Championships final, and she doesn't evoke the fierce ruthlessness of Sharapova on a point-to-point basis. That explains Kvitova's combined 6-10 career record versus the world's top three, including an 0-4 mark against world No. 1 Serena and a 2-4 record against third-ranked Sharapova.

Yet those stats don't detract from the fact her upside is immense. Kvitova, who celebrates her 23rd birthday on March 8, is the second-youngest player in the top 10. She can dictate on serve, dominate on return and owns the most complete game of any woman not named Serena. She is an all-surface threat who has won titles on hard court, grass and clay and has reached at least the semifinals of every major except the U.S. Open.

When she's on her game, Kvitova is a brilliant ball-striker, whose shots are as tough to read as an SOS message scrawled across the surface of a lake.

"Petra played unbelievable; I think she was just hitting shots I had no chance to get," said Serena after roaring back from a 4-1 third-set deficit to defeat Kvitova in Doha earlier this month. "I don't think anyone on this tour could have gotten them."

Though she was prone to periods of erratic tennis last season, Kvitova is much more than a mindless baseline-blaster. Her frontcourt finesse makes her backcourt power even more menacing. When opponents drop back behind the baseline and defend in an effort to coax errors, as Wozniacki did in Dubai, Kvitova is comfortable closing at net. She won 15 of 17 trips to net versus Wozniacki, unleashing drive, drop and angled volleys to create closure.

She must still sharpen her shot selection. When the 5-foot-4 Errani rushed the net with regularity in the second set of the final, Kvitova opted to try to drill flat passes by her rather than playing high-percentage lobs over the diminutive Italian's head. And sometimes it looked like Kvitova was oblivious to the situation when she sails returns beyond the baseline. But the fact Kvitova captured the title while her longtime coach, David Kotyza, was on vacation, should give her confidence in her problem-solving skills.

A year ago, Kvitova often looked like she was battling two adversaries during singles play: Her opponent and her asthma, which is exacerbated playing in heat. She looks fitter and fresher now, has won nine of her past 10 matches, and if she can sustain her health and current level of play, look for Kvitova to gain ground at Premier events in Indian Wells and Miami, where she won just one match last season.

Great athletes often become known by a number. Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points in a game. Hank Aaron hit 755 home runs. Jack Nicklaus won 18 majors; Roger Federer has won 17. The movie about Roger Maris was called -- what else? -- "61*." But Esther Vergeer, the wheelchair tennis champion from the Netherlands who retired this week, may go down in history with the most impressive number of all affixed to her name: 470.

That's how many consecutive matches Vergeer won from January 2003 to the 2012 Paralympics, where she won her third gold medal in her final match. Only her own decision to stop playing could bring her streak to a close. It may not be the first comparison that comes to her mind, but Vergeer is as close to Rocky Marciano, the heavyweight fighter who retired undefeated, as tennis will ever get.

There's obviously more to Vergeer than any single number, or set of numbers, can convey. But I can't think of another athlete whose statistics are as fun to recite. Her career was about dominance, and each stat brings a fresh smile of astonishment with it.

• Before her 470-match streak, she had won 89 straight. That makes for a tidy 559 wins in her last 560 matches.

• During her longer streak, she won 95 matches 6-0, 6-0 and 348 sets 6-0. Her opponents won an average of 1.4 games per set.

• Vergeer spent 668 weeks, and 13 straight years, at No. 1. She won 21 singles Grand Slams and four Paralympics singles golds.

• She faced just one match point during the streak, to her countrywoman Korie Homan in the gold medal match at the 2008 Paralympics. Homan netted a backhand.

Vergeer later said that her mind was swirling as she wheeled herself to the baseline to serve when she was down match point. What was she thinking about? "I was thinking, 'What are my parents going to say? What is the press going to say? Am I going to cry?'"

These were honest words of vulnerability from a woman who showed none of it on court. But they weren't uncharacteristic. Vergeer always sounded genuinely thrilled to be mentioned by other tennis greats like Federer (he authored the foreword to her new autobiography) and Serena Williams. And after posing nude for the cover of ESPN the Magazine's Body Issue in 2010, she admitted later that she had been surprised and hurt when some people questioned the photo's appropriateness.

What set Vergeer apart as a competitor wasn't the arrogance of a champion, but her simple, practical desire to continually get better, to put the process first and let the results come. Years into her streak, she began working with her countryman Sven Groeneveld, a widely experienced pro coach. Groeneveld said he wondered what he could possibly teach someone who hadn't lost in six years, but he was quickly amazed by her willingness to try to get even better. It makes sense that the 31-year-old Vergeer says "improving" herself however she can will be one goal of her life after tennis.

Vergeer, in a way, almost made it look too easy to win. You might wonder: If her opponents were only getting 1.4 games per set, how hard could it have been for her? The answer is that her achievement was different from that of athletes who learn from their losses or take years to reach their potential. Anyone who has ever played a sport, especially an individual sport, knows that there's nothing more nerve-wracking than trying to beat someone you're supposed to beat. Vergeer faced those nerves every time she played, for 10 years, and never succumbed to them. That's the real meaning of 470.

Tennis meant more from the start to Vergeer than it does to most of its able-bodied players -- it gave her a life back. She was paralyzed after a spinal surgery at age 8 went wrong. "In the beginning, it was hard," she said. But tennis, which she took up at 12, "made me realize that the world doesn't end."

In this, and in what she achieved, Vergeer is more than just a tennis player. The sport should be proud of her, but in this case it should also be proud of itself. Wheelchair tennis began in California in the 1970s; few then would have believed that, three decades later, one of its players from the Netherlands would make the cover of a magazine dedicated to what the body can do, rather than what it can't. Few then would have thought that a disabled tennis player could put herself in the conversation for "most dominant athlete of all time." Esther Vergeer was (even) more than a number.

Of all the tournaments Rafael Nadal could have made his return at, the VTR Open in the Chilean resort town of Vina del Mar is one of the least likely, based on the Spaniard's scheduling history.

Nadal hasn't played any South American event since 2005, when he won Costa do Sauipe to begin his worldwide chase of clay-court titles. But Rafa is finally ready get on the court, and it makes sense that he'd want to start his comeback on clay. Thus, this small but fortuitously-positioned event will be visited by the greatest dirtballer of all time.

Nadal's South American sojourn got me thinking: What other unlikely tennis happenings might come to pass under the right circumstances?

Here are three, all quite inconceivable at the moment -- but in sports, you can never say never.

Roger Federer plays Newport: This is the grass-court equivalent of Rafa's visit to Vina del Mar. The Hall of Fame Tennis Championships in Newport, RI is one of just six grass-court tournaments on the ATP calendar, but it's the only one held after Wimbledon.

As such, Newport rarely boasts a strong field, contested mostly by Americans and players outside the Top 10 who didn't fare well at the All England Club.

The venue -- on the grounds of the International Tennis Hall of Fame, as you might guess -- can't be beat, and the tournament's history shines no matter who comes to play, with grass courts abutting the show court on each side, and well-heeled New Englanders shaded underneath green-and-white awnings.

But even for a history buff like Federer, Newport probably doesn't offer enough incentive. He almost always takes an extended break after Wimbledon, his favorite tournament, and traditionally waits for the Canadian Masters to cross the Atlantic.

There's also the fact that Newport is just an ATP 250; even a title run would barely register in Federer's often voluminous mid-summer point total. Only if Federer wants to make nice with the induction committee will we see him in Rhode Island, but we all know that's unnecessary for the 17-time Grand Slam champ.

The Williams sisters play Indian Wells: For an entirely different reason, it's unlikely that we'll see Venus Williams and Serena Williams playing at the BNP Paribas Open.

Joel Drucker does an excellent job of recapping the controversy here. Essentially, neither sister has played Indian Wells since 2001, when Venus pulled out of a semifinal with Serena just four minutes before their match.

Afterward, Richard Williams, Venus' and Serena's father, was accused of orchestrating the withdrawal, and was allegedly the target of racist remarks during the final. Serena was booed heavily throughout the match, and later said she would not play Indian Wells in the future.

More than a decade has passed since the incident, and there's been nothing to suggest that the Williamses will return to Indian Wells any time soon. Furthermore, there are a dwindling number of seasons remaining in the sisters' playing careers, so if they wanted to do an about face and enter the event, the clock is ticking.

From a calendar standpoint, Venus and Serena have already committed to the Family Circle Cup in Charleston, which is played directly after the Sony Open in Key Biscayne, a U.S. hard-court tournament they've always entered. Miami may not have Roger Federer this year, but it will have Venus and Serena, something Indian Wells may never be able to say.

The Davis Cup comes to Forest Hills: This takes wishful thinking to an entirely new level. The West Side Tennis Club -- colloquially referred to as Forest Hills -- has seen far better days from a pro tennis standpoint. (As a club for recreational players, it's still lovely.)

The last tour-level event held there was in 2008, a 16-player WTA tournament, and you could literally count the number of patrons inside the dilapidated stadium.

That stadium, of course, played host to the U.S. Open before it moved to Flushing Meadows. But while players and fans from around the world now descend on the National Tennis Center, which boasts greater amenities, better sightlines, and ample parking, history will never leave West Side's stadium.

Its stands require substantial repair, but a gleaming hard court is already there, and all you need is one of those in a Davis Cup tie. The Winter Olympics probably have a better chance of returning to Lake Placid, but if the USTA decided to get nostalgic, I can think of no better place to host the competition.

Oh, and if U.S. captain Jim Courier wanted to stage a tie on grass? Forest Hills has those courts, too.

Maria Sharapova indulged her sweet tooth in launching her signature candy line, Sugarpova, before the 2012 U.S. Open. The player behind the brand will enter next week's Australian Open with more than maintaining a sugar high on her mind.

The second-ranked Russian withdrew from last week's Brisbane International to rest her injured right collarbone that had prevented her from serving and hitting overheads in practice.

"I still have quite a bit of time to prepare for Australia. I'm on the right track, been training really well, so I just don't want to jeopardize what I've gained in the offseason so far," Sharapova said after withdrawing. "I just have to make a smart move here."

She said she pulled out of Brisbane purely as a precautionary measure and doesn't expect injury-induced inactivity to hurt her hopes of Melbourne success. But consider the fact she hasn't played a match since suffering her ninth straight loss to Serena Williams at the WTA Championships in October and owns a combined 7-17 record against the two Australian Open favorites -- five-time champion Serena and defending champion Victoria Azarenka -- and a Sharapova return trip to the final may sound as realistic as the thought of Oompa-Loompas serving as linesmen in Oz.

Her injury, which comes less than four years after she underwent shoulder surgery to repair a tear in her rotator cuff, has limited her ability to address her serve, which can be the most suspect shot in her powerful arsenal. Here are some of the major challenges the reigning Roland Garros champion faces gaining traction in Melbourne:

Match Play: Sharapova did not play a tuneup tournament before the 2010 Australian Open and flatlined in the first round, falling to former doubles partner Maria Kirilenko and suffering her first Grand Slam opening-round exit since the 2003 French Open.

Serve and Smash: Sharapova's serve has let her down at times versus Vika and Serena. Watch closely and you'll see she routinely eschews overheads, perhaps out of concern for her surgically repaired shoulder, in favor of swing volleys. Her collarbone injury prevented her from strengthening those shots with coach Thomas Hogstedt, which could cost her.

Shell Shock: Serena hasn't just beaten Sharapova, she's beaten her up in their recent matches. The three-time Australian Open finalist has not taken a set from Williams in four years and could bear the competitive scars of the humbling 6-0, 6-1 thrashing she absorbed in last summer's Olympic gold-medal match.

Mobility: Sharapova's movement doesn't exactly conjure comparisons to Evonne Goolagong in her prime, and though she has worked to refine her footwork, the sometimes extreme conditions in Melbourne -- scorching heat and whipping winds -- can make that part of her game even more vulnerable.

Predictability: Though she won at Roland Garros in June to complete the career Grand Slam, the reality is that Sharapova lacks a Plan B when her fast, flat drives aren't falling between the lines. She is often averse to changing up the spins and speeds of her shots, seldom plays the slice and, although she can hit the kick serve, tends to predictably play flat, providing little margin for error, especially in windy conditions.

Before you dismiss Sharapova's shot at reclaiming the Melbourne major, though, consider these assets she brings to Australia:

Past Success: The 2008 Australian Open champion has reached the final in three of her past five trips to Melbourne, and her five career semifinal appearances are the most she has made at any one major. Sharapova did not play a tuneup tournament before the 2008 Oz Open but still blew through the field to take the title without surrendering a set, sweeping former No. 1 Lindsay Davenport and four top 11-ranked players -- Elena Dementieva, Justine Henin, Jelena Jankovic and Ana Ivanovic -- in the process.

Toughness: Though she has battled injuries in recent years, when healthy, Sharapova is one of the toughest fighters in tennis. She sported a 14-1 record in three-setters last year, with her lone three-set loss coming to Azarenka in the U.S. Open semifinals.

First-Strike Prowess: The 6-foot-2 Sharapova remains one of the hardest hitters in the game, capable of detonating points with her flat baseline blasts. Her ability to shorten points, particularly off her vicious returns, can help her shorten points and preserve her strength for later rounds.

Clarity: Sharapova's ability to impose her strength on a match is central to her problem-solving skill. She understands defense is not her forte, so she tries to take the offensive from the first strike. Her ability to take the ball early, control the center of the court and dictate play makes Sharapova a threat against most.

Consistency: When it comes to recent majors, Sharapova doesn't melt down. She has reached at least the semifinals in five of her past seven Grand Slam events and has a habit of peaking for the premier events.

"I've have never been one to play a lot of tournaments because I don't think I physically can perform well at all of them if I do have a schedule with a lot of tournaments," Sharapova said. "So my philosophy has always been building around the ones that are most important me and trying to peak at those. Maybe not going into a tournament with as many matches as others would prefer but knowing that I'm healthy, that I'm ready."

It's tough to imagine Sharapova stopping Serena or Vika, but if the draw breaks her way, don't be surprised to see her still standing in the final weekend.

It all seemed to be going to so well for the U.S. Open, at least for a minute or two.

The tournament has been heavily criticized by players and media in recent years on at least two fronts: (1) for not having a roof in place, even as rain has forced the event to go a day longer than scheduled on five straight occasions; and (2) for clinging to the television-driven concept of Super Saturday, which makes it the only Grand Slam that forces the men's and women's finalists to play on consecutive days. Throw in the fact that, like the other Slams, the Open shared something in the range of 15 percent of its total revenue with the players, and you had one increasingly unpopular major event.

With that in mind, this weekend the Open announced that it would abandon Super Saturday for the first time in 35 years, in favor of a Sunday women's final and a Monday men's final in 2013, and that it would up the total prize money by $4 million. Andy Murray, a player who had complained publicly about the tournament's schedule in the past, said he was happy that officials had "listened to the ATP board." On the women's side, Serena Williams and WTA chief Stacey Allaster also signaled their approval.

This era of good feelings drew to a rapid close Tuesday, when the ATP came out against the Monday final, and called the prize money increases a step in the right direction, but nothing more. The tour maintained that it shouldn't be a problem for the Open to wrap up on Sunday and still give the finalists a day of rest; all of the other Slams pull it off. And while the extra cash was "appreciated," it still didn't "fully recognize the fundamental role of the players in driving U.S. Open revenues, which are the largest in our sport."

In the wake of these surprisingly strong words from the players, we've been told that the schedule change was just a one-year "experiment," and that things will likely be different when the tournament's TV contract with CBS runs out the following season.

We really do seem to be dealing with an emboldened ATP, when it comes to its dealings with the majors. At first glance, you might think that it's trying to have it both ways -- asking for more money while at the same time asking the tournament to dismantle Super Saturday, a keystone of its biggest TV contract. But the men are right.

Super Saturday was an alliance made by U.S. Open tournament director Slew Hester with CBS in 1978. That year, he had moved the Open to a new facility at Flushing Meadows. Costs, naturally, had been higher than anticipated, so he and the network got creative. Three decades later, the Open isn't that desperate. The time for back-to-back semis and finals is over; Super Saturday, once celebrated, makes less sense in this era of long matches and ultra-physical play. And there's no reason to push the event to Monday, one day closer to the Davis Cup ties that start the following weekend. Ratings are higher on Sunday afternoons.

One issue is the tournament's insistence on stretching the first round over three days, and six separate day and night sessions; Wimbledon, by contrast, gets the same number of matches done in two sessions. This lets the Open sell many more tickets, while CBS, which starts broadcasting the third round on Labor Day weekend, is given the best chance possible to show the sport's biggest stars -- Federer, Serena, Nadal, Djokovic, Sharapova -- twice over those three days. Meanwhile, spectators paying to attend one of the six opening sessions are much less likely to get a glimpse of those players, and the tournament's schedule is unnecessarily jammed up from then on. (It should be noted that whatever compromises the Open has made for TV, it has helped make the tournament the most lucrative Slam for the players for many years. The Open was also well ahead of the other majors in offering equal prize money in 1973.)

Contracts, as I've said, are set to run out. We'll see what happens, who's involved, and what the demands are after next year. But the ATP should continue to hang tough. It has finally changed how the tournament ends. Let's see if it can do something about how it begins.

The past few days could not have been easy for John Isner.

On Saturday night, with a spot in the national title game on the line, his beloved University of Georgia football team suffered a heartbreaking loss to Alabama. If tennis players ever introduced themselves on TV by announcing where they attended school, like on certain NFL broadcasts, the former Bulldogs great would be a natural. In the meantime, Isner has proclaimed his pride by occasionally wearing red-and-black apparel during matches, and a college cap to his news conferences.

But before the Dawgs failed to grasp a spot in college football's championship and tumbled into the Capital One Bowl, Isner experienced another sort of separation: He ended his coaching relationship with Craig Boynton.

The two made a great team since joining forces in Saddlebrook three years ago, as I saw in person when I met Isner for a Tennis Magazine cover story earlier this year.

That camaraderie and comfort surely had some correlation to Isner's career-best results this past season. In addition to cracking the top 10 for the first time, Isner defeated Novak Djokovic to reach his first Masters final in Indian Wells, and toppled Roger Federer and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in Davis Cup competition, with both upsets taking place on European clay, a historic quicksand for U.S. players.

All of these accomplishments made Isner's decision to part ways with Boynton rather puzzling, but the big man's quote in The New York Times was the trump card: "I just felt like it was time for a different voice."

In March, Boynton told me bluntly during an Isner practice session: "He's got to play shorter matches at Slams. There's no getting around that."

That was said shortly after Isner's five-set loss to Feliciano Lopez at the Australian Open, which happened one round after he beat David Nalbandian 10-8 in the fifth. Isner went on to lose five-set matches at Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, none of which occurred during the second week.

It's not as if Michael Sell, Isner's new coach, can spin Boynton's words any differently -- it's clear as day what has been holding the American back from greater glory at Slams. But on the whole, Isner should be encouraged by this past season. He has proved that he can beat the best players in the world in best-of-five set play -- just not at the majors.

He did so with an ultra-aggressive mentality, a philosophy Boynton stressed during that practice session (especially on the return, which Isner used to great effect against Federer in Davis Cup) and one Sell should continue to cultivate. With his weapons and shortcomings, Isner can never be aggressive enough.

We know what Isner has to do on the court -- "be true to his game, and play the way that he has to play," as Boynton said.

Off the court, Isner should take a hard look at his schedule, which was packed in 2012.

Part of that was due to his success in Davis Cup, which accounted for three weeks' worth of travel, practice and play. But part of that was Isner's own doing. After helping the United States beat France in Monte Carlo, Isner skipped the Masters tournament there and flew across the Atlantic to play Houston, then returned to Europe for the red-clay swing. In between Wimbledon and the Olympics, both held in London, Isner played (and won) Newport, then reached the semis in Atlanta, an event he has a strong connection with. He also decided to play his hometown tournament in Winston-Salem, N.C., held immediately before the U.S. Open, which to his credit he won in dramatic fashion.

Choosing which tournaments to play, and which to say no to, cannot be easy decisions for Isner, an extremely likable man who's currently in demand.

"I definitely enjoy playing them," Isner told me in reference to the ATP 250s in Atlanta and Winston-Salem. "I'm lucky because, in a way I feel like I have two hometown events. Especially the one in North Carolina; although I'm playing a tournament, it doesn't feel like I'm on the road at all because I'm staying at home. After a match, instead of going to my hotel I went back to my house, threw the ball to my dog, had my mom's cooking, I felt like I was in high school."

It all comes down to the 27-year-old's priorities, and if he listens to the majority of the media, he'll eschew those smaller tournaments to better prepare for the peaks in tennis' yearlong slog. There will also be Sell's input to consider. The former coach of Monica Seles -- and perhaps as important, a four-time All-American at the University of Georgia -- should offer a new perspective that defines this important, upcoming season, with Isner still in the prime of his career.

But Isner should, of course, listen to himself first.

And why not? Based on his recent achievements, he's clearly doing something right.