Drop Shot: US Open Report
Men's Singles
1st Round
The most notable match in the first round was the only significant upset in that round, Gilles Muller's defeat of Andy Roddick. Although I didn't see this match, I watched another hard loss that Roddick experienced during the US hard court season, against Mathieu (who lost in the first round here). From accounts that I've read, this followed much the same pattern, with Roddick narrowly losing the first set and then totally losing his mental toughness in the following sets.
When Roddick played Mathieu, his serve was off. Tonight Roddick's serve was not off, which made it difficult for Muller to break Roddick. In fact, all three sets went to tiebreakers. Roddick had his strongest showing in the second set tie-break, which he lost 8-10. In the third set he totally collapsed and won just one point in the tie-break. Many of the players seem like they've caught on as to how to return the Roddick serve. Roddick is desperately trying to come up with some other tricks, but is experiencing little success. Roddick needs to stop artifically running up to the net; he's just no good. Instead he needs to play his game, and make his opponents do the same. If he doesn't do this, his self-confidence, and thus his game, will decline.
All the other favorites advanced in easy three-setters. Wild-card Scoville Jenkins showed a lot of heart to win a five-setter, his first Grand Slam win. That's not easy for a young guy. His reward? Nadal in the next round.
2nd Round
A highlight match that I watched was Fabrice Santoro versus Federer. Santoro and Federer had played doubles together as Juniors and new each other well. This was one of the funnest matches to watch of the entire tournament. Federer and Santoro have wildly divergent styles of play. Santoro kind of pokes the ball around the court and throws in weird stuff when you aren't expecting it. Federer often has trouble with off-speed play, and Santoro fed him a steady diet.
Both players made some amazing shots. Here's a list for Santoro: between the legs, over the top of the head, around the back, and between the legs running backwards, hit for a decisive winners.
Federer: Made Santoro hit and try to hit those shots. A lot. Often without success.
The match fittingly ended with a break-less set. Federer won in the tie-break, but both players felt really good about what had happened, and both were interviewed after the match. If there were more matches like this one, tennis would get higher ratings.
Article comments
1 - Bob A. Booey
Sam: Federer best ever? Yes or no?
In other words, would he beat Sampras in his prime?
That is all.
2 - Temple Stark
Culture Section Editor Lisa Hoover thought this post was great and worthy. Click HERE to find out why.
3 - Leoniceno
Hey Temple and Lisa, thanks for the kudos. To Bob: that's an interesting question. I think Federer playing at his best beats Sampras playing at his best. So, I'm going to jump on the bandwagon with McEnroe and say that we're watching a tennis legend. When Federer is really moving well and enjoying himself he makes it look more effortless than anyone I've seen. What remains to be seen is how long he can keep going.
Plus, Sampras loses some points for those annoying self-congratulatory commercials during the Open and the seventies open-collar shirts.
4 - Will Clark
I'd have to give the edge to Sampras. Until I see Federer surpass Sampras and fight through some adversity, I like Pete in his prime. I saw Pete devastate people just as much as Federer has been doing. His three set thrashing of Andre at Wimbledon a few years ago was perhaps the best tennis I've ever seen anyone play - and he was beyond his prime at this point. Not only did Pete beat Andre with his game - he could often stay back and beat Andre at Andre's game. If he needed to - he could do it all the time. Not only did I see Pete do this in this particular match, I saw him do it on a number of occasions.
Pete against Federer. Unfortunately they played only once, when Pete was clearly beyond his prime. Pete wasn't a classic serve and volleyer - like, say Edberg or Rafter - but he was still damm good at the net. Always as good as he needed to be. His serve was much more of a weapon than the traditional S & V'r, and I give him a huge edge against Fed in being able to use that famous Sampras serve to get out of tight spots -like he did countless times throughout his career. Anyway - here's how I see it. Federer with a slight edge on forehand , but Pete's running forehand is better. Backhand - about even. Net game - Sampras - just more experience there. Serve - Sampras (the greatest clutch server of all time). Return - even.
I give the edge to Sampras at net and on his serve.
Does Federer look effortless. Sure he does - but, remember - it's not. Sampras was more athletic looking, he jumped around, had the explosive overhead smash - but make no mistake - in tennis terms, he moved just as well as Federer. Watch some old clips sometime where the camera is just on Pete - close up on his side of the court. He is so stinkin' fast it's unbelievable. So is Federer. I don't give an edge to either in this department.
5 - will clark
On another note - since the Federer thing is open: I'd love to see opinions on who CAN compete with Federer.
I believe there is one man who can - Marat Safin. Problem with Safin - unfortunately is his head. I think that when he wants to, when he applies himself - he can and could give Federer a real run - at least make it a good rivalry. He's big, has big weapons and can play all-court - really the only player I've currently seen who has the sheer talent to hang with Roger.
Nadal ? He's so young and will grow as a hardcourt player. I think he's determined to play at Federer's level - question is whether he can get there - on hardcourts and on grass. He'll have to make some changes on those surfaces, but I like his enthusiasm for the game.
Roddick? Lots of power - true. That's never really been in question. I really respect Andy for working on the weak parts of his game (net play - serve and volley , chip and charge) but I don't know if it will ever be enough. He's good, he has raw talent - but I don't know if he will ever compete with Federer. I'd love to see it - just question whether he has the capabilities.
Federer clearly has some problems with off-speed stuff - mentioned above in relation to the Santoro match. When Agassi was having success during the 2nd and 3rd sets of the final - he was really mixing things up well - and Federer was clearly frustrated.
That being said - Federer still won - which is a testament to his talent. I think there's something in there, though. Hewitt gave him a bit of that in the semis and took a set - Nalbandian is a bit of an off-speed guy- though he lost pretty convincingly - you could see moments in this match where Federer looked uncomfortable.
I think mixing up rhythm and speeds can give someone a "shot" against Federer - but that's still a tall order. Safin is the only guy I've seen yet who just went straight at him - semis Australia - and won.
I love watching Federer play - but it would be nice to see a rivalry, too. Wouldn't it have been something if he and Pete had been in the same era ??
6 - Sam Jack
With the Federer vs. Sampras imaginary match-up, it's a tough call, and I can see it going either way.
I've seen way more Federer than Sampras, and what Sampras I did see was towards the end of his career.
So I'm not really very well qualified on that score.
Marat Safin, maybe he can beat Federer a couple times, but challenge his dominance? Certainly not. Safin just has too many problems with his temperament.
With the off-speed stuff, Federer does have trouble with that, that's true, but you really have to squiggle the ball around a lot to win a match on that, and I doubt that anyone can really keep it up long enough to beat Federer based on that. Federer had trouble with the Santoro match, but keep in mind that he still won it in three.
Poor Roddick. He's probably playing at least as well as he did when he was winning slams and ranked number one. He says that he thinks he's playing the best tennis of his life, but all these players have come up that just have a brilliance on the court that he doesn't. Roddick probably won't be the top dog again during his career, but he can't let that get in the way of his playing well. So he's not number one anymore, that doesn't mean that he can't win first and second round matches.
I think that Nadal has a very good chance of becoming a top player on hard and grass as well as clay. He's still young, and as you said, he seems very determined to do so. I think that Nadal might make some poor decisions when you compare him to someone like Federer or Agassi, it's just that most often he covers them up by running around like crazy. Probably the strategy will come with age and experience.
7 - Will Clark
Agreed !
I only meant that Safin has a "shot" if his head is there - and you're right - with the exception of a match or two here and there - it hasn't been. I'd love to see what he could do if he was focused and channeled on court - day in and day out - for a few years. Not sure if that's gonna happen, though.
You're right about the off-speed stuff. It's a way to get at Federer, but you still have to be able to pull off the match - so far I haven't seen anyone do that.
Roddick - I agree as well. I think Roddick will get even better than now - much better. But other players - not only Federer are getting used to his power. He's really going to have to add some other skills (other than his forehand) to compete at that level. I wouldn't be suprised to see him at # 1 again - but that's only if Federer slips off or is injured.
Nadal: Again - I agree. Nadal is so raw, so emotional. He's gonna be real tough if he can keep his focus as he gets older. I see the determination in his eyes - he's hungry - I think hungry to take on Federer head to head - and he may be the only guy I've seen who doesn't look as if he's already lost the match when he steps on the court with Federer. If he can keep it together and grow - he's gonna be real tough in another year or two.
Hey - the Pete v. Roger thing is a pretty good tossup - I'd say. I watched Pete through his entire career and I can remember watching him win that first Open and thinking - Damm, this may be the greatest, most complete player I've ever seen. I get that same vibe from Federer - just when I think I see a teeny chink in his armor - he pulls out something I've never seen before. Pete was like that - he wasn't as graceful as Roger - but, the result was the same - hitting a shot you've never seen anyone else hit in your life !!
Heck - I watched Borg and McEnroe when I was a kid (I'm 37). At that time - no one, no one had seen anything like Borg - he was a machine, just amazing. Then Mac came along - and it was like - "Damm - what hands this guy has !" I've still never seen better touch and "hands" than McEnroe - no one even close. His (82 or 83)season was unbelievable - check the stats - he only lost 2 or 3 matches himself - including the finals of the French, I believe - to Lendl.
Anyway - the point being that at that time, Borg, McEnroe - maybe the greatest anyone had seen - then comes Pete - now Roger. I suppose at the end of Roger's career - some other kid is going to come along and do the same thing.
Will