Running Aussie Open Thread...

In this time of media consolidation, how many papers will even be willing to pay for a different voice to cover the French Open. The vast majority will use AP.... again. Hey, I understand budgets are tight, but how many majors will pony up to send somebody over there.

Unfortunately, I think tennis is an afterthought for 95 percent of the sports editors as major papers. If you are doing it right, it is an expensive sport to cover... three of the majors are overseas. Even the LAT didn't send somebody to Melbourne for the first time that I can remember. Few papers west of the Mississippi cover the French and fewer papers are sending writers to cover the U.S. Open anymore. I know the DMN has totally given up on the sport after a strong presence for years.

Hopefully, Roddick or Blake can develop a game capable of beating Federer in a major. Either that or Serena and Venus will have to run the show like they did about 3-4 years ago. Yeah, that's an American view and not a world view, but it is what it is.

 

Perhaps, but his performance against Roddick was simply beautiful -- which hopefully kept people interested despite the match being one-sided. I wish I had recorded it because I'd love to watch it over and over again.

Then again, I'm not a casual fan.

 

I thought Gonzalez challenged him in the first set last night, but you heard the stat. Gonzo won four points off Federer's serve in the second and third sets combined.

Personally, I don't mind Federer holding sway over his opponents because of the way he plays the game. He does things I have seen very few do in tennis in the 20-odd years I've been watching. There is an artistry and imagination to his shots at times. Gonzo at times last night got back a little to his old "bludgeon the ball to death" routine as the game wore on. Federer kept coming up with brilliant shot after brilliant shot.

There is another sport currently where one player is dominant in such a way, but I don't hear anyone complaining when Tiger's about to win again. In fact, the ratings go up when he's in the hunt. I think there's enough of a fascination with Goliath figures to see if a David can knock them off that keeps people interested.

 

Carillo made a good point that some of the better players are at least trying to take steps to work on the "Federer" problem by hiring (and spending for) top-notch coaches: Gonzo with Larry Stefanki (his pre-game analysis before his charges' matches was right on the money), Roddick with Connors, Murray with BGilbert.

The girls? Daddy, mostly.


On the dominance issue, we must be careful what we wish for. It seems a million years ago, but wasn't, that the Williams sisters were meeting in every final. They played awful tennis against each other (every match needs contrasts and a little red-ass), and it seemed it would happen until they kicked. Boring. Same old, same old. Isn't anyone going to challenge them?

Well, it happened, through their own doing. And I don't anyone can say that the alternative was all that pretty, because the biggest thing that could happen to women's tennis these days would be to see those two back on top again.

If Federer, God forbid, suffers an injury this year that takes him out of the game for an extended period, we'll probably say, "Damn, we miss Roger kicking ass. It's so boring without him. I can't believe that dork Davydenko is in ANOTHER Grand Slam final."

 

Not to worry.

Davydenko is Mr. Quarterfinal/Semifinal.

Here's how I view the sport:

A ton of great, competitive matches played by the other 120 players in the field.

And absolute artistry by Federer against the seven he plays.

Just because I have a pretty good idea who's going to wind up on top doesn't mean I can't enjoy the journey.

 

And the reason to enjoy the dominance of one player is because you are watching a very special player, a very special athlete

 

is he retarded?