Late Night at the Open

Once upon a time, I had cable television. Essentially, from 1991 to 1996, I had cable television. Not coincidentally, I followed tennis most avidly during those years. You can't watch tennis without cable. At the time, you wanted at least three stations. ESPN, USA network, and your local sports station. That would probably be some kind of Comcast sports in this area, or SportsSouth in the south.

USA network used to have pretty decent coverage. At the time, Donald Dell, uber tennis agent, had some TV deal with USA network. These days, they only cover the US Open, but at least, it's good coverage, with both afternoon and evening matches televised.

After 1997, I lived in a myriad of locations with no cable. One place was so small, that I didn't even have television. Then, I had a series of roommates, either undergrads or grads, who decided that money was not well-spent on cable television. Since I didn't want to foot the entire bill myself, I said fine, no cable.

That basically meant no tennis either. It used to be the big three would cover tennis: ABC, NBC, CBS. Their offerings are pretty slim, and reserved for the Grand Slam events. CBS probably does the best job with its US Open coverage.

I used to follow tennis avidly and post in newsgroups. But by 1998, I stopped posting, and really stopped watching it with any regularity. I still follow some of it in the news, and watch it occasionally when it comes on non-cable TV.

Last night is a good example of how I've changed my viewing habits. I had seen, on a sports webpage, that James Blake was up two sets to none over Agassi. Mats Wilander, who won the US Open back in 1988, had predicted Blake would be favored to win over Agassi, though if you asked anyone, I'd lay odds that they would have picked Agassi.

This isn't a race thing (Blake is African American) more than a recognition thing. The USTA would love if Blake were the next big tennis player. He's smart, he's good looking, and he's African American. The USTA would love to have its Tiger Woods. Although Blake is good, he's not great. He's had a great summer, after having a lousy last year, where personal issues and health had Blake contemplating retirement at the age of 24.

Although Blake has improved, no one thinks he's Roger Federer. He might be, say, Tim Henman. A good top ten player that once in a while challenges for a Grand Slam event if the stars align. A quarterfinal appearance with an upset of Nadal was as good as Blake could have hoped for.

I recently watch Blake beat Tomas Berdych of the Czech Republic in the semifinals of the Legg Mason Tennis Classic held in DC about a month ago. He was clocked by Roddick in the final, but it showed Blake was playing well. In fact, Agassi beat Berdych to face Blake.

In the past, seeing that Agassi was down to sets to love, I would have tried to catch the CBS coverage. Normally, they start coverage around 11:30 PM, recapping the events of the whole day. Occasionally, a match runs long, and they keep coverage on until it ends.

This was no more dramatic than in 1991, first round, Jimmy Connors vs. Patrick McEnroe, John's more polite, but less talented brother. Patrick, at his best, was about tenth ranked in the world. One had to think Patrick had a chance with Connors was edging to 40, his best years behind him. But, Connors loved playing at the Open. He won two Wimbledons, almost ten years apart, but he won five US Opens. He'd much prefer to with the US Open, with his sense of patriotism, than Wimbledon.

After falling behind to Patrick, 6-4, 7-6, 3-0, 40-0, Connors began to claw back. Connors would eventually take it to a fifth set, winning 4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-4, at past 1 AM in the morning. I was up that night watching this incredible match. At that time, I believe I had access to both USA network, and then switched over to CBS, which to their credit, kept coverage rolling on. There have been times when, due to contractual obligations, they've cut away from great tennis to show the start of some other sport like football, or (ick), baseball.

Connors would use this win to make his last hurrah. The US Open, knowing his fitness level, and the rowdy evening crowds, scheduled as many matches for Connors at night, so the heat wouldn't wear at him. He would win another five set classic in the fourth round against Aaron Krickstein, and then win another against overmatched Paul Haarhuis of the Netherlands, before losing to Jim Courier. Courier would then be overmatched by Stefan Edberg in the final. No one much remembers the final of that. This was the year that Jimmy could.

I should have turned on the television last night and tried to watch it. It just didn't occur to me to do so. I didn't have cable. I thought Agassi was done for.
I was caught up talking to a grad student in the parking lot behind a building I used to teach in. We were there for over an hour, and ran into a professor who I also know, that had finished teaching a late class, where he was teaching students to play bridge. All of this discussion did not have me thinking about tennis.

Now this match, while reminiscent of Patrick McEnroe vs. Connors, it wasn't the same. That was a first round match, with Connors having hardly won a tournament in years. Agassi is about 34. Connors was 39. Agassi is still playing good enough tennis to win the US Open. He recently won a tournament in Los Angeles. Connors needed a good draw, and good play to get to the semifinals, which he got. Blake was on something of a roll entering the US Open. Even though Patrick has once made the Australian Open semifinals, he was never an outstanding player. Patrick is perhaps closer to Blake in skill level, but Agassi should have been much better than Connors, respectively.

I didn't watch the match, and now I regret it. Agassi was down a break in third (won the third 6-4), a break in the fifth, and still just won the tiebreak in the fifth, 8-6. He was as close to losing the match as he could without actually losing.

Now Agassi is scheduled to face 22 year old Robbie Ginepri, another American, who's come out of nowhere to make his first semifinals. Agassi will be favored, but he's played two five setters to get to this point (beating Xavier Malisse, 6-3. 6-4. 6-7(5), 4-6, 6-2 in the previous round).

On the other hand, Ginepri is coming off three five setters in a row. He beat Tommy Haas in the third round (a talented German that was expected to be the next Becker--didn't happen), then Richard Gasquet, and Guillermo Coria in the quarters. He should be tired, but he's also 22, and Agassi is twelve years his senior.

Everyone expects Federer to roll to another US Open win. He's supposed to be that good. Yet, he faces Nalbandian in the semifinals. Nalbandian? Who's he? People forget he's been to a Wimbledon final beating guess-who in the semifinals? Federer. Of all the players on the tour, Federer has problems with Nalbandian.

Nalbandian is from Argentina and has played against Federer since they were juniors. I believe in head-to-head results. If in doubt, pick the guy with the better head-to-head record. For some reason, some players have a mental block against others. For a while, Sampras couldn't beat Michael Chang.

Sampras hits a bigger serve, hits harder ground strokes, and can volley. Yet, Chang used to have his number. Once Sampras finally believed, he started to beat Chang regularly. But it took a while.

While I believe Nalbandian is a pretty good player, I think his confidence may keep more than competitive. That he's meeting Federer in the semifinals shows that Nalbandian is playing excellent tennis. It wouldn't surprise me if Nalbandian pulls the upset, and there's few who are saying that, mostly because everyone loves Federer, and also because no one much knows Nalbandian.

This should be a great weekend in tennis, and that's men's tennis, for a change.