Federer vs Stepanek (Rome)

I was watching some of the match between Federer and Radek Stepanek, a match that Stepanek won 7-6, 7-6. Federer is having, for him, an off-year. He's already had 6 losses without being halfway through the year. This is usually far more than he usually has.

You would think that Federer had a bad match against Stepanek, but he looked in control of both tiebreaks, especially early on. In the first tiebreak, Federer was up 3-1, but eventually fell back 6-4, meaning Stepanek had 5 points while he only had one. In the second set tiebreak, his lead seemed even bigger, with a 5-2 lead.

Stepanek hit a few good shots, coming into net effectively, and Federer was just a hair off. This probably says something about how the top pros stay so focused.

The beneficiary at Rome was Djokovic. While Nadal, not being 100%, lost to Juan Carlos Ferrero, Djokovic rolled to the finals. He seems to have a knack of winning tournaments where the number 1-2 seeds fall. It's unusual to have such a solid number 3, which means that he is knocking on the door of number 2 and number 1.

Meanwhile, Federer has to spend sometime soul-searching, trying to get his game back to where it once was.

More Krickstein

Krickstein vs. Jarryd. Jarryd was one of those Swedes that didn't quite do so great in singles. He wasn't bad, mind you, but was probably better as a doubles player, often playing with Stefan Edberg.

I've only ever gone to the US Open once, and that was to an opening round. I remember that I was only feet away from Anders Jarryd. These were the days before Monica Seles got stabbed, when literally feet separated you from, well, at least a second tier star.

You can tell Krickstein and Jarryd were a product of the 80s. Their style was effective for the 80s, but not so good for the 90s.

Krickstein, as I've mentioned before, was a product of Nick Bollettieri's academy. He had a power forehand, a two-handed backhand, and an OK serve, and returned all right too. I had forgotten how he used to puff out his cheek as he served.

Krickstein, I feel, has become a bit of a whiner. Nice guy, overall, but he doesn't like being remembered for that match he lost to Connors in 1991. There's been tragedy in Krickstein's life. His sister died of cancer. His wife had cancer, but survived.

For a guy who had a powerful forehand, Krickstein really had as short a takeback as nearly anyone playing. He barely has any backswing. It's almost all follow through. Jarryd isn't that different either. If you ever see Borg (just was how Federer hits), you see how long their forehands are.

I suppose the interesting thing is how much Krickstein plays as he used to. The biggest difference, other than a lack of power that he used to have, is a reliance on a slice backhand.

These days, even Arias is playing the champions tour. Arias was one of those flames burning brightly, who had maybe two good years of play. Krickstein had a good start, back when he was 16-17 in the early 80s, then one pretty good year in 1989, and still played well, even in 1991 when he lost to, yes, Connors.

Arias's backhand, I recall, was this flingy thing that looked like his arm was coming off, and he was being punched backwards. He won the Italian Open, so that was a big deal. I don't know that Krickstein ever did that.

Jarryd, in the match, was injured, so wasn't posing too much challenge. He fought enough to keep it interesting, but not overall.

Watching these players, many quite a few years beyond their prime, you can sort of appreciate how they are able to continue playing, and yet, realize how the game is so different now, a more bullying style from the backcourt.

Tennis Channel's Central Court

Chris Myers is one of those sports guys who you feel you've seen forever, but don't know all that well. The danger of having a sportscaster host a tennis show is that he doesn't know what he's talking about. For many years, especially throughout the early 80s, tennis was broadcast like a second-tier sport.

By second-tier, I mean the tennis announcers assumed the audience was not a tennis audience but was a general audience, and that they lacked the patience to learn the sport. This made sense. There was no Google to query, no web to seek answers. Finding more about tennis required real research, possibly going to a real library.

I don't know how many times Tony Trabert had to explain the rules of the tiebreak. I'm sure the producers of the CBS shows asked him to do it over and over again. By contrast, baseball, basketball, and football never suffered from that. They never said "A field goal is worth 3 points. Most field goal kickers can only kick about 40-50 yards". But tennis announcers would talk like that.

Typically, they would pair an expert with a general sports announcers, whose primary responsibility was not tennis. Thus, Pat Summerall and Jim Simpson (who was Cliff Drysdale's early sidekick back before he paired up with Fred Stolle) and Al Trautwig (who paired with Mary Carillo to cover women's tennis in the early 80s) were needed to provide a common sports guy's approach to the sport. At times, the tennis expert was not particularly good. You might have Tracy Austin or Chris Evert, players that basically relied on their personal experience to tell you about the current players, but often had no idea how a certain player had played in the weeks leading up to the tournament. In other words, despite being top players, they weren't being professionals, doing background research.

Mary Carillo and John McEnroe really helped elevate some of the professionalism of men's tennis. McEnroe, in particular, would do his homework. It's not that Carillo didn't do it---she did, but that you wouldn't expect a world's former number 1 would actually do research. McEnroe had a good memory for players, matches they had played, and so forth.

So, historically, tennis coverage was spotty, and only in the 90s, did it begin to get better.

Central Court is Tennis Channel's interview show where players in various stages in their careers, from those that are in the twilight (Martina), to current players (Nadal), to up-and-coming players (Sam Querrey) are interviewed. Chris Myers shows he's done the research to find out as much as he can about the player, and that shows a respect to the tennis fan whose watching the channel.

What Tennis Channel is currently missing is a really good tennis instructional show. By good, I mean that they analyze how current pros hit the ball, and discuss how to hit the ball, and work with beginners to find out what issues they are having.

Beyond that, I've become more impressed with Tennis Channel, the more I watch. The commentary could be a little better (Leif Shiras and Jimmy Arias do the announcing). I like hearing Martina doing commentary, but mostly because she says what is on her mind. I'd say that McEnroe and Carillo are still the best at commentary. I miss listening to Fred Stolle and Cliff Drysdale gently rib one another. ESPN took a big risk putting two non-Americans (well, Drysdale did get American citizenship early on, but he was born in South Africa) as commentators, and leaving out a generic sports announcers (Stolle is Australian, but spent a lot of time in the US).

Admittedly, the channel has its hiccups. I was watching a Center Court episode with John McEnroe. After the commercial break, it went back to a different show. It's about instruction, I admit, but not entirely what I'm looking for.