RAFAEL Nadal and I don't have anything in common. I'd like to have his biceps (actually I'd like to have any biceps), his bullwhip forehand (mine sounds like a violin with a string broken), his speed (he's nearly as fast as my wife at a Marks & Spencer sale). 

But what I took from Nadal, on Sunday evening, was some inspiration. 

Ever had one of those sporting days when the body doesn't respond. The legs yawn when you give them a command, hand and eye have a sudden divorce, and the simplest tennis shots won't work. It's like a dizzying attack of exhausted uncoordination.

So there I was, down 2-4 to my neighbour, angry, frustrated, thinking "forget it, it's just a bad day". This was the amateur in me, the no-stomach-for-a-fight, 40-plus hopeless hacker.

The great player despises defeat and so he amputates all thought of quitting from his mind. This is what separates him from us, his will, his ability to continue. I partially understand this greatness only because I don't have it. 

Nadal routinely hunts down balls I wouldn't even contemplate chasing. Of course, only when you chase balls can you sometimes get there. We see that every weekend in football. Ah, the kid's crazy, let the ball go, no way can he get to it, damn he did, jeez what a cross... GOAL. 

Anyway, at 2-4 and wilting, for no reason, I wondered: What would Nadal do?

Of course, he would fight. He'd push through tiredness, past pain, over irritation into that beautiful place where effort takes us. A feeling of reward, of having tried. 

So, through one deuce, two, four, six, I keep muttering to myself, "give effort", like a mantra I've just bought off an athletic holy man. I begin to feel better, more purposeful, as if I'm on a mission here, to see if I can be another person, a better competitor, just for a while. It's not perfect, some points I still serve underarm because of lethargy, but I keep feeding my brain with positivity.

Later, I tell a friend, Sharda Ugra, about this. She's India's finest sportswriter and a born-again jogger, and she understands. When her feet begin to complain on morning runs, she chides herself: "Hey, whiner, Gebrselassie won a gold medal at the Olympics running with bleeding blisters on his feet, so what the hell are you complaining about?"

Maybe we all sometimes call out for help from a distant champion in times of stress. Maybe for fleeting minutes, on a court, during a run, we can imitate them and become someone else, a better version of ourselves. Maybe it's when we understand there's a potential in us we don't explore sufficiently. 

I pushed that evening, I also won, but really, at the risk of death by cliche, the victory lay in just the pushing. Sport is mental, I write that every week, but here was a demonstration of it. 

Later that night, despite a hurting knee, Nadal still took Andy Murray to three sets in the Rotterdam final. He kept pushing. I wondered, when he's in pain, who does he think of? 

reply

MUCH has been written about last Sunday’s Australian Open final. Mostly about the emotional outpouring of tears by Roger Federer.

Was he wrong to cry? Many people have chosen to salute Federer’s tears as a sign of a athlete’s mortality. Others have decided to vilify the man for attempting to steal the moment away from Rafael Nadal.

As Nadal embraced Federer to console him and as the poignancy of that moment struck me, I could not help but compare the two men. Comparisons between athletes are always difficult to justify, they require in-depth research and imagination coupled with a good dash of relativism.

It got me thinking, just how good is Nadal at this age? Compared not just to Federer but to the previous tennis greats over the last 50 years.

At 22 years and eight months, the Spaniard has already collected six grand slams (four French Open, one Wimbledon and one Australian Open) on three different surfaces (hard court, grass and clay).

Compare Nadal to the nine best tennis players and former world number ones in the open era, and at this age he is ahead of everyone, except Borg.

Is it presumption of us to think then that Nadal is a better player than Federer?

After all, athletes are judged on their performances. They are judged on numbers. Which was why it probably hurt Federer so much when he lost to Nadal.

For Federer, he wanted that number 14. 13 just isn't enough.

And for Nadal, it's currently six and counting.

1. Jimmy Connors 

At this age, Connors had only won three slams, albeit in the same year in 1974. The American missed out on a possible calendar year grand slam after missing the French Open that year due to a ban imposed on him.

2. Bjorn Borg

As the player most often compared to Nadal, it is perhaps fitting that the Spaniard’s record at this age is matched by the Swede.

With six slams won at Wimbledon and the French Open along with two finals appearance at the US Open, Borg ties Nadal’s tally though Nadal has been victorious on three different surfaces.

3. John McEnroe

Another left-handed player like Nadal and Connors, the controversial McEnroe’s five-set final’s victory against Borg at the All England Club in 1981, his first Wimbledon title, ended Borg’s record of five consecutive titles there.

4. Ivan Lendl 

Despite competing in 19 grand slam singles finals and reaching at least one slam final for 11 consecutive years (1981-1991), Lendl did not win a grand slam title until the age of 24, at the French Open in 1984.

By Nadal’s age however, the Czechoslovakia-born Lendl had managed two runner-ups at the French and US Open.

5. Mats Wilander

In a four year span between 1982- 1985, the Swede won four slams.

This was followed by a barren spell of almost three years before Wilander won his next three grand slams, all in 1988.

6. Boris Becker

After a meteoric rise at the age of 22 and with his four slams, “Boom Boom Boris” was the talk of the town. 

However, the German would only manage another two slam titles at the Australian Open in the next seven years.

7. Andre Agassi

The only man on the list with a career grand slam, having won all four grand slam titles on tennis’ three main surfaces.

Remarkably, Agassi had only won one slam title by the age of 22, with his next title only coming two years later at the 1994 US Open.

8. Pete Sampras 

The record winner of grand slams, with an astounding seven Wimbledon titles to his name.

However, at Nadal’s age, “Pistol Pete” was lagging behind with just four slam wins, including his first Wimbledon title in 1993.

9. Roger Federer

Regarded by many as the greatest tennis player of all time following a brilliant run from 2005-2007 where the Swiss won eight of the 12 grand slams while making the finals in three of the remaining four.

Unfortunately for Federer, those three final losses came at the French Open to Nadal.

reply

In Melbourne

ROGER Federer and Rafael Nadal tire each other out - and they tire us too.

When their match came to a close, everyone was emotionally exhausted. My father asked me this morning if I cried while watching Federer weeping; I, in turn, asked my mother if she did. Who asks these questions after a sports event? 

Taking it like a man.
Source: Reuters

I like sport like this - big-hitting, big-running, big-hearted sport. I like it when we are reminded, because we do forget, that these impossible-shot-hitting, insane-tension-managing automatons are in fact men. Unlike us, yet just like us. I like it when men let go and reveal themselves occasionally, so we know what's going on inside. 

When he was inducted into the tennis hall of fame, Pete Sampras, usually dry-eyed (though he wept in Australia once), could barely complete his speech and broke down so often. In Malaysia, years later, he told me he didn't like it when people said he didn't have emotions. Oh no, he had them, he said, but to play his best tennis he just couldn't afford to show them.

I liked Federer's tears because kids should know it's okay to cry. Some fathers tell sons, big boys don't cry. Yes they do. I liked the tears because they were the tears of a loser. Winners weep, but losers are not supposed to. Not in public, you whinger, it's not done. But who made these rules anyway? 

Federer had cried before, in Australia, in Wimbledon, but this was different. Always his tears had come with victory, born of relief that the match was over, expectations fulfilled, journey done. But this was pain, this was emotion flooding his insides, with nowhere for him to go but stand in that crowded stadium, till he could keep it in no longer. 

People knew he was playing a younger man, now a better man, playing for his career, for pride, playing to become part of history before time claimed him, and it's why the audience reached out to him. 

My mother isn't keen on sport, but Federer she watches. Because he's like an old school gent.

Nadal's a new school gent. He spoke generously of Federer, as he always does, saying: "Sorry, was tough moment for Rog today. I know how tough must be there in important situation from him. But, you know, no, he's a great champion. He's the best. And he's, for sure, very important person for our sport, no?"  

I can't remember a rivalry in an individual sport as competitive and classy. But no doubt someone will write in and remind me. 

reply

RAFAEL Nadal, the winner, said after Friday's majestic semi-final, that when the match points finally came, more than five hours after the duel began, it was so tense he was crying.

Fernando Verdasco, the loser, who left every bit of himself on the court and yet could not win, came to the press conference later and still had the courage to smile. This was a great match, but as importantly these were good men.

If there is a part of sport I don't like, it is childish behaviour between competitors. Many modern cricketers lack civility, many footballers carry on like boys, and generally a certain unbecoming machismo infects modern sport. No one expects testosterone-fuelled youngsters to be saints, and losers must be allowed to stew a while. But this idea that you have to hate the other team, or sledge them to show your intent and aggressiveness, is nonsense.

Some athletes barely acknowledge each other after a contest, but tennis players always shake hands. They apologise after a net cord point. They tell rivals when they're serving with new balls. They stop, often, and let the other player go through when they are changing ends. This may seem silly to some (i.e. why apologise for a net cord point when you're actually happy), but they are useful courtesies for kids to learn.

Athletes can be both competitive and decent. And we saw that when Nadal played Verdasco. Tennis is not a contact sport and thus it is occasionally said to lack the intensity that arrives when bodies collide. Really?

This match was played at a high emotional pitch, the shot-making was violent, the desperation naked, but it ended in a hug. And this spirit made it even more beautiful, it elevated both the contest and the men in my view. Later, Verdasco hoped Nadal would be 100 per cent for the final. Later, Nadal said Verdasco deserved to win, too.

Both men were proud of each other. And we should be proud of them.

reply

Tomorrow Dinara Safina, sister of You-Know-Who, plays Serena No-Surname-Required in the women's final. The No 1 ranking is at stake and everything is up to the Russian. The American will play well, she loves finals, the Russian will simply have to play better.

If statistics were the measure by which to judge finals, then this is already a no-contest. The American, 27, has won nine grand slam titles; the Russian, 22, has been to a single grand slam final, in Paris last year. They have met six times before and Williams leads 5-1, and in their last two encounters last year (US Open, Tour Championship), the Russian only won five games apiece from the American.

Throw in the fact that the Russian, whose face can be even more mournful than her brother's, has a tendency to tighten under pressure, while Williams is known for the reverse, then we might as well give out the trophy today and take the day off off tomorrow.

But sport doesn't work like that, always there is the possibility of the miraculous. Roger Federer has lost finals, so anything evidently is possible. Kim Clijsters was considered too nice to win, a polite way of saying she lacked the heart for a fight, but eventually even she won a grand slam title.

Safina has to believe her day will come, that one day when the shots, the nerves, the luck, everything holds together. Meanwhile, the only thing an athlete can do is to keep putting herself in finals, time and again, till something happens. You have to first give yourself the chance for victory and she has. Ivan lendl lost his first four grand slam finals, yet persevered and finished with eight major titles.

The more opportunities you give yourself, the more you learn. And Singapore golfer Lam Chih Bing would testify to that. He kept pushing at the door of success, falling back, then pushing again, and then finally last year at the Volvo Masters of Asia, he broke it down.

Safina lost the French Open final last year to Ana Ivanovic, but says: "When I came there (into the final), nobody believed I can be there. Also me, I was like 'take one match at a time, one match at a time'. Suddenly you're in the French Open final.

"All of a sudden you want to win (and there's) all the pressure. I hope all the experience I went through in that match will help me for my next match tomorrow." Last year Safina might have wondered if she belonged in a grand slam final, now there should be no such hesitation in her mind.

Safina has to be aggressive because Serena will be aggressive, especially when it matters. Broken down into its simplest terms, tennis is about big points, about winning the moments that matter. Federer did it beautifully against Andy Roddick and the American acknowledged it. Said Roddick: "You know, he just came up with shots when he needed to. That's what he does." Serena tends to do it instinctively, recognising when her opponent is in trouble, when momentum is shifting, and lifting. This will be the key to Safina, holding back Serena and imposing herself.

reply

GRAND slam events are like living beasts, and in the second week they undergo a change of mood. Suddenly smiles are fewer, faces grimmer, nerves tighter.

In this second week, there is a lot more to lose, and not just money for grand slams are about history, tradition, reputation. But let's not totally ignore the money. You win the whole thing and it's worth (AUS)$1,620,000. For seven tennis matches? But then there was talk of paying Kaka 500,000 pounds a week. Really, the sporting world has gone berserk.

The good thing is at least the no-name, no-sponsor, cheap-hotel-living, hard-working journeymen get something back at grand slams. For losing in the first round you get nearly $20,000 and it might tide a struggling player over for a few weeks.

A few months ago, a young golfer, just starting out, told me at the Singapore Open that he hides his heavy hand baggage behind a pillar when he checks in for flights because he doesn't want to pay excess baggage. Beyond the well-fed champions, it's a tough world out there.

Anyway, back to the Open. The crowds are thinner because there are fewer matches. The outside courts are now dotted with junior players, most followed only by hopeful mothers and occasionally overeager fathers. These days kid start when they are even smaller than their rackets.

Which is why Rod Laver, most people's greatest-ever player because he has two grand slams (err, not two grand slam titles, but all four slams won in the same year on two occasions), made a necessary point this morning. He said that in an environment of big money, parents sometimes start focusing on those rewards rather than asking "Is my child enjoying her or his game".

Also out on the courts are the doubles teams, quicksilver fellows, who at their best look like they are playing rapid chess. Just as an aside, one of the best quotes in tennis came out of doubles.

When Peter Fleming, who won numerous titles with tennis' original Merlin, John McEnroe, was asked who the best twosome was, he memorably said: "John McEnroe and anyone." One thought: when they are older, and have a 100 titles under their stylish bests, wouldn't it be something to see Federer-Nadal playing doubles together in slam?

Meanwhile, we might have to just settle for both of them in the singles final this year. Which would be a first of sorts because they have never faced off in a hardcourt slam final (only two on grass in Wimbledon and three on clay at the French).

Federer will, I think, beat Roddick tomorrow night, but Fernando Verdasco, who plays Nadal, is emerging a genuine contender. Last year he was Ana Ivanovic's boyfriend; this year, after outlasting Andy Murray and today beating Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, he is the story of the Open in the men's draw.

This always happens at the Australian Open, maybe because it's the first slam of the year and all the players aren't ready. But always a surprise contender springs up. Look at some of the recent finalists: Tsonga (2008), Fernando Gonzales (2007), Marcos Baghdatis (2006), Rainer Schuttler (2003), Arnaud Clement (2001), Thomas Enquist (1999). None ever reached another grand slam final.

Nadal hasn't lost a set yet, but Verdasco has a few advantages. First, his serve is lethal. Second, Nadal's phenomenal lefty forehand, with its heavy spin, plays havoc with right-handers because it naturally kicks cross-court to their backhand, usually the weaker wing. But Verdasco is a leftie as well and has his own forehand that stings worse than a headmaster's cane.

Should be quite a contest, but I don't see anyone beating Nadal here. Except Federer on his very best day.

reply

Here's what was supposed to happen. I was going to finish my Andy Roddick article for the newspaper. Then have a rejuventating coffee. Then go up to Rod Laver Arena and watch the Federer-Del Potro match, which would have probably been a set old and nicely warmed up. Then write a blog on the match.

Here's what actually happened. I get a call from Chennai, India from my cousin who tells me: "This is ridiculous." Which is when I look up at my desk TV and see that Federer is leading 6-3, 4-0. Next time I look up, having just sent my article, he's 6-3, 6-0, 5-0 up. It was almost absurd.

Juan Martin del Potro of Argentina returns the ball to Roger Federer of Switzerland during their men's singles match on day 9 of the Australian Open in Melbourne on Jan 27. Federer leads 2 sets to nil as play continues.
Source: AFP photo.

Young Del Potro, 20, was supposed to trouble the old Swiss. But he got three games in three sets and seemed to stay longer in the interview room than the third set (which was 19 minutes). In those old stats books, this shouldn't be listed under "match" but "exhibition".

The Argentine shrugged when asked what happened. Federer happened, he said. "I had a bad day and he's Roger Federer". The Swiss won 83 points, the Argentine 36.

Roger Federer of Switzerland returns the ball to Juan Martin del Potro of Argentina during their men's singles match on day 9 of the Australian Open in Melbourne on Jan 27. Federer is one set nil as play continues.
Source: AFP Photo.

Thing is, tennis' Merlin was known to win matches like this once, just flying flawlessly through sets. In 2006, I remember calculating that on 10 occasions in grand slam matches he won 6-0 sets. Twice in finals, twice in semi-finals.

But I thought that perfect Federer was gone, but apparently he still makes the occasional visit.

Federer revealed that he always plays "better against better ranked players" and his logic was straightforward: they push themselves to beat him and so he has to push himself.

Roddick is next and Federer has a 15-2 head-to-head record against him. Except Roddick defeated him the last time they met last year. The American is serving huge (he lost just three points on serve in the second set against Novak Djokovic), and moving quick, but an American win is unlikely.

Both men have tremendous respect for each other. Roddick twice yesterday called the Swiss "the best ever" while Federer liked the fact that Roddick "hung in there for many years" when times were tough. Roddick in fact said he would like to play Federer because winning a grand slam by beating the Swiss on the way has a better feeling.

But the best line of the evening came when the Swiss said of the Roddick match, "it'll be nice to play someone my age". He's 27, Roddick is 26. The rest are kids. Well, at least Federer made Del Potro look like one.

reply

THIS is a great Australian Open. No, wait, it could be one of the great grand slams. And I'm saying that even on a day when there have been (so far) three retirements. Zheng Jie and Gael Monfils had to forfeit because of wrist injuries, Victoria Azarenka because she felt ill.

What we want from any sporting event is inspiring matches (like the Gonzales-Gasquet cracker), unpredictability (plenty of upsets), drama (the Jelena Dokic story is uplifting), yet enough of the best players around in the end for a fitting finale.

In the early days, the women provided the most dramatics, though the men promise some hot tennis in this second week (and not just because 40-degree days have been forecast). In fact, it's already started with a sizzling performance from Spaniard Fernando Verdasco, who today sent home Andy Murray after a five-set win.

A male tennis player (who better go unnamed) told me before the tournament that equal prize money for women was a joke. I don't agree. He said, among other things, that the men's tour has greater depth. But the women's draw is pretty tough, too, and that fellow is looking pretty silly after world No. 1 Jelena Jankovic (fourth round), world No. 5 Ana Ivanovic (third round) and world No. 6 Venus Williams (second round) didn't even make it to the second week.

Sure, Venus struggles down under, Ivanovic is suffering from confidence issues and Jankovic appeared a trifle unprepared. But they didn't just fall down, they were beaten by talented players who refused to be intimidated.

What it does, is leave the women's draw pretty open. Only Serena (9 slams) and Svetlana Kuznetsova (2004 US Open) have won grand slam titles among the quarter-finalists, and they're playing each other! This could mean the possibility of a first-time winner which is fun. It could also mean the odd no-name mismatch which is not so much fun. But keep an eye on Elena Dementieva. She has the shots, and the experience. But the nerve? Let's see.

In the men's, three of the game's Four Horsemen (The Fed, Nadal, Djokovic) are still around which is what we all want. But it's hard to tell who's going to figure in the Sunday night showdown.

The Fed, let's be honest, has had the most difficult draw to contend with. He had to deal with Safin, nearly got blown away by Big-Hitting Berdych, and now has No 8 seed Juan Martin Del Potro, whose serve seems to come from the heavens since he's nearly two-metres tall.

The Argentine is 20, hungry and on court these young players sense opportunity against Federer. Anyway, should he get past the big man, Federer has to play the winner of Roddick-Djokovic in the semis. Now's that another beauty: Novak is the superior player in technical terms, but Andy looks the hotter player in form terms. I have a soft corner for the American only because he's constantly battling for respect, so sentiment is making me choose him. But he can't beat Federer; Novak can.

On the other side, Nadal plays Gilles Simon, and while the Spaniard is smoking, don't underestimate the smooth Frenchman. He doesn't get the press of Monfils and Tsonga because his game, and manner, is less dramatic. But you don't get to be the No 6 seed because you have a nice face. Still, Nadal should get through and then faces an interesting encounter with the winner of Verdasco-Tsonga/Blake (on tonight). Are you drooling yet? You should be.

I didn't quite write in my previous blog that Federer will win the tournament (for a brief while an incorrect introduction accompanied the blog.) I was just noting the lessons we learnt from the best player I've ever seen. But can Federer win it? Of course. Will he win it? Only with some luck, but all champions need that.

You sense Federer wanted to play Murray in the final because he thought the Brit kid wasn't worthy of being favourite (and he's been proved right). But now he'd want to play Rafa because he relishes that rivalry, and also wants some revenge for his Wimbledon loss. But hey, it could be a Del Potro-Tsonga final, or Djokovic-Nadal.

That would be fine with me, too.

reply

IF YOU saw Rafael Nadal on Saturday night (when he slaughtered Tommy Haas) and you saw Roger Federer today, you might think, no way is the Swiss going to win this Open. Nadal was scary, there is no other word. Federer, who struggled and then toughed out a win against Tomas Berdych 4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-2, was average for two sets.

Then again, one day is insufficient proof of anything. Even for the great players, tennis is a day to day business. Against Marat Safin, the Fed had a good day. Today was a bad one. Difference is he knows how to win even on his off days.

This was the first of many sporting truths reinforced on a riveting day. Second was that for all the talk of Andy Murray's muscles and Nadal's speed, this old 27-year-old Swiss bloke (the Spaniard is five years younger, the Scot is six years younger) is not too bad in the fitness department.

Thirdly, while fitness matters, it's anyway about more than just the body. Baseball player turned maths genius Yogi Berra once said: "Baseball is 90 per cent mental. The other half is physical." Tennis is no different. Which is why Federer said: "I don't know how fit Murray is. I'll take him on any day in a five-setter. He's younger, so he's probably not so experienced. In the end it becomes very mental and I know that is where my biggest strengths come into play. That's why I'm always going to favour myself in a fifth set." .

Fourth, Federer looks a well-dressed, designer hair-cut, RF-logo wearing dude, with a game so beautiful (at its best) it looks made by Prada. But you don't win 13 grand slam titles unless you're a scrapper. There's no pretty boy inside him, there's a streetfighter. Asked what he was thinking when he was two sets down, he said: "I wasn't thinking of losing. The finish line was still very far for Tomas. I knew that. You can still concentrate on playing just the points instead of thinking, 'Oh my God, what's going to happen'."

Fifth, good players can play great tennis but usually not for long enough. Tomas Berdych, who beat the Swiss the first time they met in 2004, couldn't miss a ball for two sets even if he had closed his eyes. There wasn't a line he didn't hit, a winner he didn't construct. But Federer didn't panic because he knew that the standard had to dip, even a little. It did.

Sixth, champions are different beasts when it comes to major tournaments, and Berdych recognised this. As he said: "The best way to beat him (Federer), especially in a grand slam, is in three sets. If you leave him to win one, two sets then he's going to be stronger and stronger. That's just happened today".

One final thought. If fans of Murray, Djokovic and Nadal are grinning and thinking, no way is this model of Federer going to win the Open, here's an omen to make the Fed fans feel better. At the last grand slam event, the 2008 US Open, Federer also played a five-setter, also in the fourth round, and also won it (against Igor Andreev). He then went on to win the tournament.

reply

TENNIS players eat, sleep, practice, play, shop, shake sponsors' hands, lift weights, fiddle with Nintendo ... what else?

They're always lolling in the players' restaurant, showing tremendous hand-to-eye coordination as they text at 100mph, and watch television till their brains switch off. But do they ever read?

Most athletes swear they never read about themselves, but they all seem to know when something rude has been written about them. Perhaps that's the coaches' job. Fix the backhand, take the abuse (some players shout at coaches during matches) and read the papers.

But athletes do read, sometimes the strangest of things, and at the strangest of times. Dinara Safina apparently is being inspired by books her coach, Zeljko Krajan, once read, though he told a local newspaper: "I'm not going to mention them because maybe all of a sudden it gets out and everyone knows her secrets."

Notes are somewhat common on court. Pete Sampras once read one from his wife at Wimbledon, which began ""My husband, 7-time Wimbledon champion Pete Sampras." Alas, he promptly lost in the second round. Serena Williams pulled out a notebook at the US Open one year and looked through it, which earned her repimand from the umpire. As she said then: "He told me I couldn't use my notes. I was like, 'Well, it's not like I'm Harry Potter and my dad can magically give me notes to read.' It's something that I write myself. Just little things. What if I were to take a paper on the court and write something, what's the difference?"

The most bizarre story, of course, involves four-time grand slam champion Jim Courier, who is in Australia fulfilling his role as a television commentator. Once during a match, he actually pulled out a book, Maybe the Moon by Armistead Maupin, and started to read during changeovers. Perhaps he was simply bored with his game.

A cursory check of players at this Australian Open has revealed two fellows with startling reading habits. Croat Roko Karanusic is keen on Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky and German-Swiss poet Hermann Hesse, while Serb Janko Tipsarevic lists the psychiatry books of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe as among his favourites. Both men, of course, will have enough time to read, for both have already lost in the singles.

reply

YOU may not know Dominik Hrbaty, you may not have watched Dominik Hrbaty play, but you should listen to Dominik Hrbaty.

Why? Because his head-to-head record against Roger Federer is 2-1, against Rafael Nadal it's 3-1, against Andy Murray it's 1-0. Ok, fine, he last beat Roger in 2004, and says himself he hasn't beat Nadal since he turned No.1, but why spoil a good story. As raw stats go, they're superb.

Hrbaty knows tennis because he's been around tennis forever. So long that he actually played Sampras and Agassi, Yup, you're right, he's beaten them, too.

Now fading after 12 years on tour, an Australian colleague and I cornered him to find out what players think about, well, Roger for instance. Have things changed?

Said the Slovak: "There is no change. When you go to play against Roger you always know that he is the favourite, he is the one who has to win. Maybe the only difference is now when you go on the court with Roger you get one or two balls that you didn't get before. There is no other difference. (If) he will play the game that he played two years ago, then he is the same Roger again and no one will beat him. So it's all about Roger, there is nothing about the other players if you have a chance or you don't have a chance."      

Hrbaty (above) thinks Federer is still one of the best.
Source: REUTERS

Those one or two balls you didn't get before? Explain please.

"He miss sometimes the ball that he didn't miss two years ago, but it all depends on Roger. If he stops missing these balls, nobody will beat him again. It's only about himself. Usually these guys (at) No.1, they have to fight against themselves."

So is he on the wane?

"No, far from it. He doesn't have any injuries because he plays so relaxed. He has the all-court game, he doesn't work on the court like Rafa, (who) has to work for every point."

Everyone who plays Roger wants to beat him, he insists. Now it's the same with Nadal. "(Rafa's) playing well now, but now he's going to get much more pressure. It's different now to be No.1 and No.2 ... everybody watch him, if he going to be able to win in Paris again, if he be able to win Wimbledon again. And then it makes more pressure, you get more tired, you get more injuries.

"Rafa is kind of guy, he gets more injuries than Roger, and that can affect his future. I think also to be No.1 is much shorter than Roger be No.1 because he has to work much harder for it. If you don't have a talent like Roger has, then it's not that easy."

So what about Nadal, should he alter his game, flatten his shots of hardcourts for quick points? Nada, he says.

"No, never change your game, that is the first secret of the players. Once you change your game dramatically --- and this is dramatic change --- you're going to play shots you are not used to. Once you change something inside you which is not natural to you, it affect your game and you lose couple of matches, it's gonna affect your mind. And then it affects all your tennis."

Murray, of course, is the man of the moment, but Hrbaty is not yet convinced that he's the best man in tennis.

"When I play against him, he was always guy who tried to get you through his tricky shots, you know, drop shots. Sometimes faking that he cannot breathe, faking something on the court, making you think, 'Ah, this guy is down!' Playing mental games, you know?"

But I don't think now is the era of tennis that you can use the tricks to win the grand slam. You can win maybe the small tournaments, but grand slams, where the guys always play the best, it doesn't count. Everybody is so focused these days.

"I think he changed the last couple of months, and that's why he started winning. His game is not as perfect as Nadal and Federer, I think these two guys are much more in front. If he beats them at the Masters Series or wherever, that's one thing, they've won so many of these tournaments that maybe their concentration is going down. (But) grand slam is the history of tennis. Grand slam is where you're making yourself untouchable. That's something different, why I think Murray is still a step behind them. It can change quickly."

reply

In Melbourne

TENNIS is a great game. Really.

In Thursday's match, Venus won more points (89) than her Spanish opponent Carla Suarez Navarro (88). Venus hit more winners (28) than the nurse's daughter (26). Venus' fastest first serve (192km/h) was 33 km/h faster than the Michael Jordan fan's best offering (159 km/h). Venus had more breakpoints (8) than her rival (6). Venus is playing her 10th Australian Open while the 20-year-old from Barcelona is playing her first.

And one last thing. Venus is nine inches taller. 

Still, Venus lost to Carla tonight. 

Just not lucky Down Under.
Source: AP

The crowd howled in delight. The court commentator unthinkingly kept asking Suarez Navarro questions in English when it was clear she was not fluent in that language. (Silly him).

Then Venus arrived in the interview room and offered the kindest of words to her opponent. She is graceful, on court and off. (Serena is another story.) 

Venus said Suarez Navarro "played some really good tennis", was "super consistent", that she "took her opportunities and showed character". It was a tough loss but she wore it as well as she did the glittering ring on her finger.  

Maybe it's because this tournament comes in the beginning of the year, maybe it's because the surface doesn't suit her, but Venus and Melbourne just don't get along. Serena has won here thrice; Venus has never even got to the finals.

Maybe she's jinxed? Naah, said Venus. "I don't believe in jinxes, or witches or warlocks".

Or maybe she just didn't believe in herself enough tonight.

reply

In Melbourne

TENNIS players love clothes.

They are either shopping for them, commenting on them, wearing them or changing them. In one particlarly famous incident in England, a female player changed her shirt on court, with ballboys holding towels around her. (Officials were not pleased.)

Men's players are also known to lose their shirts, but mostly figuratively.

Then again, in a famous moment at the Australian Open many years ago, two Frenchmen celebrated their doubles victory by throwing their shirts, shoes, shorts and socks into the crowd. Fortunately, they were wearing briefs.

But the most controversial moment in tennis clothing must have been when legendary tennis togs designer Ted Tinling attached lace to player Gussie Moran's panties in 1949. He was promptly banned from Wimbledon. 

On Thursday, with this tournament yet to get deadly serious, conversation returned to this familiar topic.

Serena Williams, who once played in boots and, on another occasion, in a catsuit, is considered somewhat of a fashion diva. Whereupon, it seemed pertinent for her to be asked what she thought of First Lady Michelle Obama's two outfits.

Predictably almost, she was pleased. "I loved them", said Williams junior, whose press conferences are often an event.

"I thought the green outfit was fabulous. I really liked the necklace that went with it. Then her white dress, the one shoulder piece, I liked it a lot."

Then, she confessed" "I wish I could have designed a dress for her. I should have submitted a design." In case you were wondering, she added: "I  do more or less consider evening gowns as my speciality." 

Source: Reuters

Serena is used to conversation on clothes. Clearly, however, Rafael Nadal is not.

The Spanish star is not comfortable talking about image makeovers despite the fact that he is currently in the midst of one. And not everyone has been complimentary about the lengthening of Nadal's shorts (the sleeveless look has gone), and the shortening of his long shorts. In short, he looks like everyone else.

Source: Reuters

Without trying to sound like a fashion critic (it doesn't help that I am partially colour-blind), there is a raw beauty to Nadal's game, and his earlier look, part-pirate, part-Red Indian brave, suited him. The no-sleeves emphasised his muscles, and they were a sort of visual reminder of both strength and hard work.

It gave the sense of an unleashed Nadal.

Now, he looks more buttoned up, more civilized, but perhaps he thinks as No.1 he must look the part. Certainly, he is no longer a boy, but the best player in world. 

When told at his press conference that some fans didn't seem to enjoy his new look, he said he hadn't heard that. Then he continued: "No, I am feeling okay. I am feeling well. For sure, when you have a change, some people like, other people don't like. For sure with the sleeveless, not everybody like the sleeveless. Right now gonna be the same, no? But, anyway, is a change. But I feel good like this."

Then he concluded, and even Serena the designer might agree: "Important thing in the end is not the clothes; is the ball and racket and play well." 

reply

I SAT in Novak Djokovic's car last week in Melbourne.

Only pity was that the Serbian world No. 3 and Australian Open defending champion was not in it.

The 21-year-old, having finished his duties early at the launch of his signature Falcon range of adidas tennis apparel at Melbourne's iconic State Theatre, decided not to wait half an hour for his 4.30pm transport back to the hotel and hitched a ride in an adidas staff's car instead. He was rushing for evening practice at Melbourne Park.

So, myself and another Singapore journalist, initially planning to flag a cab down, were offered by adidas a ride in his chartered car to the Melbourne airport for our flight home.

This was last Sunday, on the eve of the year's first Grand Slam, the Australian Open. Any professional athlete would have rathered put their legs up and got as much rest as they could before a big tournament, but the ever crowd-pleasing Djokovic obliged his sponsors instead.

Even on the back of two weeks of dismal results (he was top-seeded at the Brisbane and Sydney Internationals but had upsets in both) and in the midst of getting used to a two-week-old racket (he changed sponsors from Wilson to Head at the beginning of the year), the Serbian still managed to entertain some 30 media at the launch.

He performed on a 2 1/2-metre high elevated tennis court, playing a short volley game at the net with an Australian player. True to his "clown prince of tennis" stature - thanks to his candid impersonations of his rivals - Djokovic hammed it up, hitting balls behind his back and through his legs.

In the next stunt, a falcon named Molly perched on his arm. "This is my new girlfriend," he joked.

After a few minutes, Molly was sent backstage and it began squawking incessantly. "She misses me," quipped Djokovic.

He's taken, girls.
ST Photo: Jeanette Wang

Batches of 10-minute long one-on-one media interviews followed, and the player continued in his professional and obliging ways, spending over an hour answering question after question. In his interview with The Straits Times, he answered every question articulately, though halfway through the interview he did seem a bit distracted.

I don't blame him. If I were in his shoes, the only thing on my mind would be the competition. The last thing I would want to do is spend a draining afternoon entertaining and obliging the media. On the day before a race, I usually just put my feet up, lie in bed and vegetate. You want to be as rested and relaxed as possible before the big day.

But, that's just me.

Djokovic? He's a delight and a true professional.

reply

In Melbourne

IT'S my first day at my seventh Australian Open, which is the most relaxed of the four grand slam events.

In glib terms, Wimbledon is traditional and sober, the French is stylish, the US Open is raucous, and the Australian is laid back.

This afternoon at the courts I saw a burly fellow wearing tiny shorts, his body painted blue and with a white contraption on his head which was supposed to be a beak. Only in Australia!

Nevertheless, this country has a grand tennis history and Indian veteran Leander Paes told me last week he likes playing here because Australia has the "most educated fans". 

It's a perfect day, but of course. Blue sky, light breeze and Mats Wilander walking the corridor in ugly shorts. Winner of three Australian Opens, three French Opens and one US Open, the retired Swede also has a mind sharper than a machete and is cooler than a beer-drinking Eskimo.

But it's difficult to sit and chat when the courts are echoing with slapped forehands and cries of despair, as if Melbourne Park is the set of some vast athletic opera.

So after a quick chat with Mats, I run to watch Ana Ivanovic, about whom the official Women's Tennis Association handbook says: "Has the most visited website of any sportswoman". There are no prizes for guessing that that is not just because of her fine tennis. 

Days at the Open, like Wednesday, are spent scurrying around, for Safin is playing, so is Djokovic, so is Federer, and all must be watched.

Journalists sit in the bowels of the stadium, virtually below centre court which is called Rod Laver Arena, and keep glancing at the TV monitors on every desk which relay the scores from every contest, allow you to hear the press conferences and let you watch matches on a series of courts. You can virtually cover the Open from your desk but that would be sport without pleasure. Better to sit in the stands and watch Federer do some magic in the sun. 

After watching Ivanovic and Djokovic (subjects of my ST sports column for Thursday), I race back down to the interview room. Safin is speaking and Safin is always fun. One year in Melbourne, he filled the player's box with pretty girls (usually players' coaches or family sit there) and peppered the court with sweetly timed shots.

And then, on a famous, fabulous, emotional night here in 2005, he beat Federer in the semi-finals, won the tournament, and made us believe his career was reviving.

How will he do this time?
Source: AFP

Asked how his life had changed after that 2005 match, the Russian said, almost ruefully, in his fractured English: "Well, his (Federer's) life also changed. Didn't went too bad. He won a couple of grand slams afterwards. And me, I got injured. So we went in different ways. He got much more confident throughout the years and I had to recover from injury. So I want to be in his shoes."

Now both men meet again on Friday. But they are no longer equals and Safin knows it.

reply