The OtherArena

[jdw]

Interesting pair of articles on Roger from Grantland by Brian Phillips:

'Still' Life: The long autumn of Roger Federer

An Untimely Death

The concept of the first one is quite good. I do think his misses the most obvious examples of "still" that would be longer than Roger's was, and that are pretty applicable:

Steff Graf: from 1990 French Open Final through 1996
Chris Evert: from 1982-86

For Graf, it's probably the most hidden "still" that there could be: she won 12 Grand Slams in that period, inculding "triples" in three different seasons, and was ranked #1 five of those seasons. But in reality she wouldn't have been #1 in 1992-96 if Seles doesn't get stabbed. She doesn't win 12 more GS if Seles doesn't get stabbed. We tend to forget that Seles won 7 out of 8 GS she played from the 1991 Aussie through the 1993 Aussie and was so clearly #1 that it wasn't even funny. Steffi was "still" at that point.

For Chris, it was when Martin went on here monster run. Chris was still good enough to regularly beat everyone else, and was good enough to beat Martina occassionally on "her" court (clay at the French). Chris was "still", with just enough hints to give hope. But in reality there was a gap to #1.

Martina passing to Steffi could be argued, but that was a little bit different. One year Martin is beating her at Wimbledon and the US Open to make the argument that she was still #1 (Steffi was the #1 year end, but Martina would take several people's POY awards because she won the two majors head to head)... and then the next year Steffi won the Grand Slam, the Olympic Gold... Martina was still #2, but she also has only one more slam in the holster (1990 when Steffi got upset).

Anyway...

Interesting articles.

John

[guren]

Good stuff, John. The stabbing was a huge, history-changing moment for Seles, Graf, and the whole women's game. I really wanted to see if Seles could figure out a way to beat Steffi at Wimbledon when both were in their primes. Their only two matches at Wimbledon went like this:

Wimbledon 1989 (R16): Graf defeats Seles 6-0, 6-1
Wimbledon 1992 (Final): Graf defeats Seles 6-2, 6-1

glenn

[jdw]

We forget how young Seles was:

Born: 12/02/73
Stabbed: 04/30/93

She was still half a year away from turning 20. She was 4.5 years younger than Steffi.

Her march to the Finals in the 1992 Championship was a solid advance from her blowing off the tourney the year before:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Wimbledon_Championships_–_Women's_Singles]1992 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles[/url]

Didn't drop a set until the SF, where she beat Martina 6-2, 6-7, 6-4 in one of those matches where she could have easily rolled over after dropping the second set tie breaker. The Final was the famous no-grunting match. :)

I always thought the 1993 Aussie Final was the back breaker for Steffi, feeling like one of those old Martina-Chris matches when Martina was at her peak. Steffi/Chris takes the first set, then Seles/Martina rolls her in the next two. Up next on the slam schedule was the French, and Monica was pretty much unbeatable there by that point... that would have been 8 of 9 that she'd played.

One strange thing is how Steff dominated the Virgina Slims/WTA Championship before and after Seles, but seemed pretty indifferant in 1990-92 when Seles was sweeping it. Steff when out early in all of them. You do tend to get worn down as the season goes on, and perhaps bored by that point. But she was engared enough to go to the Finals in 1986, then win in 1987, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996. Five out of seven years around that three year airball.

It's strange... I was a Steffi fan at the time... Martin, then Steff. But it was pretty clear that Seles was a machine. I would have liked to have seen if Steff had that Martina rebirth that I always talk about in her: how Martina came back after the 1980-81 seasons where Chris went back to #1 and Austin & Jager came up. Steff had the physical gifts, and certainly was mentally tough in a legendary way. But sometimes you meet your match and it cracks your toughness... like Borg... or you just don't have it in you to kick your game to another level... like Roger. :/

Martina is special in that way. In a sense, Chris was as well. Martina getting so dominant made Chris try to pick her game up, and while she never was able to get back to #1, it did look like she found peace in being #2, winning some her and there, and continuing to compete.


John

[guren]

Brian Phillips, who was mentioned earlier in this thread, has another interesting tennis article that is up on the Grantland site.

The epic warfare of tennis' big three

In particular, the following passage resonated with me.

[jdw]

How many would Borg have won if there was no McEnroe? Evert or Martina if there wasn't the other?

Actually, Martina won as many as she did *because* of Chris: she rededicated her career to beat Chris and dominate. :)

John

[guren]

Yes, I understand your point. But part of what the article reinforced is that fandom is not rational. At some point I decided I was a Federer fan and therefore Nadal's dominance over him is incredibly annoying. And, it's even more irrational because Nadal is exactly the type of player and person I *should* like. For all the acclaim that Roger gets for being a gentleman, Nadal is more gracious when he loses and gives more thoughtful interviews. He supports Spain in Davis Cup whenever he is healthy enough to play. Nobody plays with more determination than him. Still, sometimes I like to play "what if" and wish he went away.

I liked Seles and Martina and therefore always rooted against Graf and Evert. I was a McEnroe fan so I always wanted Connors, Lendl, Borg and Becker to lose. It doesn't really make sense but fandom is often nonsensical.

Since it is Super Bowl week, I am also entertaining myself by asking what if Kyle Williams did not play in the NFC championship game. :-(

[jdw]

Totally agree with the point: fandom is irrational.

Exhibit 78: jdw. :)

John

[tdcheetah]

[guren]

[Tomer]

[tdcheetah]

[guren]

Federer continued his roll this year with a win at Indian Wells this week. He beat John Isner in the finals, who beat Djokovic in the semis. Federer has lost just twice this year - to Nadal in the Aussie semis and to Isner in Davis Cup. He avenged both of those losses over the weekend by playing some fantastic tennis. He had everything working all week. With the win, Federer ties Nadal for the most career Masters 1000 victories at 19.

[jdw]

French #7, Slam #11 for Raffey: 6-4, 6-3, 2-6, 7-5 over Djokovic.

It's kind of funny that we think of Djokovic as the young gun, but he's just a year younger than Raffey. Of course Raffey has a lot of miles on him, and I think it was Glenn that pointed out that baseline runners like Raffey often lose their wheels quicker, and without the wheels aren't quite the same.

John

[Tomer]

[Tomer]

Federer gets #17 and ties Renshaw and Sampras all-time at Wimbledon and regains his #1 status, tying (and will break shortly) Sampras' record on that end. Not too shabby...