More...(yawn)...first round action. Stories...beneath the surface.
[2] Roger Federer (SUI) d. Marinko Matosevic (AUS) 63 64 76(4)
[4] David Ferrer (ESP) d. Damir Dzumhur (BIH) 61 62 26 62
[10] Kei Nishikori (JPN) d. Wayne Odesnik (USA) 62 64 62
[12] Richard Gasquet (FRA) d. Denis Istomin (UZB) 75 76(5) 64
[13] John Isner (USA) d. Marcos Giron (USA) 76(5) 62 76(2)
[15] Fabio Fognini (ITA) d. Andrey Golubev (KAZ) 64 64 62
[17] Roberto Bautista Agut (ESP) d. Andreas Haider-Maurer (AUT) 57 76(1) 16 75 61
[20] Gael Monfils (FRA) d. Jared Donaldson (USA) 64 62 64
[25] Ivo Karlovic (CRO) d. Jarkko Nieminen (FIN) 64 64 36 64
[26] Gilles Simon (FRA) d. Radu Albot (MDA) 63 64 62
[28] Guillermo Garcia-Lopez (ESP) d. Yen-Hsun Lu (TPE) 64 62 62
Borna Coric (CRO) d. [29] Lukas Rosol (CZE) 64 61 62
Sam Querrey (USA)d. Maximo Gonzalez (ARG) 62 46 64 46 63
Pablo Andujar (ESP) d. Jack Sock (USA) 64 36 61 ret. (right calf)
Tim Smyczek (USA) d. Filip Krajinovic (SRB) 46 63 62 76(5)
Bernard Tomic (AUS) d. Dustin Brown (GER) 76(2) 64 76(3)
Federico Delbonis (ARG) d. Noah Rubin (USA) 64 63 60
Paolo Lorenzi (ITA) d. Yoshihito Nishioka (JPN) 61 62 21 ret.
Alejandro Gonzalez (COL) d. Dmitry Tursunov (RUS) 64 64 75
Victor Estrella Burgos (DOM) d. Igor Sijsling (NED) 26 64 63 62
Marcel Granollers (ESP) d. Jurgen Melzer (AUT) 76(1) 63 62
Jan-Lennard Struff (GER) d. Mikhail Kukushkin (KAZ) 26 36 63 63 75
Adrian Mannarino (FRA) d. Pere Riba (ESP) 36 75 63 62
Sam Groth (AUS) d. Albert Ramos (ESP) 63 76(5) 63
Did anything remotely interesting happen yesterday? Please let me know if it did. Just substitute the A's and the B's, come up with the winners and the losers and we move on. Unless you have a deadline to make and then it is just blah, blah...blah. David Ferrer...blah, blah...blah. Richard Gasquet...blah, blah...blah. Bob Bautist Agut....blah, blah...blah. You see how it goes.
But there are some stories of course. I am just being overly critical of the tennis that is being played today...modern times. Essentially I don't have to say anything more and I resist saying it as much as I can. But it comes to a head and then it just comes out of it's own volition. So I was going down the list of matches and just writing nothing but blah, blah...blah. But I actually found myself skipping some names because there actually are stories here...it just isn't about the quality of the tennis...yet.
First of all at the very top of the list is none other than the man himself who somehow finds himself the beneficiary of a "stacked" draw. Since he is also the beneficiary of somehow coming to his senses in the past year and switching to a piece of equipment that is closer (97 compared to 100) to being equal to his opposition's he is doubly blessed. If you compound his blessing with the physical facts that the racquet is going to fortify every single facet of his game...well there's the story. Let's just see how it pans out because as we know the best laid plans of mice and tennis players often go astray.
You noticed that the second name that I skipped in my "blah, blah...blah" fashion of writing about the first round action of the 2014 U. S. Open Championships is Kei Nishikori...but he wasn't the name I was glossing over. It was the name of Wayne Odesnik that I was leaving off because here is a huge story...one that is a carefully guarded secret by the tennis establishment itself. I will leave all of you up to your own detective devices...although I suspect there is a limited amount of interest because of a limited amount of energy available that is required to chase down the truth these days. Afterall, we have to work...we have to eat. We don't have time to track down all of the bullshit.
But Wayne has his story to tell but he isn't talking. And...he isn't talking for a very good reason. Number one...dead men don't talk. Number two...no matter what he says he is damned if he does and damned if he don't. They have got him wrapped up in a nice little Catch-22 of their own. But...I for one would like to hear his unabridged version of the story. The players have somehow come up with some kind of solidarity against Wayne and I suspect it is because he has or knows of some information that is very damning to the tour. Even the tour cut him some slack...and the question is for what reason? While much of the media speculation is that he "snitched" or in some circles it is often called "telling the truth"...I wonder if the reason they let him off was an agreement between the parties to keep certain information or names to himself. The nefarious topic that hangs over his head like the Sword of Damocles is the one of using Performance Enhancing Drugs. PED's...its that pesky little topic of conversation that refuses to go away. I can imagine the dirty looks that Wayne gets in the locker room from some of the RoboCop physique types...as they huff and puff themselves up in their self righteous egos. It's a story...going on five years now. Wayne happened to lose by the way to Kei Nishikori...I was pulling for Odesnik to go deep. Against anyone and that includes Roger Federer. I figure if he makes it to the top he can turn around and finger everyone...then tell his side of the story. I would like to hear the truth instead of the garbage being dished up as news these days. Even in this article the slant is there...the marching line of the machine.
"That led to speculation on the tour that Odesnik was ratting out his fellow players, which caused some to openly shun him." Rats are often in the eye of the beholder. It wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't a much bigger rat. I know the ITF wasn't above selling the sport down the river back in 1975.
Two other names that I skipped over in my "blah, blah...blah" rant were John Isner and Fabio "Fabulous" Fognini. I glossed over "Fabulous" for one reason only...he's a chick magnet. What? Isn't that good enough? Then I skipped over John Isner...and perhaps you are speculating that it has something to do with bottle's comments about him and his wearing of a certain sponsor's cap. Not really...although the subject of pimping and whoring is always an intriguing one.
This was the one match that I watched briefly yesterday and it was interesting in a limited sense. First of all it was the banal discussion of the commentators that sort of make things difficult to swallow for me as they hem and haw in their search to make a match interesting. But in their defense...they have to eat too. So the inevitable discussion turns to the movement of John Isner as compared to his smaller, quicker and more agile opponent. The commentators are careful not to step on each others toes. It's amusing. But they nod in agreement when they make a point in unision...Big John has two big weapons...his serve and his forehand. Astute fellows...they are certain to have their meal after the show. But good old don_budge is going to go one better here...Big John has a very big racquet.
Now here is the thing...here is the very reason why I point this out. I believe John Isner has a very big advantage over many opponents because of his size and the disproportionate advantage that having a huge serve is. Afterall...let's face it. Without this advantage he might be in line for his next meal unless he found his niche somewhere out there in the real world doing a real job. A world where his height was a liability...he might just be labeled a freak...unless he was in the NBA. But the thing is...if it weren't for that huge Prince racquet...if both of these guys were playing with Jack Kramers for instance...it was easier for two players of completely different statures and playing tactics to somehow find a balance in their contest. Isner is a freak of nature...he is outside of the control limits in terms of height but it might not be such an advantage if the weapons were not so geared for speed and force. If the racquets were tooled more for subtlety and nuance. Just a thought...don't be mad!
But as for the rest of it...blah, blah...blah. But the action will heat up...that is a given.
Originally posted by don_budge
View Post
[4] David Ferrer (ESP) d. Damir Dzumhur (BIH) 61 62 26 62
[10] Kei Nishikori (JPN) d. Wayne Odesnik (USA) 62 64 62
[12] Richard Gasquet (FRA) d. Denis Istomin (UZB) 75 76(5) 64
[13] John Isner (USA) d. Marcos Giron (USA) 76(5) 62 76(2)
[15] Fabio Fognini (ITA) d. Andrey Golubev (KAZ) 64 64 62
[17] Roberto Bautista Agut (ESP) d. Andreas Haider-Maurer (AUT) 57 76(1) 16 75 61
[20] Gael Monfils (FRA) d. Jared Donaldson (USA) 64 62 64
[25] Ivo Karlovic (CRO) d. Jarkko Nieminen (FIN) 64 64 36 64
[26] Gilles Simon (FRA) d. Radu Albot (MDA) 63 64 62
[28] Guillermo Garcia-Lopez (ESP) d. Yen-Hsun Lu (TPE) 64 62 62
Borna Coric (CRO) d. [29] Lukas Rosol (CZE) 64 61 62
Sam Querrey (USA)d. Maximo Gonzalez (ARG) 62 46 64 46 63
Pablo Andujar (ESP) d. Jack Sock (USA) 64 36 61 ret. (right calf)
Tim Smyczek (USA) d. Filip Krajinovic (SRB) 46 63 62 76(5)
Bernard Tomic (AUS) d. Dustin Brown (GER) 76(2) 64 76(3)
Federico Delbonis (ARG) d. Noah Rubin (USA) 64 63 60
Paolo Lorenzi (ITA) d. Yoshihito Nishioka (JPN) 61 62 21 ret.
Alejandro Gonzalez (COL) d. Dmitry Tursunov (RUS) 64 64 75
Victor Estrella Burgos (DOM) d. Igor Sijsling (NED) 26 64 63 62
Marcel Granollers (ESP) d. Jurgen Melzer (AUT) 76(1) 63 62
Jan-Lennard Struff (GER) d. Mikhail Kukushkin (KAZ) 26 36 63 63 75
Adrian Mannarino (FRA) d. Pere Riba (ESP) 36 75 63 62
Sam Groth (AUS) d. Albert Ramos (ESP) 63 76(5) 63
Did anything remotely interesting happen yesterday? Please let me know if it did. Just substitute the A's and the B's, come up with the winners and the losers and we move on. Unless you have a deadline to make and then it is just blah, blah...blah. David Ferrer...blah, blah...blah. Richard Gasquet...blah, blah...blah. Bob Bautist Agut....blah, blah...blah. You see how it goes.
But there are some stories of course. I am just being overly critical of the tennis that is being played today...modern times. Essentially I don't have to say anything more and I resist saying it as much as I can. But it comes to a head and then it just comes out of it's own volition. So I was going down the list of matches and just writing nothing but blah, blah...blah. But I actually found myself skipping some names because there actually are stories here...it just isn't about the quality of the tennis...yet.
First of all at the very top of the list is none other than the man himself who somehow finds himself the beneficiary of a "stacked" draw. Since he is also the beneficiary of somehow coming to his senses in the past year and switching to a piece of equipment that is closer (97 compared to 100) to being equal to his opposition's he is doubly blessed. If you compound his blessing with the physical facts that the racquet is going to fortify every single facet of his game...well there's the story. Let's just see how it pans out because as we know the best laid plans of mice and tennis players often go astray.
You noticed that the second name that I skipped in my "blah, blah...blah" fashion of writing about the first round action of the 2014 U. S. Open Championships is Kei Nishikori...but he wasn't the name I was glossing over. It was the name of Wayne Odesnik that I was leaving off because here is a huge story...one that is a carefully guarded secret by the tennis establishment itself. I will leave all of you up to your own detective devices...although I suspect there is a limited amount of interest because of a limited amount of energy available that is required to chase down the truth these days. Afterall, we have to work...we have to eat. We don't have time to track down all of the bullshit.
But Wayne has his story to tell but he isn't talking. And...he isn't talking for a very good reason. Number one...dead men don't talk. Number two...no matter what he says he is damned if he does and damned if he don't. They have got him wrapped up in a nice little Catch-22 of their own. But...I for one would like to hear his unabridged version of the story. The players have somehow come up with some kind of solidarity against Wayne and I suspect it is because he has or knows of some information that is very damning to the tour. Even the tour cut him some slack...and the question is for what reason? While much of the media speculation is that he "snitched" or in some circles it is often called "telling the truth"...I wonder if the reason they let him off was an agreement between the parties to keep certain information or names to himself. The nefarious topic that hangs over his head like the Sword of Damocles is the one of using Performance Enhancing Drugs. PED's...its that pesky little topic of conversation that refuses to go away. I can imagine the dirty looks that Wayne gets in the locker room from some of the RoboCop physique types...as they huff and puff themselves up in their self righteous egos. It's a story...going on five years now. Wayne happened to lose by the way to Kei Nishikori...I was pulling for Odesnik to go deep. Against anyone and that includes Roger Federer. I figure if he makes it to the top he can turn around and finger everyone...then tell his side of the story. I would like to hear the truth instead of the garbage being dished up as news these days. Even in this article the slant is there...the marching line of the machine.
"That led to speculation on the tour that Odesnik was ratting out his fellow players, which caused some to openly shun him." Rats are often in the eye of the beholder. It wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't a much bigger rat. I know the ITF wasn't above selling the sport down the river back in 1975.
Two other names that I skipped over in my "blah, blah...blah" rant were John Isner and Fabio "Fabulous" Fognini. I glossed over "Fabulous" for one reason only...he's a chick magnet. What? Isn't that good enough? Then I skipped over John Isner...and perhaps you are speculating that it has something to do with bottle's comments about him and his wearing of a certain sponsor's cap. Not really...although the subject of pimping and whoring is always an intriguing one.
This was the one match that I watched briefly yesterday and it was interesting in a limited sense. First of all it was the banal discussion of the commentators that sort of make things difficult to swallow for me as they hem and haw in their search to make a match interesting. But in their defense...they have to eat too. So the inevitable discussion turns to the movement of John Isner as compared to his smaller, quicker and more agile opponent. The commentators are careful not to step on each others toes. It's amusing. But they nod in agreement when they make a point in unision...Big John has two big weapons...his serve and his forehand. Astute fellows...they are certain to have their meal after the show. But good old don_budge is going to go one better here...Big John has a very big racquet.
Now here is the thing...here is the very reason why I point this out. I believe John Isner has a very big advantage over many opponents because of his size and the disproportionate advantage that having a huge serve is. Afterall...let's face it. Without this advantage he might be in line for his next meal unless he found his niche somewhere out there in the real world doing a real job. A world where his height was a liability...he might just be labeled a freak...unless he was in the NBA. But the thing is...if it weren't for that huge Prince racquet...if both of these guys were playing with Jack Kramers for instance...it was easier for two players of completely different statures and playing tactics to somehow find a balance in their contest. Isner is a freak of nature...he is outside of the control limits in terms of height but it might not be such an advantage if the weapons were not so geared for speed and force. If the racquets were tooled more for subtlety and nuance. Just a thought...don't be mad!
But as for the rest of it...blah, blah...blah. But the action will heat up...that is a given.
Comment