The Fed took a last minute wild card into Monte-Carlo. Interesting. I guess he really was happy the clay court season is starting. The big guns are all out. Nadal, The Fed, The Djoke, Murray, and JMDP are all slated to be there. Can't wait to see the draw.

The draw is out.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/en/comm...009/410/MDS.pdf

Most interesting name in the draw: Nikolay Davydenko, who returns after a long time on the shelf from injuries. He plays very well on clay, having been to the French Semis twice. He's ended up in the Murray Quarter of the Top Half, a Quarter that has a few other accomplished clay court guys to line up against Murray: Berdych, Nablandian, Mathieu and Granollers. With Cilic thrown in for good measure. A tricky section for Murray, for sure.

Djokovic landed in the "Espana Quarter" with Verdasco, Lopez, Montanes and Almagro. Lucky for Djokovic only two of these guys plays good stuff on clay. The enigmatic Ernests Gulbis lurks in here too.

I understand Federer changing plans to come here. He missed Dubai, so this replaces that on his calendar. That said he's gonna find some uneasy navigation through his Quarter: Simon, Monaco, Robredo, Warwrinka and Andreev can all make some very long matches for Federer.

Not to be left out, Nadal has some land mines in his Quarter also, including two guys who've beaten him this year: Monfils and Del Potro. If he's over his "disaster" in Miami, Nadal likes nothing better than exacting his revenge on his Mothers Milk surface.

Wow, the Fed finally gets a non-Easy-Cake draw. He's got Simon in his quarter, and Verdasco and Djokey in his half. I wonder if Simon is still the same Simon who's beaten the Fed twice in 2008...he certainly doesn't seem to be the way 2009 has played out. I think Djokey, the way he played at last year's FO is actually the favorite to come out of that half, unless the Fed's lost some weight pretty damn quickly and everyone just lies down for him.

I'm sure Rafa's chompin' at the bit to put JMDP back in his place. While JMDP's most wins have come on clay, none of them have been huge tournaments with wins over the big dogs. As opposed to Rafa, who's been the biggest clay dog on the biggest clay stages for years now.

Contrast this, also, with Murray, also in Rafa's half, who doesn't have a single title on clay yet, and whose FO record is one of the "most American" of all European top names out there...seriously, he hasn't been past the 3rd round yet in Paris. It will be interesting to see if the monster confidence of his impressive 2009 results will carry him to new heights on clay, or if he'll just buy time and try not to embarrass himself too much until the Big W rolls around, where he still hasn't been past the quarters yet. Nalbandian would be the toughest match on paper for Murray in his quarter, with his 4 clay titles, (I think Davydenko's going to be rusty) but you never know if/when Nalbandian's going to show up.

Safin/Hewitt is an interesting 1st round matchup, no? Monfils/Tipsarevic is a noteworthy 1st round, too. They haven't played each other yet, outside of the challengers, where Tipsy actually beat Bucky.

Tennis Channel Classics just replayed the 2006 Federer/Nadal Monte Carlo Final, and that was the last year it was a Best of 5 Set format. It's a good example of the more things change, the more they stay the same.

First thing to notice is that back then these two were nowhere near as chummy as they appear to be on court now. In fact, Nadal was purposely getting under Federer's skin with all his gamesmanship BS. You can see the disdain on Federer's face, some of the looks he'd shoot across the net clearly showed it. Makes me wonder just how genuine all their chumminess on display for the cameras is today.

Federer often gets advised from people the world over on "what he has to do to beat Nadal on clay", but here - and in their Rome match that same year - he did all the things people still advise him to do today. Of all the advice he gets, two pieces stand out above all: Get To The Net & Attack Nadal's Second Serve. Well, he had over 60 net approaches in this match (over 80 in the Rome match), and won the vast majority of those. But no mas. As for the 2nd Serve Attack thing: Federer won 57% of the Nadal 2nd Serve Points for the match, and in Set 3 alone Federer won, get this, 86% of the Nadal Second Serve Points. Yet he still lost the 3rd Set 6-3.

It's Nadal who's grown from this match and you can see it today. His serve motion then was almost instantaneous, walked to the line and up it went. No thought at all behind it - just spin it in. Now he's serving much more deliberately and with many more options on it, almost all of them designed to propel him forward into the court more.

But this is what hasn't changed: the astonishing, jaw-dropping nature of Federer's errors on the biggest points. In the 4th Set, Federer had 6-5 and deuce on the Nadal serve. He got a perfectly set forehand and plenty of room down the line for a simple winner to give him Set Point. And he hit it into the back wall. There was not only no reason for the error, but there was no reason for his shot to go long by that much. The very next point gave Nadal the game when another forehand sailed wide by feet, with again no forcing of the error from the Nadal short ball before it. Worse for Federer, Nadal hasn't changed either. The 4th Set tiebreak began with Federer holding, then winning both of the Nadal points to go 3-0. Nadal got back on Serve at 3-2, but then Federer got the mini break again to go up 4-2. Each time the pivotal moments came, the pattern that marks their rivalry became clear and still is in effect today: Nadal has more guts to go for his shots when he's down, while Federer plays more tentatively when the opportunity to close the door arises. This has to be why Nadal saves so many break points, especially against Federer. Nadal seizes the moment, while Federer waits for Nadal to choke the moment away to him. When that doesn't happen, Federer ends up choking the Big Points away to Nadal.

Two-Hander: I'm convinced more after watching this match you're onto something about Federer's moderate fitness. There were increasing Federer grunts as the match wore on, the kind of sounds we make when gasping for air due to lowering energy. There were a lot of framed hits and a ton of errors piling up. It's tough to blame Federer because his stroke production & shot execution had been so flawless that he really didn't need to be Lendl-type fit to win his matches over the last 4 years.

Yuppers, just one more piece of evidence to support my pet theory that Roger 2003-2007 is the reincarnation of Navratilova circa 1982, physically/technically dominant but mentally weak.

You gotta love this draw because there are some great potential matchups. While I have absolutely nothing against Del Potro, the evil little fan inside of me wants to see Rafa spank his bare bottom in front of 10,000 fans. "You think you've arrived? Uh, not so fast, Pablum Breath." Murray's poor results on clay are a bit puzzling since he did "grow up" on the stuff @ the Sanchez-Casal Academy. If Davydenko is indeed healthy, he will be a good test for the recently-found-himself Murray. Nalbandian might stand in the way of that matchup, unless of course he holes himself up in a monegasque patisserie for the week (always a distinct possibility). While it will be interesting to see if the struggling Simon can stay undefeated against Fed, I think a stronger challenge could come from Roger's countryman Wawrinka since Wawrinka is playing well, and clay is his best surface. The matchup I'm most looking forward to is Novak (fave player) vs. Verdasco (fave hunk). They've played four times, splitting 2 and 2, but you can pretty much toss the H2H out because Fernando's 2 wins were against a prepubescent Novak and Novak's 2 wins were before Fernando became BFF with the Vegas Tennis Mafia (I say that in the nicest way). David Ferrer has a faint chance of stopping Verdasco, but I'm guessing he'll just be a speed bump. Almagro, who was having a great season on clay last year until he was mercilessly humbled by Rafa at Roland Garros, has a much better chance of defeating Novak.

Interesting too are the MIAs. While Monte Carlo isn't mandatory, it does offer big bucks and beaucoup de points. Andy Roddick hardly needs the money, but all those points are nothing to shake a stick at. He could actually do well here, what with his much-improved fitness. I'm wondering why Sam Querrey chose to skip MC this year since he has QF points to defend from last year. The most surprising absence is Tsonga. Although clay is by far his weakest surface, he seems to relish playing before the home crowd.

Quickly about Tsonga, I was kinda stunned this week to look up his stats and discover he's won as many ATP matches on clay as Nadal has won French Opens: 4.

For him to play a lot on clay would be a mistake. Last year he pushed a chronic injury over the edge on clay and missed Wimbledon, which should be his best major.

So Tsonga would be well-served to practice at Roland Garros and get some grass training in when he can. I'm not sure what his plans are.

Rudy, I think your theory is very much correct. Of course, Martina overcame that weakness through...better fitness. Federer's years of utter dominance are behind him. But if he trains more -- for flexibility and leanness, not muscle -- he could come back fierce when he chooses. I'm not sure how much the back impacts that, but I'd think it's a bit circular, and if he improves the core, he'd be less prone to back problems.

VM, interesting match report. The sartorial aspect of clay season always amuses me a little, and last year in Monte Carlo Federer's whites were being bloodied, including with head wounds. Your explanation of Murray's challenges and problems on clay a week or two back is the best thing I've read on that subject. I learned a lot from it -- Murray has had a tendency to really push on clay (he and Monfils had a true over the top pusherfest once if I recall correctly) so I'm curious about him under Corretja.

It's a lively draw. I wonder if Cilic might pose a problem for Murray. Definitely looking forward to that Nadal-Del Potro quarter and hoping that Del Potro plays some strong tennis in it. Initially I was bothered he drew Rafa so early because on the other half I think he'd have final chances. But maybe it's best for him to get that kind of experience near the very start of the clay season so he knows what to strive toward on the way to Roland Garros. Yes I'm a bit of a fan of him -- on clay. If he conducts himself well he could gather major confidence from a loss.

Allez Gillou! And good luck to Stan as well.

I would disagree in that Martina became a fitness hound under the guidance of Nancy Lieberman at that time. Fitness has been somewhat of an afterthought for the Fed, even during those dominant times, as the Cruz article that voicemale posted points out...and even more so now as demonstrably proven by his current physique.

Thank you kindly, sir . My thinking on Murray's clay court chances is based on his status as a Counter Puncher (my friend who plays in the Gay Tennis League here in Los Angeles calls Murray "The Junk Ball Queen" ). I've often heard people use the euphemism of "Counter Puncher" for the Junk Baller - the guy that redirects your pace you give him with different speeds & spins on every shot he returns. But given the nature of the Junk Ball game relying on your shots to him, the Junk Baller isn't truly in charge of his own destiny. His need is for you do to what you do so he can make it look worse, and frustrate you. Michael Chang was an exemplary Junk Baller, and of the four Americans in the early 90's who made their mark, it was Chang who had the closest H2H with Sampras, 8-6. His junking drove Sampras nuts, much like Murray does to Federer today. Junk ballers love to, and in fact, need to play against Power to be at their best; they do NOT wanna play against people who are unrelentingly consistent from the back court (Chang was 12-12 vs. Courier, another Power guy, but was decidedly a loser against Agassi, at 7-15, who was as consistent from the back court as you can get). Since the Junk Baller is largely a reactive style and therefore needs to play off of what's given to him, it's not the kind of play that's best suited for a Best of 5 Set format. For all of Chang's accomplishments, he bagged only one Major, and he needed every trick in his book (like underhanded serving - the ultimate Junk) to pull it off. That's why until I see Murray either develop a Weapon Shot (unlikely at this point), or actually Junk Ball his way to a Major of his own, I won't fully consider him a genuine threat at a major until he wins one outright.

Since Murray feasts off of a big hitters power, clay will hurt him because the surface dilutes a big hitters power anyway. Clay (and also grass) will force Murray to come up with his own stuff to win, and it will be tougher because of the greater chances of inconsistent bounces.

I guess today certainly answers that question as 89th ranked Beck took out the woefully floundering Simon in straight sets. What's up with Malcolm In The Middle, anyway??



And Bono took out Buckwheat, also embarrassingly easily in straight sets.

With Mathieu losing in three to Nalbandian, today proved to be a pretty bad day pour Les Grenouilles, n'est-ce pas?

I still don't get the Buckwheat references to Monfils but anywho....he is so up and down its ridiculous. It will be interesting to see how Federer does on clay, given that he can't even really impose on hard courts the way he once did. The French Open isn't as wide open this year as Nadal should cruise through to his 5th title. I mean who is going to beat him on clay in a best of 5 match. That would be no one.

Funny, you seemed to understand the reference perfectly when you explained it back in the Indian Wells thread:


It shouldn't need to be spelled out since we always have showbiz-look-alike-nicknames for many ATP/WTA players, but there is nothing racist intended by me (and I assume others) calling him Buckwheat. The Little Rascals may have been made long ago, in a sadly ignorant and non-PC time, the way Buckwheat was created and used, but it's the reference to the scary hair, and nothing else. One could say that LeMonf acts immaturely and like a little kid on the court as another comparison, but I think that would be unfair to the Buckwheat character, since Buckwheat probably acts MORE like an adult than LeMonf does on court.


So in case you're still lost, or just pretending to be, here's why:



O'tay??

Its so flattering when people take the time and energy to dig through my past postings to try and prove a point. What I was saying in my "I still don't get the continued references...." was that I did explain how some people would find that offensive. So I guess I thought after that whole explanation, the sensitivity gene may have kicked off in you. Guess not. But, you gave your explanation and it is what it is. Continue to call him that. I'm just sayin...be careful who you say it around if its somewhere other than a message board. Many people don't give a damn how you intend it. Case in point:

In 2007, Louisiana State Representative Carla Dartez, a Democrat, came under fire from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People for calling one of her female volunteers "Buckwheat." The local chapter of the NAACP threw its support behind her Republican opponent, who won the November 17, 2007 run-off election. (From Wikipedia)

So in case you're not racist, or just pretending not to be I can still definitely see someone viewing this message board who will find it more offensive than I do.

Figures you'd find a way to be flattered even when being proven the none-too-bright back-tracker you so clearly are...but that's just you. I can't help it if people are going to look beyond my intentions. No one can. I'm not prejudiced against 80s rock or Irish people or Serbians when I call Tipsarevic "Bono," just like I'm not prejudiced towards red-heads or Italians or narcissistic Russians when I compare Molly Ringwald to Flavia Panetta or Maria Sharapova, just like I'm not prejudiced against French people or really bad sitcoms when I compare Simon to Freddy Nunez...I'm not prejudiced against black people in comparing Monfils to Buckwheat. It's all just a harmless, silly comparison.

So in case you're not an idiot with selective amnesia who jumps to ridiculous conclusions, or just pretending not to be you yourself said you saw nothing wrong with it in that same IW post, and in fact said you "were chalking it up to being too PC."


Sorry if anyone's misinformed about my Buckwheat nickname for LeMonf, but it's for purely follically-related mocking... and nothing more, nothing less, and I will continue to refer to him as Buckwheat. My apologies if you decide to read more into it than what is really there.

Keep digging, mdtwerp, keep digging.

I agree with the gist of this post. People who find any sort of humor "offensive" does not constitute racism, discrimination or prejudice. This Political Correct nonsense has reached such ridiculousness, with most ridiculous PC taking place on college campuses, that it actually undermines the attempt to guard against any genuine examples of these very situations. Offended sensibilities and sensitivities are just part of life - it happens everywhere to everyone in every walk of life. Those that think they have the license, or the moral authority, to gain some kind of restitution from those they deem offended their sensibilities are not to be taken seriously.

Racism, by definition, is the promotion of race. Either by elevation or suppression. The idea that referring to Monfils as Buckwheat constitutes examples of either of these things is just plain crazy.

And yet again something that could've been a productive conversation gets boiled down to name calling and attacking someone's character because they can't reasonably argue back and forth. I made a statement about it and moved on and had to be talked down to like I'm a 2 year old who can't say "hey...there's an issue with that". Now it has to be someone who is "lost" or an "idiot" and now a twerp. Whatever man. I did chalk it up to being PC but can understand some people who will take that offensive. Are we too PC? Probably yeah. I sure as hell don't need you or anyone else who decides to co-sign on it telling me how I should view things, or that I'm crazy for viewing things in a certain way, or that I'm not to be taken seriously. I gave an opinion. You gave yours back. We are both free to do that. Clearly we disagree and thats fine. Thats what happens. However, there is no need to stoop to elementary school levels with name calling. But, its my fault. Lesson learned. I will just make note of who I can converse back and forth with, occasionally disagree, and still have respect for each other at the end of each post without foolishness.

Oh and let me guess whats coming next? Some BS about me not being able to take the heat or some crap. Ummm no...I just like dealing with people I can disagree with and not have to fend off namecalling. Are we grown or what?

Like usual, the person who commits the act then screams victim. Your implying I'm "racist" was just as bad (worse, actually) as what I said AFTER you made the implication. If you don't want the name-calling, don't instigate it. Not too tricky, huh? For most anyway, it isn't. That's OK, I've always known who can speak intelligently, and those who, well....

Ah, nice to see that things haven't changed a bit here....

I'll bet Nadal is ready for revenge against Del Potro and I'll bet Fed's ready to remind people that he's been #2 on clay the last couple of years...the question is will the rest of the field step up and stop them?

Ahh...the "victim" response. I knew I should've put that one too as I knew either the "can't stand the heat" or "victim" response would be coming.

Seriously though...oh god Tennis Guy...I SO do not think you are a racist. That was just a snark at your initial "so in case you're still lost or pretending to be..." bit. All this arguing aside...I do not think you are a racist and apologize about that. Thats a very serious accusation and that was just me being a smart ass back to your initial comment. No I believe that your Buckwheat reference is a simple reference to his hair. But the initial poster (Xanthos I believe it was...correct me if I'm wrong) was the one who brought up this whole issue. I piggy backed on it and have brought it up again. If someone brings up something initially that they consider offensive, I take light of it and choose a different term. I don't want to offend anyone no matter if its being PC or not. If it bothers one person than I can be sensitive enough to say ok cool...won't use that reference anymore. Thats just me. That being said...that IS ok...and I know I'm quite intelligent thank you. Cuz like usual...if one happens to not agree with you, they must be lacking brain cells instead of simply being able to have their own differing opinion.

Anywho....hey Bryan...don't see you post much around as before. I hope you are well. Bryan and I have had some good back and forths too. Yeah...not much has changed. Ya know...just us boys pounding our chests a bit. You know how it is. All good nonetheless. We disagree and then are laughing about something else a couple days later. Its life. We will hopefully be seeing you add your commentary as the clay season gets into full swing. I too hope that Fed can show himself as still the best #2 clay player. His footwork is still superb and his ability to construct points should still do him well.

Remarkable resemblance. But calling attention to that (which I find funny) is along the lines of me noticing that Mario Ancic looks very much like Sal Mineo. Nothing racist about it. It is what it is.

No it actually is different because many people who refer to other black people as Buckwheat are doing it with racist overtones. Sort of like "Hey boy". Now in this case I fully take Tennis Guy at his word that it was just that hot mess of a hairdo (yes it is a hot mess I agree with you there lol) that Monfils has as to why he calls him Buckwheat. Yeah there is surely a resemblence in the picture. Its just that when younger generations take something that was originally created with negative intentions, and try to put some 2009 spin on it, it can still be tricky. I guess its just about knowing the history. I tell you what...you come to North Philly or East Baltimore and call some black person Buckwheat and you'll be lucky to make it out. Something tells me that ain't happenin though lol. Hell you come to my grandfather's house and refer to Monfils as Buckwheat and you will get PWNED!! Very generational. I guess I've always been sensitive to certain things and probably overly PC because I referred to a white person as a honkey when I was very young, and my grandfather tore me a knew one. Old school blacks don't play that. But tealsea...I just chalk it up to our differences in what one is going to find offensive. Another white person may not find that offensive. Another black person may. Thats just how it is. The whole "oh we are too PC these days" is just a way for some to dismiss other people's level of sensitivity, thus excusing themselves for feeling any kind of wrongdoing because they just chalk it up to the person overreacting.

So, be brutally honest with yourself: if Monfils and Buckwheat were white people with bizarre hair, would you be prattling on about any of this?

Now see had you been able to ask me that question without having to be so damn condescending, I may have answered it. But since you think that what I do is prattle, clearly you're not worth the time and you are saying that I'm not either. Ashame too because its a good question voicemale. Its a very good question that we could've really gotten in depth about. Perhaps in PM because I think others have grown tired of this whole Monfils/Buckwheat stuff. Apologize to everyone cuz yeah I started it. Me and my big mouth.

Onto the tennis and the clay. ALLEZ!!!

You're exactly correct. In this case, prattle is exactly what you did. You made this an issue about "racism" when it's crystal clear that no such thing existed. And this lame answer you gave to my question proves the point I made earlier: your being offended does not translate into racism on the part of someone else simply because you don't share their sense of humor. Where do you get off equating your offended sensibilities or sensitivities with outright racism? What gives you that entitled presumptive High Ground to infer or insinuate a charge like that?

Here's the order of play for tomorrow:

WEDNESDAY, 15 APRIL, 2009

COURT CENTRAL start 10:30 am
[7] F Verdasco (ESP) vs P Kohlschreiber (GER)
A Seppi (ITA) vs [2] [WC] R Federer (SUI)
[1] R Nadal (ESP) vs J Chela (ARG)
[WC] I Ljubicic (CRO) vs [5] J Del Potro (ARG)
[WC] M Gicquel (FRA) / P Mathieu (FRA) vs [2] D Nestor (CAN) / N Zimonjic (SRB)

COURT DES PRINCES start 10:30 am
J Tipsarevic (SRB) vs S Bolelli (ITA)
[12] D Nalbandian (ARG) vs M Granollers (ESP)
M Gicquel (FRA) vs [10] D Ferrer (ESP)
M Safin (RUS) vs [Q] N Lapentti (ECU)
S Aspelin (SWE) / W Moodie (RSA) vs [7] J Knowle (AUT) / A Ram (ISR)

COURT 2 start 10:30 am
A Montanes (ESP) vs [WC] J Lisnard (MON)
I Karlovic (CRO) vs [8] N Davydenko (RUS)
[Q] F Fognini (ITA) vs [14] M Cilic (CRO)
[3] L Dlouhy (CZE) / L Paes (IND) vs A Montanes (ESP) / T Robredo (ESP)

COURT 9 start 11:00 am
[13] S Wawrinka (SUI) vs M Vassallo Arguello (ARG)
[8] J Coetzee (RSA) / J Kerr (AUS) vs N Djokovic (SRB) / V Troicki (SRB)
N Davydenko (RUS) / O Marach (AUT) vs [6] M Fyrstenberg (POL) / M Matkowski (POL) - After Suitable Rest


Any matches stand out for anyone?

Mdterp,
At the risk of prolonging the discussion on the description of the Monfils hairstyle, it was not me (your post#19) who initiated the discussion nor bought up the Buckwheat issue here at any time.

I am not from North America,nor am I substantially well read on its culture and had never heard of that descripitive slang term before I read it here, the first time it was used, a few months ago.

Furthermore, I have been working in London for the past 12 months and my posts here have been rare although I did manage,from time to time, to keep abreast of the issues.Now back home I plan to resume postings here in the future, on tennis issues.

In your post #19 you invited correction and I am thus doing so now.

Monfils lost to Tipsarevic 1 and 3?? I love that Dostoevsky-tattooed Serb, but come on. To me, Monfils is like the Gabe Kaplan of tennis. Gabe was an incredible athlete but not a very good baseball player. Same with Monfils -- the gap between his athletic talent and tennis talent just makes you shake your head.

Oscar Hernandez didn't provide much resistance to Djokovic, but he sure made the match pleasant to watch. Wow, good-looking guy. But with a ranking somewhere near triple-digits and a grand total of 13 Masters Series matches played in a decade-plus long career, that might be the first and last time I'll see the handsome Spaniard. Ah, but surely that nation has plenty more lookers waiting in the wings.

Rafa's only losses on the red stuff in years were the result of some sort of physical impairment (fatigue in Hamburg vs. Federer and a blister against Ferrero). So the only question with any serious intrigue this claycourt season is will Rafa go undefeated? He plays a very tough clay schedule, so avoiding physical problems won't be easy, but that makes going undefeated all the more impressive.

The guy who played Mr. Kotter on Welcome Back, Kotter played baseball?








I'm guessing you meant the amazing looking Gabe Kapler.




What's really interesting, and I never knew, is that the guy who player Mr. Kotter was a star baseball player in high school and tried for two years to make it, but couldn't even break into the minors.

Apologies xanthos. Welcome back.

Wow, so Ljubicic took out JMDP?!?

I wouldn't have seen that coming. I wonder if Rafa's breathing a sigh of relief or of frustration, or both, since he didn't get to exact his revenge on Del Potro. Anyone see the match? Ljubicic has been playing well this year, with some close matches with top dogs, kind of like he's getting some new life into his floundering career, like the close match he had with Murray a few weeks ago. Maybe this shouldn't have been that much of a surprise.

It does look like Nalbandian will be the tough guy in that quarter and in the half for Rafa, jury's still out on Davydenko. He did beat Karlovic in straight sets, but the dirt does neutralize the big guy's weapon. I'm surprised that Cilic lost so tamely to 108th ranked Fognini, I wonder if something was up physically or just a really bad day at the office. Hard to guage 'cause he's so new, and hasn't done jack on clay yet, so it may be that Cilic is just really inexperienced and weak on the dirt.

Ya know...when I posted that order of play for today...for some reason the JMDP/Ljuby match was one that I kept glancing over like hmm. Ljuby really should've been more of a presence on the tour than he is. I fear now its too late in his career to do anything of significance. So I would like to say I was surprised but for some reason that one I was like I could see Ivan winning that one. I think Del Potro is still maturing in his game. He definitely has the weapons but Murray had these kinds of losses when he was trying to get all his stuff together.

Which Nalby will show up this tournament? Another guy who should've had more of a presence on the tour. What are Nalby's clay court results like? I can't even recall if he does well on the dirt.

Great for Ljubicic. He's another guy who switched to a Head racquet a year & a half ago and watched his ranking tank right after that. But clay is a surface he's done very well on before. In fact, he made it to the French Open Semi-Finals in 2006, losing to Nadal in 4 Sets. That he took a set from Nadal on clay is something noteworthy in its own right.

I saw the first set of the match and it looked like Del Potro was having (and will probably continue to have) troubles with sliding. Maybe not so much the actual sliding, but recovering from the slides to change direction looks much tougher for those guys that have the higher Center of Gravity. And like Tennis Guy pointed out with Karlovic, the surface doesn't really help Del Potro's hefty serve or huge, flat ground strokes.

Neither Federer nor Nadal looked all that sharp today, but still won fairly convincingly. Each had an unusually high error count by their standards, which could be attributed to the fact that neither of them entered the Doubles Tournament this year as they have in years past. They might have needed their first Singles matches to make the adjustments from the hard courts.

And I noticed a huge change in Nadal today: there's now no tape on the knees.

Order of play for tomorrow:

THURSDAY, 16 APRIL, 2009

COURT CENTRAL start 10:30 am
[7] F Verdasco (ESP) vs [10] D Ferrer (ESP)
[13] S Wawrinka (SUI) vs [2] [WC] R Federer (SUI)
[1] R Nadal (ESP) vs [Q] N Lapentti (ECU)
[4] A Murray (GBR) vs [Q] F Fognini (ITA)
M Cilic (CRO) / N Kiefer (GER) vs [2] D Nestor (CAN) / N Zimonjic (SRB)

COURT DES PRINCES start 10:30 am
[Q] A Beck (GER) vs J Monaco (ARG)
A Montanes (ESP) vs [3] N Djokovic (SRB)
S Bolelli (ITA) vs [WC] I Ljubicic (CRO)
[12] D Nalbandian (ARG) vs [8] N Davydenko (RUS)

COURT 2 start 1:30 pm
F Lopez (ESP) / F Verdasco (ESP) vs [4] M Bhupathi (IND) / M Knowles (BAH)


Now we're getting into some interesting matches I look forward to seeing. Verdasco vs Ferrer, Wawrinka vs Rogelio, and Nalby vs Davy.

So, how about that tennis.

Believe it or not, Terp, I'm kinda with you in this instance. In the sense that I just don't like the Buckwheat reference casually thrown around and fiercely defended by what seems like mostly white people. It's telling that the only other regular black poster here, Dedric, agrees with you, but no one stops to think of that, they're mostly just responding personally to you.

I don't know if it's because you shoot your mouth off so people have issues with you, or white privilege, or what. When the Peer thing blew up you were blase about some stuff that really sets my blood boiling. After days of seeing casual conversational references on various tennis boards/sites about protecting her from "Arab nuts" (just an allowed version of "crazy n-----" in my book), I didn't like reading from you that only February's latest round of attacks from Israel was "a little too far" (400 kids or so too far?) or whatever. And that's just isolating you, which is kind of unfair. That thread really pissed me off, and it was relatively benign on the surface.

If that makes me PC -- why, because someone doesn't like hearing it? -- so be it. I've always thought PC is bullshit, a term used to try to silence anyone who doesn't agree with the one who is making the PC accusation. It's like playing a card. I will get take-no-prisoners raw with friends of various persuasions when talking about anything, and the funnier the better. In mixed company, like this board, people can and should say whatever the hell they want, too -- but if you say provocative stuff, whether you're the one offending or being offended, be ready to back it up.

Anyway, it's good to see direct argument, and see things also moving on. Take or leave any of this stuff I'm throwing in the mix.

Ljubicic played a great match today. His serve and net numbers were phenomenal. More than that, he played a smart match. He came in with a bunch of tactics and used them, asserting his power, and using drop shots to pull Del Potro around. Del Potro was just such a loser out there. After crediting him so much from his Davis Cup performances on clay and talking him up, I was pretty disgusted with his slumpy attitude and all around brainless malaise today. He kept hitting to Ljubiic's best shot, the backhand, for a start. Ljubicic is a good clay player -- his best result at a major was the semis at Roland Garros. Del Potro still has the ability to make waves this season, but needs to grow the hell up and use his brain. Not sure he will.

The other wild match so far was Safin-Lapentti. A true epic. Nico Lapentti is amazing. One of the oldest guys on tour and fiiiine. Safin was Safin. Serving 4-0 up in the third set and in total control, he makes an error and starts looking pissy. All it takes is one error for him to do that, even when that far ahead. Sure enough Lapentti stormed back and took the match in a final tiebreak, after 3-plus hours that included a delay when someone in the stands passed out. Marathon man Lapentti has been grinding through one three-set marathon match after another, this last one the longest yet. His reward? Nadal.

Well, now I know Roger is truly in a slump. He just lost to his butt-boy.

Dedric!!!! That was the one who made the original comment. I knew it was someone who really doesn't post often and thats why I think I thought of xanthos at first. Thanks Two Hander. I totally respect what you had to say, and you make some good points. I don't think anyone is right or wrong. An opinion is an opinion which is shaped by your cultural background, lifestyle, and upbringing. When it comes to politics and issues of race, there will always be disagreements. But, I'm glad that you and I can agree to disagree, it not get elementary, and keep it movin. Hope all is well with ya babe.

As for Rogelio...its not even surprising anymore.

Thanks Terp, and likewise.

If anyone Tivo'd it, Lapentti vs. Safin is really worth watching. Some amazing points and swings in momentum. Safin really went from the sublime to the ridiculous from point to point. Hats off to both of them.

I've been woefully wrong about a lot in this tournament, but called Wawrinka def. Federer when the draw came out. Federer is on his honeymoon, while his frequent doubles partner and compatriot Stan got to the finals of Rome last year and just played some of his best tennis in Miami. Plus you know Federer would rather lose on his honeymoon to his Best Man Stan so to speak.

Murray really isn't impressive out there. Voicemail nailed it about his counterpuncher nature not translating. You'd think it would, with all the Mecir comparisons out there. But most of what seems natural about Murray's game on hard courts turns contrived on clay. He can improve though.

Looks like Verdasco is here to stay this year. He shredded Ferrer.

I guess the Fed isn't really all that glad to be on the clay after all. Now I'm sure he'll be saying he can't wait to be on the grass.

I only saw the scoreboard but couldn't believe that Murray was down 0-5 to Fognini in the first set! Good sign for Murray, though, to get that far down on what is probably his least favorite surface, and yet still find a way to win that first set, 13-11 in a tiebreaker!

Not to derail the thread again, but since covering the whole "Buckwheat" issue in another thread, I thought nothing of using it for hair-mocking again in this thread. While this thread was never intended to be a social experiment, I find it almost ironic that the one teeny-tiny thing I was concerned might be offensive after having posted it, in the very, very, very slightest (if at all) to people (and no, it wasn't the ongoing "Buckwheat" nickname for LeMonf) hasn't even been mentioned, and yet the whole Buckwheat drama has somehow become the unintended focal point. The fact that no one even mentioned it (and I'm willing to bet might not even know what it is) while LeMonf hair comparisons has drawn such ire....actually speaks volumes of where society is these days. I have more to say on this because of some strong, and I believe unfair wording regarding Buckwheat-gate, but I'll save it for later...since, it appears I might have contracted mild Hingisitis. But I really do wonder if people will even notice the little faux-pas I'm talking about earlier in the thread, which, BTW, I also meant no offense by, and will explain later if need be. This could be very telling.

And while we're on the topic of look-alikes...is it me, or does Verdasco have an uncanny resemblance to a somewhat younger version of Carlos Bernard from the TV show 24?

Hmmm thats interesting. You have me intrigued wondering if I may have overlooked something. I wouldn't doubt it. Because I am blatino and gay I tend to find I sometimes am able to catch onto those things more often then if they are against someone else. I thought I was pretty good at picking up on all of that kind of stuff though. But you've got me intrigued Tennis Guy. Please fill us in on that at some point.

Don't be do damn coy. I like Hingisitis (we differ regarding that malady).

Since I'm playing catchup with a thread that has more curves than the Tour de France, I have no idea what you're talking about. (I unconsciously went away for a while when I saw Buckwheat teasing his way back into the forum because I didn't think it was funny and could see a storm on the horizon. But I love the separated-at-birth you came up with. Anyone remember Spy magazine?)

At this point, anything in this thread is sheer candy, because it contains a giant pic of Gabe Kaplan, and the phrase "Gabe Kaplan of tennis." I'd love it if there was a Gabe Kaplan of the ATP. Or even a pre-Scientology Travolta.

Snicks, if Wawrinka is Roger's butt-boy, he's got great taste in butt-boys. Wawrinka's and Roddick's are two of the finest asses on tour.

Stan is a brick house.

oops, a blond moment there with "Gabe Kaplan" <tee hee>

Anyway, why is it that fitness (or more specifically, lack of) isn't discussed in analysis of men's matches? I lost count long ago of how many times "dubious commitment" or "wavering focus" have been discussed as reasons for David Nalbandian's spotty results yet can't think of a single analysis that pointed to the very obvious spare tire he's lugging around. Today on tennis.com, Peter Bodo theorizes that Federer's loss to Wawrinka resulted from an attempt to net-rush more and that Fed doesn't have it down pat quite yet. No mention whatsoever of the Paddington paunch that's snacked up on Roger. Do so-called tennis "experts" really believe that an extra 10-15 pounds doesn't make a difference at the uppermost level of the game? Justin "Ballwasher" Gimelstob can go on and on about Andy Roddick's improved fitness and how much it's helped his game yet won't utter a peep about how much more (by orders of magnitude) Andy's BFF Mardy needs to get a lot fitter and drop (at least) 15 pounds. Perhaps even a fully fit Federer would have lost to Wawrinka because of his still a bit rusty net-rushing. But regardless of strategy, a paunchy Federer is vulnerable to a solid, in-form player like Wawrinka. And for an analyst to pretend he doesn't notice Roger's burgeoning gut is both a bit weird and somewhat dishonest.

And oh yeah, I love Stan's big butt and thick legs.

BSR - What I've come to understand about Bodo is simple: he's the biggest glommer in the history of tennis. The fact this gas-bag has been glomming onto anyone that is a name, might become a name, or has been a name has allowed him to cash in on his Rolodex for 30 years. And his column on this subject is hysterical: he's been the loudest at clamoring for Federer to play more at the net for years, especially against Nadal. And for this air-horn to say Federer doesn't quite have the hang of it gives you a clue into his cluelessness (or pretentiousness - take your pick). The idea that he says it about Federer at 27 years old makes you wonder if Peter Bozo (sorry, a Freudian Slip) wonders if Federer might be a little late to the party in developing such a difficult skill as Volleying? But everyone at Tennis Magazine drinks the Federer Kool-Aid daily, by the vat. None more so than Kamakshi Tandon, who compiles the magazine's website feature "The Ticker", practically chronicling Federer's every flatulence as newsworthy. Snicks out to look into a job there

Federer himself doesn't come into the net more often for a simple reason which he himself knows: he's not a Serve & Volley Player. He is capable at the net, but not accomplished at the net. Way too often he drops his wrist, netting far more volleys than Sampras, Becker or Edberg would - all of whom are accomplished volleyers. No one less that Navratilova, another great volleyer, would tell Bozo that Roger's chances of developing a skill that takes literally years to perfect for Tour Level Play at this stage of his career are about as equal as Bozo writing something genuinely interesting to read. It aint gonna happen. And Federer knows it. It's to Federer's credit that he basically ignores all of these armchair media coaches who keep insisting they know how to fix what they think is ailing him. Federer ought to tell the very next one of these fools who says something this stupid to get their racquet and take the court with him, and have them show him how easy it is when they have to do it .

I don't visit this board much any more because the personal antagonism tends to overwhelm what are still many very insightful and interesting posts about tennis itself. But I have to say, Terp I am with you 100% on this. Even if it's not racist, it certainly has racial overtones -- comparing someone to a demeaning (or, at best, condescending) racial stereotype? Why the heck would anyone say this kind of stuff? Anyone other than Leyton Hewitt, at least....

And that is our loss, Larry.

I debated back and forth about responding. Alas, I lost the debate, so here is my post. All of the following is, of course, my opinion.

I get the "buckwheat" reference. And....I got it as a simple reference to the hair. But with the culturally understood dimension that it was sharper than that. Just a little. Because there's more to that reference than just a comparison of hairstyles. Cuz it could have been "hughley" just as easily.

And because humor sometimes comes with an edge, it worked the first time. But....if nothing else the continual reference moved it from caustic humor back to the demeaning dimension. Read carefully...I didn't say anyone demeaned anyone. But to my eyes/ears it was no longer edgy/funny. Because as far as we have come in race relations in our society, and we have come light years of course, some terms still carry more power than just the surface reference.

An episode of the OS Star Trek had Abe Lincoln on the bridge of the Enterprise, and he made some comment when he saw Lt. Uhura...something like "You have a Negress working here", and then he apologized for using the word. Uhura responded very matter of factly by saying "We've learned that words don't have such power" or something like that. Would that our society were so today. But, not yet, not in everything. From my day, my time, my experience, I know there are words I will never use, because they were intentionally hurtful and they sound ugly to me. They might not be today....hearing them said in a certain context might even make me laugh...but even at that one and done.


And re the tennis....the points are excellent about fitness. And about that not being identified as a factor in performance during a match. Except for when there's a blatant breakdown (see Djoko hitting the wall several times). Because, honestly, I had not looked at Federer in that way, over all these years. Even though I often thought of him like McEnroe, being so incredibly talented. And I knew that McEnroe hurt himself by not training physically as he trained his game. Especially once Lendl saw what Martina had done, pushed himself to his maximum, and then could just overpower McEnroe. Becoming a serve/volleyer might not be achievable, but Federer can get in the best shape possible. If so, then he will return to winning majors. If not..........McEnroe didn't win another one after dominating in 1984. Does marriage and fatherhood (plus 20 years of playing) make him more content, or does he find another stream of motivation?

I made those comments about fitness before seeing Fed vs. I like Big Butts and I can not lie! <oops, sorry, got carried away there> Wawrinka, just because Bodo's so-called analysis annoyed the piss out of me. But now having seen it, I can say that Roger's (lack of) fitness was clearly a contributing factor. In the first set on quite a few important points, Roger misfired a bunch of run-around forehands. The pros make run-around forehands look so easy (see: Graf, Steffi), but the shot requires very quick and precise footwork. Gee, do ya think an extra 10-15 pounds just might slow your feet down a bit? But I guess writing about such horrible thoughts is tantamount to farting in front of the Queen of England -- it just isn't done.

I was hoping for a barnburner match between Novak and Señor Hunkalicious, but it turned out to be little more than a book of wet matches. First of all, it was fairly windy, and Novak's a poor wind player. From the looks of it, Fernando's even worse. Novak started off pretty well whereas El Bonito seemed completely unfocused, resulting in a lopsided 6-2 first set. El Bonito got his head into the match for the 2nd set while Novak committed a zillion unforced errors (OK, 21, but that's a helluva lotta UEs for a 6-4 set). I got the impression that Novak was kinda hoping that Fernando would just hand him the 2nd set, just as he donated the 1st. The 3rd set was the best (not that that's saying much). Novak served quite well and played some amazing defense on Verdasco's service games whereas Fernando missed a bunch of shoulda-been-putaway forehands. Not an impressive match, but at least Novak pulled off a victory against a top opponent. Verdasco at #8 and Tsonga at #11 seem so much closer to the top players than Ferrer and Davydenko did when they were ranked 4 and 5.

Novak plays Stan in the semis, which will hopefully be a better match than the Verdasco QF. Stan's playing well, their last couple of matches have been close, and Stan's fave surface is terre battue. Still, I gotta pick Novak to get through to the final. Where of course he'll be annihilated by Rafa.

PS: Novak's girlfriend Jelena attended the match, sitting next to Marian Vajda, on the opposite side of the stadium from where Novak's family was sitting. Between passing a kidney stone and sitting next to her potential future father-in-law, it's probably not much of a dilemma for Jelena.

Not too impressed with Wawrinka's upset of the Fed. (However, like others here apparently, I have always been impressed by his physique - although he seems to have slimmed down, unfortunately. His solid pecs used to be beefier, so at odds with his boyish looks. His complexion has cleared up nicely though.) It seemed like the fix was in and Fed was just surrendering the match as a reward for their gold medal partnership of last summer, and yet Stan still only managed to convert 3 out of something like 2,056 break points (okay, 14 in two sets) and tightened up like a drum when serving for it, nearly letting it slip away. Anyhow, most pointless wildcard ever.

I wasn't too taken with how the draw was shaping up but we've got some good semis here. Nadal vs either Murray or Davydenko, each of whom have defeated him fairly recently (not on clay of course, although Davy gave him a real tough match in Rome the other year) and Djoko vs Stan - these two always have tight encounters, and it's also a rematch of last year's Rome final so clay Masters-worthy. Of course Rafa vs Djoko would be the best final in my view, since Novak gave him his toughest matches on clay last year - plus they would have the all-surface trifecta of finals played against each other to go with the grass of Queen's and hard court of Indian Wells. It would be a good test also to see whether Djoko is really getting back into form and if Rafa is really getting ready for another clay rampage.

Larry C and Good Hands, doubly great to read your posts.

Things can get unnecessarily negative here. (Bryan and Snicks, I've been out of hand with you guys at times in the past, so if you're out there and it matters to you, I apologize for that.) The flip side of the negativity is when the people fighting talk through it and move on -- in that sense I think this board has something special to it.

For all the fighting, this place is nowhere near as cynical and attack-driven (or hilarious) as Men's Tennis Forums -- along with the former WTA World, the only other tennis spot I go to much. I post there sometimes, which requires deciding whether or not to go off about the casual homophobia of so many posters and the sports world. I think it's kind of worth it to post there, because there's a pretty wide variety of gay posters with different voices, and the international posters there are further along about cultural differences/similarities than we often seem to be here. (I learn a lot just from what people from different places have to say.)

Is it just me or does it look like Fognini wears makeup? And I am not just referring to that stuff that he puts on his lips to keep them from getting dry. His eyebrows look like they have been worked on.

If he can remain injury free, there is no way that Nadal is not winning this tournament and any other tournament that he plays on clay, including the French Open. I am actually looking forward to Nadal defeating Murray fair and square. I like Murray and his style of play, but he seems be have become somewhat arrogant.

If he doesn't win Wimbledon this year, I think Federer should take some time off from tennis or just retire. It is just too hard to watch his downfall.

If they knew anything about "The Little Rascals", I wonder what Monfils or any other person from France of African descent would think about the "Buckwheat" reference? I find it hard to believe that they would not find it offensive, racist, and insensitive.

Maybe I'm crazy (no comment necessary), but I think Roger looks too thin. Ive been wondering if he's still frail from the mono....which btw, where is Super Mario? Where is Senor Moya too for that matter....I'd like to give him mono.

I guess it could be fitness, but it certainly seems mental to me.....soooooo many unforced errors. And not just late in matches, so I dont think fitness is as much of an issue....unless we are talking mental fitness. But still, let's keep this in perspective. Pete fell way lower than #4 (where I fear Roger will be pretty soon) before he racked up those last couple of Slams. But yes, for the first time I'm not as confident he will be breaking the record....hopeful, yes....confident, no.

PS - Monica Seles coming up on 20/20. Sorry, not starting a thread just for that.