This tournament has the return of Nadal, facing Olivier Rochus in the first round, and if he gets though that, probably an in-form Jarko Nieminen in the second round.

Second seed Ljubicic doesn't have it too easy either, with Baghdatis and Ancic facing each other in the first round in his quarter of the draw. Should be interesting.

Little Oli's tough. Getting past him could be an indicator to how healthy Nadal is. And I'm sure Ljubicic would much rather face Ancic than Baghdatis, as he's much more familiar with him, and didn't just lose to him at the AO.

Here is the draw for the Marseille Open:

http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/TrackIt...006/496/MDS.pdf

I'm surprised Taylor Dent is the only American in the draw. Also, Neimenen is already out and I don't expect BAghdatis to have that incredible a run here.

[ February 14, 2006, 05:08 AM: Message edited by: shore ]

Baghdatis went out against Ancic. And interesting to note, of the sixteen first round matches, 9 were three-setters, and there were five tiebreaks amongst all matches.

Different tournament, but I didn't see the point of starting an entirely new thread just to report on a nifty little men's result:

Why is McEnroe taking money away from younger, less rich players on the tour by competing now? What part of his ego needs stroking? Is he still trying to get over his debacle of a talkshow?

Seriously, I saw him playing some seniors tennis this past fall on The Tennis Channel, although geriatrically slow, he was still a loud-mouth mess on the court. I for one am not applauding this return although he might be within his rights to return.

Like McEnroe or not, G4G left out the fact that thousands of fans stayed 'til near midnight to watch a first round doubles match. It should also be noted that the only other players in the doubles draw that a casual fan has a chance of recognizing are Luke and Murphy, who lost easily. This really looks like a "win-win" for everyone involved.

People made that remark about Martina when she played singles (not so much doubles) - even my dear Amelie felt that way - and I honestly don't understand it. We're talking about a living legend in John McEnroe. I think he's earned the right to play and, clearly, he's still capable of winning a pro doubles match. Any young player who may have missed out at this tournament will have more than enough opportunities to make a name for themselves in the future. If they are true greats, then perhaps one day their name will also garner the respect that names like McEnroe and Navratilova have already earned.

SueBee, I love the brevity of your interests. And welcome.

I don't begrudge these legends (McEnroe, Martina N) the right to play. And I don't buy the argument that they are taking money away from younger players. If the younger players want to win, then play better!

But the whole thing, in Martina's case specifically, makes me a little sad. Doesn't she want something else out of her life after so many years on the tour? It seems like she can't give up the spotlight or the adulation from her fans.

You just don't like Martina. Ever since back in the day. wink

Now boys, let's not turn this into Chris vs. Martina wink

So Nadal is through to the quarters -- he had to fight off a match point against Rochus though. It's Nadal vs. France (Mathieu, Santoro, Clement) in the top half of the quarters, and Russia (Youzhny vs. Karolev) and Croatia (Ancic vs. Ljubicic) in the bottom half.

Since the SAP in San Jose has invaded this thread, it's probably worth noting that Blake got knocked out in the first round, and that Mark Philippoussis beat Tommy Robredo in three sets. I was surprised by the latter because Philippoussis looked out of shape last time I saw him on TV. A friend of mine was at the match, and sources report he was still a bit out of shape but Robredo's knee was bugging him.

I wish Flipper could get back to some top play, such a loss of eyecandy.

Mac said he wanted to bring interest back to doubles. If it takes an older legend to do it, I say do it. I don't believe wildcards are as coveted in doubles as they are in singles anyway.

As for singles, I'm more on the fence. Yes, maybe a legend has earned the right to get wildcards in singles, but there are many more people clamoring for those wildcards who have much more to gain than the legend has to lose, actually the legend has nothing to lose, they've already proven themselves.

I do wonder, though, how short-sighted the argument for interest is. People say it will bring people to the event, which is always a good thing, don't get me wrong. But for how long? One round in a slam? Two rounds in a slam, or Tier 1 or 2?

Davydenko upset in the second round, but all other seeds seemed to have made it through in Marseille. Interesting, to me at least, in the second round there were no three setters, unlike the first round. I'm gonna start watching this phenomenom.

From SI.COM:

"Robin Soderling easily topped Mark Philippoussis"

Hee hee.

Wouldn't that be beautiful--topping Flipper.

Outrageous.......