At this time last year, Roger Federer was fading fast. Someone should remind Andy Murray of this.
In the Australian Open final Sunday evening in Melbourne, Murray was all too aware of his opponent, his past success and his chance to end 74 years of British tennis misery. The result? Murray played like he had binged on burgers and fries in the hours before the match. Yes, Federer was fabulous, although I'd argue that his 2007 victory in Australia, when he didn't lose a set the entire tournament, represents him at his (obscene) peak. Still, considering what Murray is capable of, and how well his quickness, defense and sharp serve returns match up with Federer's dynamic offene, this should have been more of a match.
Murray knew he didn't perform as well as he could have -- hence the tears during the trophy ceremony. This loss, though, ought to do him more good than harm. Here's what he needs to do to win his first major:
Improve his serve. The Australian Open reminded us how important the serve is in tennis. Serena Williams, who won the women's event, is the only woman in the world whose serve consistently wins her free points. Federer lost two major finals last year, and he served poorly in both of them (51 percent in last year's Australian Open final and 50 percent in last year's U.S. Open final). He made 66 percent of his first serves Sunday, compared to 57 percent for Murray. Murray has a more powerful serve than Federer, but he lacks Federer's consistency and accuracy. These failings can be improved; Federer, in fact, told me in a 2008 interview that improvements to his serve, particularly his second serve, were the most important adjustments he had made from his early years to that point. Murray has plenty of time to do the same.
Let the forehand fly. Too many times Sunday, Murray looped his forehand back into the middle of the court, essentially ceding control of the point to Federer. That's not how he beat Rafael Nadal and Marin Cilic. Why did Murray do this? I'll offer three reasons: He was nervous; he lost confidence because he wasn't serving well (see above); and this strategy has worked against Federer in the past. It has yet to work against Federer at a Grand Slam, though, and it probably won't at all. If given the chance, Murray shouldn't try it again.
Study recent, not ancient, history. A Brit hasn't won a major in "150,000 years," as Federer noted during this tournament. Murray shouldn't care. The 22-year-old Scot already has written a bit of history for himself: He's the first Brit to reach two major finals in the Open era, which began in 1968. The larger point: Why worry about Fred Perry when you can take solace in more recent events, like the 2009 season? At the beginning of last year, many questioned whether Federer would even tie Pete Sampras' record of 14 major titles, never mind break it by a comfortable margin (he's at 16 and counting). A year later, Federer has people talking about a calendar-year Slam. (Too tough, even for Federer, but best of luck to him, as it would be the finest achievement in the finest career the game has ever known). As difficult as this loss was for Murray, its memory will fade when he finally wins his first major. Here's saying he doesn't have long to wait.
As we approach the final weekend of the Australian Open, here are a few thoughts on the action.
Murray's moment?Andy Murray has played the best tennis of this tournament and has an excellent chance to win his first major title. So far, Murray hasn't dropped a set and his level of play has improved with each round. Against Rafael Nadal on Tuesday in Melbourne, Murray played some of the best tennis of his career. He served beautifully. He mixed in serve and volley with traditional rallies. He won many long baseline battles with Nadal, the steadiest player in the game. For two sets, Nadal resembled the man who won this tournament last year, yet Murray never lost control of the match. If there's one concern for Murray so far, it's his serve. Although it was excellent against Nadal, Murray has lost serve seven times this tournament and missed his first serve too often. His return game, the best in tennis, has made up for this shortcoming so far but might not be enough if he plays Federer in the final.
Rafa resolute. For the moment, Nadal fans should be relieved. Maybe. In the quarterfinals against Murray, Nadal retired (gulp) because of pain in his knee (double gulp). Yet Nadal spoke confidently and calmly at his news conference. He said he didn't want to risk further injury; he didn't act as if the pain was immense and didn't look forlorn. He wasn't in tears. If anything, he seemed pleased that he had played at close to his best for the first time since Indian Wells last year. This is good news. The facts, though, remain troubling. This is the fourth consecutive major in which Nadal has been hampered by an injury (his knees were so bad at Wimbledon last year that he skipped the tournament and declined to defend his title). Nadal has done much to improve his game and reduce the punishment his body endures during matches, but one has to wonder whether he can do enough to remain healthy yet also stay competitive or whether this injury might be incurable. Let's at least wait until Roland Garros. Here's hoping that the Nadal of old arrives in Paris and plays without pain.
All court. I remarked earlier on Murray's all-court play against Nadal (and others) at this event. If Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic win Wednesday in Melbourne, we'll have the most well-rounded men's semifinals in a long, long time (this holds true if Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Djokovic's opponent, wins, too). Marin Cilic, Murray's semifinal opponent, backs up his booming groundstrokes with some solid volleys, especially on the backhand side. Djokovic is playing more points at the net, at the urging of Todd Martin. Federer, of course, can do anything, at any time. I'll say it again: Don't let anyone tell you that men's tennis is one-dimensional. It's just not the case anymore.
An aging king. If Federer and Djokovic reach the semifinals, the 28-year-old Federer will be the oldest player left in the draw -- by six years (Djokovic and Murray are 22; Cilic is 21). Yes, Roger, you are surrounded by very hungry young men. Win No. 16 while you can.
There's been a lot of talk about how this is the most competitive Australian Open in years, and that we could be looking ahead to a season with unpredictable results and unfamiliar faces in the winner's circle. It's a welcome change after more than five years of dominance by Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal.
You can see the glint of opportunity in the eyes of the players in Melbourne. From the young guns hoping for a break to veterans looking for one final shot at hardware, the pros sense the changing tides. In previous years Down Under, the favorites for the men's title started and ended with Rafa and Roger; now, there's a handful of legitimate contenders to the throne. And while Serena Williams remains the premier big-game star on the women's side, there are at least two "newbies" from Belgium who can wreak havoc in any draw.
The Australian Open already has produced some compelling, competitive tennis. Just ask Maria Sharapova and Robin Soderling, two notable casualties from the first round. Even Federer had all he could handle against hard-hitting Igor Andreev -- if the mighty Fed hadn't won the third-set breaker, he could have been on the next plane out with Maria and Sod, as the momentum would have been squarely with the Russian.
We can expect more tight matches and upsets as the tournament progresses. For U.S. fans, especially on the East Coast, that means overtime for the coffee maker. But let's not get carried away in celebrating this new "open" era of tennis. I can remember a time not too long ago -- let's call it B.R., as in "Before Roger" -- when men's and women's tennis lacked dominant champions. Chaos reigned. The sport resembled the PGA Tour, pre-Tiger Woods, when every tournament seemed to produce a new champion you had never heard of.
Consider this: From the 1998 Australian Open through the '99 edition, there were an unprecedented 10 different men's Grand Slam finalists, only one of whom was named Pete Sampras. The others included Alex Corretja, Carlos Moya, Mark Philippoussis, Patrick Rafter, Thomas Enqvist and Yevgeny Kafelnikov. The women's tour also had plenty of topsy-turvy results, with Martina Hingis being the only consistent performer during that period, although she was hardly dominant among her peers.
In sports, there's a euphemism for this kind of unpredictability: parity. But is it good for the game?
The world loves an underdog and relishes the big upset, but you can't have these without the big dogs, the dominant champions. It's a fine line between parity and chaotic blandness. And I certainly don't want a return to the days when major finals were contested by the likes of David Nalbandian, Lleyton Hewitt, Petr Korda, Marcelo Rios, Natalie Tauziat and Jana Novotna. They were talented players but not exactly inspiring ones. In the end, they turned out to be transitional figures occupying a void eventually filled by Serena and Venus Williams, and Federer and Nadal.
Right now, tennis has just the right mix. Fans still can expect Roger and Rafa to reach the second week of Slams and contend for titles, but they also know an upset or two lurks in almost every round. There are more exciting matchups in both draws but still enough familiar faces in the final weekends -- from Andy Murray, Juan Martin del Potro and Andy Roddick to Dinara Safina and Elena Dementieva -- to excite both hard-core tennis nuts and the casual fan.
Hopefully tennis can continue to walk the line and avoid plummeting into the abyss of parity. In the meantime, enjoy the action while it lasts.
In Melbourne, you need to predict the unpredictable.
The Australian Open has historically been the stepchild of the Slams, unsure of its place on the calendar and marooned months and miles away from the other majors. For decades it kicked off the tennis year. Then it shifted its dates so it closed the year. Then it shifted them back so it could open the year again.
Little did organizers know when they made that last move, in 1988, that it would place the Aussie in such an enviable position. Rather than an afterthought, the tournament is now first in players' minds as they train during the offseason. At no other event do they come in with multiple weeks of rest and practice under their belt.
Over the past 10 years, this has had two noticeable effects. First, the quality of play is always high Down Under; each Aussie Open seems to produce a match for the ages. Second, the break before the event has allowed formerly unsung players to find their games on the practice court and announce themselves to the world in Rod Laver Arena. The list of surprise runs on the men's side includes Carlos Moya in 1998, Rainer Schuettler in 2003, Marcos Baghdatis in 2006, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in 2008 and Fernando Verdasco last year.
Is there anyone who fits the Aussie surprise profile for 2010? Is there a Moya or a Tsonga, a young future top-10 player just finding his game? Or is there another Schuettler or Verdasco, a veteran who has worked with renewed purpose over the holidays? Looking down the rankings, I'm surprised to find so few likely youthful breakouts on the list. With the strength and depth of the men's tour at the moment, it's hard for a kid to make his way up the ranks.
It's easier to glimpse potential final-weekend runs among the established second tier. Let's take them one by one, from the most to the least obvious:
Nikolay Davydenko: Like Andy Murray last year, Davydenko, who just beat Federer and Nadal back to back in Doha, comes in as the hottest player on the tour. But despite his success, he still doesn't believe in himself as a Grand Slam champion. He says he's a threat only when it's two out of three sets. Why shouldn't we believe him?
Robin Soderling: It would also make sense for the Sod, a Nadal killer in Paris and the newest top-10 member, to go deep in Melbourne. Too much sense, in fact. It's easier to imagine him caving under the new expectations and reverting to his old inconsistent, testy self.
Sam Querrey: The American has established himself in the top 30, but a semifinal appearance would qualify as a shocker. The serve and the forehand are there, and he proved a consistent competitor in winning the U.S. Open Series. To do that next week, he'll have to handle the Melbourne heat. He should at least improve on his dismal first-round loss of a year ago.
Ernests Gulbis: The tour's problem child showed again that he has top-tier game by dictating play and taking a set from Federer last week. He remains a long-term work in progress; for the moment, he's more likely to pull one huge upset than to put together a multimatch run.
Marin Cilic: With his steady improvement, calm demeanor, solid work ethic, easy win over Nadal last fall and successful title defense in Chennai last week, the 6-foot-6 Croat remains the most likely to pull a del Potro in 2010.
Then again, does a breakout run from the No. 14 player in the world really fit into Melbourne's tradition? That's the thing about surprises: You can't see them coming.
If you think you can, give it a shot in the comments below.
For the first time in months, I am excited to read the latest news in women's tennis. That's women's tennis. It's no secret that the WTA Tour is coming off a rough season. Aside from Kim Clijsters' return and Melanie Oudin's breakout, 2009 was marred by mediocre tennis and little to talk about. But with the return of Justine Henin this week and the imminent return of Maria Sharapova, we could be on the verge of a new (old?) era.
On Monday in Brisbane, Australia, Henin won her first match back, defeating Nadia Petrova 7-5, 7-5. It was a solid win over the No. 2 seed. Henin, who then handled Sesil Karatantcheva in straight sets Wednesday, is returning without a ranking and can expect tough early-round matches while she's on the comeback trail.
By all accounts, Henin looked impressive in her debut, but we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. The Belgian has a technically gifted game that takes time to tune up. Unlike her compatriot Clijsters, whose blue-collar baseline bashing makes it easier to pick up where she left off, Henin's style of play has a smaller margin for error. Her one-handed backhand and penetrating volleys are things of beauty, but they require more precise execution.
Petrova was already impressed. "To me, it looks like she's playing better tennis than before she retired," Petrova said. "She's hungry to win Wimbledon, and I think the changes she has done to her game are actually leading toward that."
Petrova was referring to Henin's desire to play a more forward-thinking game. That begins with the serve. Her coach, Carlos Rodriguez, has her tossing the ball farther out in front of her body so she'll get more pop on the ball and have her momentum going forward. He'd also like her to finish more points at the net. That could be a smart strategy. Henin, who's no heavyweight, needs to shorten points so she can stay fresh physically over the long grind of the season. And given that the competition isn't accustomed to fending off a net rusher, the style of play could give her an advantage.
Sharapova, on the other hand, hasn't spent her time off retooling her game. In fact, she hasn't competed since playing Tokyo in September, an event she won. But unlike Henin, who left the game for a mental respite, Sharapova is trying to return from a troubling shoulder injury.
Her camp says she's been working hard to strengthen her shoulder. She'll need to -- she tried, and quickly abandoned, a truncated service motion last year to accommodate her injury that saw her serving a ghastly number of double faults. The Russian is the type of player who has to go all out for her shots, not pull her punches, to play her best. Whereas Henin defeats opponents with guile and spins, Sharapova wins through intimidation and blunt force.
As things stand, Henin is talking a big game and sounds motivated. Sharapova is lying low. Instead of competing in Aussie Open warm-up events, she's planning her big return for the big show, which she won in 2008. But without any prep work, is this strategy too risky?
Yet another question. But with Henin and Sharapova both scheduled to play in Melbourne, along with the Williams sisters, Clijsters and (a hopefully reinvigorated) Ana Ivanovic, we'll answer to the most important question of all: Will women's tennis be worth watching in 2010?
I've heard New Year's resolutions both ambitious (be a better person, lose 30 pounds, quit smoking, etc.) and, well, less so (remembering to recap one's pens was a practical goal that was set, I suspect, in the interest of attainability).
In the same vein, it's fun to speculate about the personal resolutions that the world's elite tennis players may have made for themselves. "Find a man who can make some cuts," former No. 1 Ana Ivanovic, girlfriend of golfer Adam Scott, might be saying to herself right about now. "Get Jada potty-trained before the Australia trip," could be high on Kim Clijsters' to-do list. But for now, we'll stick to tennis-related 2010 resolutions for a handful of the world's elite:
Roger Federer: Go for the seven-Pete
You might think the world No. 1 would be low on motivation following a 2009 season that saw him complete the career Grand Slam and break the record for major singles titles. But although Federer eclipsed Pete Sampras' record with his 15th Slam victory last summer, there's another Sampras mark the Swiss is lining up to hit: seven Wimbledon titles.
Sampras holds the Open Era record for gentlemen's singles titles at the All England Club. (The Englishman William Renshaw, whose reign there dates back to the Chester Arthur and Grover Cleveland administrations, also won seven.) Federer could tie that mark with a Wimbledon win this summer. And while Sampras won only one more Slam after he broke Roy Emerson's major titles record, Federer -- who says he plans to play at least through 2012 -- must be motivated by the prospect of extending his mark well beyond 15.
Rafael Nadal: Stay healthy
It's a troubling trend for a player with the talent to be one of the game's all-time greats: dominate the competition for the first two-thirds of the season, then succumb to a physical breakdown by year's end. In 2009, Nadal got off to his most auspicious start yet, winning his first hard-court major at the Australian Open. But he lost at Roland Garros for the first time in his career, was too hurt to defend his Wimbledon final, and failed to win a single set at the ATP's World Tour Finals.
Nadal did redeem his autumn with two wins in the Davis Cup final, but in 2010 he needs to find a way to reconcile his punishing style of play with the ATP's unforgiving competitive calendar. He should be challenging for the U.S. Open title, not exiting that tournament meekly -- as he did in 2009, when he won just six total games in his semifinal against Juan Martin del Potro.
Andy Roddick: Scratch the seven-year itch
No, I'm not referring to his marriage to swimsuit model Brooklyn Decker; the pair wed just last April. Instead, 2010 will mark the seventh anniversary of Roddick's one and only Grand Slam victory, at the 2003 U.S. Open. (To put things in perspective, his new wife was 16 at the time.)
Since that title, the former world No. 1 has made it to four more Slam finals -- three Wimbledons and one U.S. Open -- and lost to Federer in each case. Last season was Roddick's finest in years: Showing a renewed commitment to fitness under coach Larry Stefanki, he had a career-best showing (fourth round) at the French Open and then came heartbreakingly close to winning Wimbledon, holding serve 37 consecutive times before falling 14-16 in the fifth in the epic final. This could be the year he finally adds a second Slam -- and sheds his one-hit-wonder status.
Elena Dementieva: Win a big one
Dementieva could have made the same resolution every year since 2000, when she was a U.S. Open semifinalist: win a major. In her career, the Russian has lost two Grand Slam finals and made the semifinals six other times, including twice in 2009 (she had a match point in her Wimbledon semi against Serena Williams this past summer).
The 2008 Olympic singles champion is as fit as ever, but with the Belgians back and Serena still dominant, her window of opportunity is closing. At 28, Dementieva should resolve to make 2010 the year she finally sheds her reputation for majors futility.
Justine Henin: Be the French toast again
Henin apparently subscribes to the Urban Meyer school of retirement: Her departure from tennis turned out to be a relatively abbreviated leave. That's good news for women's tennis in general and the French Open in particular. The absence of the four-time champion was felt most acutely at that tournament in 2008 and 2009, when Ana Ivanovic and Svetlana Kuznetsova were worthy champions but the finals featured less than inspiring tennis.
Although Henin and her coach have tried to temper expectations for immediate success upon her return -- they're not predicting her to win her first major back in action, a la countrywoman Kim Clijsters -- the French-speaking Belgian should be extremely competitive by the time of the French in late May. Last year Henin, claiming to be contentedly retired, made an appearance at Roland Garros for the dedication of a street, Allée Justine Henin, in her honor on the grounds. This year it will be good to have Henin -- and her gorgeous backhand -- back in tennis dress on Court Philippe Chatrier. Resolution: win it a fifth time.
The holidays are upon us, but Tennis Australia is not in a giving mood. Craig Tiley, the Australian Open's tournament director, said in a recent e-mail that it's "highly unlikely" that Yanina Wickmayer will receive a wild card into next year's tournament, which begins Jan. 18. She'll have to play the qualifying tournament, despite being ranked No. 16 in the world.
Wickmayer, you'll remember, is the 20-year-old Belgian who until recently faced a suspension because she failed (three times) to report her whereabouts to drug testers. Wickmayer challenged the suspension and last week a Belgian civil court ruled in her favor. Her victory, unfortunately, was ill timed: The cutoff date for direct entry into the Australia Open was Dec. 7. At that time, Wickmayer was suspended, and hence unranked, so the tournament excluded her. Now that she's free to play, it's too late. The Australian Open has given away most of its wild cards: Justine Henin received one, and so did the tennis federations from the U.S. and France, via barter (the French and U.S. Opens will reserve places for Australian players to be named later). The Australian Open wants to reserve the rest of its spots for its home players (don't be surprised if Alica Molik, who recently lost a wild-card playoff, receives one, too).
There isn't clear injustice in Wickmayer's case. For all the griping on the part of athletes -- some of it reasonable -- about the whereabouts program, it's not too difficult to inform drug testers of your whereabouts in this age of e-mail, text messages, and Twitter updates. Many of us alert casual friends of far more mundane goings on, far more frequently, for no reason at all; imagine what details we might disclose if our livelihoods depended on it. Wickmayer has some fault here. She's not being persecuted.
She is, however, being given far less sympathy than she ought to receive. This is largely because tennis players, for all the pluses of not being tied to a team or the whims of a single owner, like other athletes, have little collective power. The ATP and WTA tours don't represent player interests and player interests alone, but also the interests of tournaments and national tennis associations all over the globe. The four Grand Slams, governed indirectly by the International Tennis Federation, are mostly controlled by the host countries and don't feel obligated to be fair to players who are not from said country or who are not stars. Suffice to say that if Justine Henin, circa 2005, were in Wickmayer's situation, she would have received a wild card within seconds of the court ruling. Henin sells tickets and attracts television audiences; Wickmayer doesn't, at least not yet.
As deserving as Wickmayer is of a wild card, she won't do herself any favors if she takes a woe-is-me approach. So far, she hasn't. She's going to play a pre-Open tournament in New Zealand and continue from there. At last year's Open, Wickmayer lost in the first round, so she has few points to defend. The women's qualifying draw shouldn't be any more difficult than practice for a woman who reached the U.S. Open semifinals; it might even help her prepare for the tournament and its often unbearable heat. If Wickmayer continues to rise in the rankings, this setback will be a minor one.
This is the era of good feelings and open hearts in tennis. The pros battle for five hours and then fall into an embrace at the net. They heap praise on each other in press conferences. They break down in tears at the drop of a hat.
That trend may have reached its peak over the past 12 months. The sport has never had a season quite as soul stirring or sentimental as 2009. It's also never had a season where more memorable moments occurred on Grand Slam trophy stands than on the court during Grand Slam matches.
You probably thought Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal couldn't give us anything more indelible than their 2008 Wimbledon final. But they kicked off 2009 by going that match one better. This year's Australian Open will forever be known for two images: One of Federer breaking down in tears during his runner-up speech, and the other of Nadal walking back, throwing his arm around his opponent, and coaxing a smile from the man he'd just conquered.
Five months later in Paris, Federer let it all out again, this time in a torrent of words rather than tears. After winning his long-awaited first French Open and completing a career Grand Slam, he giggled, rambled and switched from French to English and back in mid-sentence. He even pointed to his new wife, Mirka, and told the world, "My lovely wife, who's pregnant!"
Federer was back in the winner's circle a few weeks later at Wimbledon, where he broke the men's record for most major titles by winning his 15th. But his cheekily self-congratulatory nod to his own achievement -- a golden "15" stitched into the back of his jacket -- was upstaged by the man he had just defeated in heart-breaking fashion, Andy Roddick. Asked about the cruelty of sports, Roddick responded, with stunning stoicism and without a hint of self-pity. "No, I'm one of the lucky few who gets cheered for," he said with a nod to the crowd. "Thanks for that."
Finally, at the U.S. Open, it was the women's turn to warm hearts. That's where Kim Clijsters, who had just won a Slam in the third tournament of her comeback, showed off the champion's trophy along with her 18-month-old daughter, Jada. Coming less than 24 hours after Serena Williams' infamous tirade at a line judge, it was the feel-good moment tennis needed.
Blubbering disappointment, gentlemanly graciousness, babbling joy, gut-wrenching stoicism and a frolicking mother and daughter: What do these moments tell us? That tennis, more than ever, more even than in the fabled days of John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors, is a sport of passion and personality. Where the wild men of the '70s pushed the game toward the edges of what was acceptable with their behavior, this generation has shown us what it's like to climb the emotional heights and plumb the depths of this mercilessly individual sport. We knew it was an era to remember, but we didn't realize just how memorable it was going to be until 2009. It will be a hard season to top.
It has been reported that March Madness costs U.S. employers billions of dollars every spring, with workers agonizing over brackets for the office pool and sneaking off for long lunches consisting of beer, nachos and West Virginia versus Dayton. If those numbers are true, I imagine the sordid Tiger Woods saga (which may well end up featuring a field of more than 65) has made a sizeable dent in workplace productivity. Every day, there are salacious new details to absorb, dissect and discuss. My obsession du jour is not TMZ or Deadspin, but the latest issue of Golf Digest (which went to press pre-scandal), and its cover story, "10 Tips Obama Can Take From Tiger." One of the tips suggests that when it comes to conducting oneself with dignity, the president could take a cue from the world's best golfer. The article reminds the president, helpfully, that "Tiger never does anything that would make him look ridiculous."
But as all-consuming as the Tiger Beat can be, I have been taking occasional breaks for meals and, um, tennis -- specifically reflecting on the season that ended with last weekend's Davis Cup final. As I wrote last month in my WTA season round-up, 2009 was a good year for comebacks. And the most compelling of the comeback stories belongs to Kim Clijsters, who returned to the tour after a two-plus-year retirement and won the U.S. Open less than a month later. Clijsters is an affable anti-diva who is universally liked. The best moment of the year in women's tennis came after the women's final in Arthur Ashe Stadium, where she celebrated her victory with her husband and their impossibly adorable 18-month-old daughter, Jada.
What bothered me about the way the Clijsters story was covered is that in lauding her improbable achievement, many pundits seemed to miss the point. Commentators breathlessly reminded us that she had given birth in 2008, as if pregnancy is a terrible affliction from which no athlete can be expected to recover. But pregnancy is not injury. Expectant mothers can lose fitness, for sure, but there are many recent examples of elite-level athletes who have "recovered" from pregnancy to return to the top of their games soon after giving birth. Elite distance runner (and world record-holder) Paula Radcliffe won the 2007 New York City Marathon nine months after giving birth to her daughter, Isla. Candace Parker, last year's WNBA MVP, was back playing games for the Los Angeles Sparks less than two months after having daughter Lailaa. And in 2007, Lindsay Davenport won her first of two WTA titles of the season just three months after the delivery of her son, Jagger.
Clijsters' situation is an unusual one, to be sure. The only other working mom currently on the WTA Tour is No. 55 Sybille Bammer, an Austrian with an 8-year-old daughter. Whereas most players wait until their careers are over to start a family, Clijsters was 23 when she retired, 24 when she had Jada and 25 when she announced she was making a comeback. Her U.S. Open triumph made her the first mother to claim a Grand Slam singles title since Evonne Goolagong won Wimbledon in 1980.
But it shouldn't have surprised anyone that Clijsters, renowned for her stellar athleticism, was able to work her way back into form a year after having Jada. It's not like she had ruptured both her ACLs. She wasn't playing with a surgically reconstructed shoulder (like Maria Sharapova this summer) or recovering from metastasized cancer (like Lance Armstrong in 1998). And it's not as if she waged her comeback at a geriatric tennis age like Kimiko Date Krumm, who this fall won a WTA tournament the day before she turned 39.
What was remarkable about Clijsters' comeback is that her return trip to the top of the tennis world was astonishingly rapid. The U.S. Open was just her third tournament back, and her first Grand Slam in nearly three years. She defeated both Venus and Serena Williams en route to the final. And in winning that final, Clijsters became the first wild card in the history of women's tennis to claim a Grand Slam title. She'd been back in competition for less than a month.
Also remarkable about the Clijsters story is that she has managed to juggle a marriage and motherhood while most of her peers are concerned solely with ice baths, massages and naps (their own, not their toddlers'). In Clijsters' case, having less time to obsess over the details of her own competitive preparation might have worked to her advantage. A notoriously nervous competitor in the 1.0 version of her career, she went 0-4 in Grand Slam finals before she finally won the 2005 U.S. Open. The shift in priorities that parenthood confers may have helped prevent her from tightening up at critical moments during her Open run.
Pregnancy and athletics is a tricky topic, as indicated by the recent case of Mackenzie McCollum, a 17-year-old high school senior who was forbidden from playing for her Fort Worth, Texas, volleyball team during her first trimester. But it's not shocking that a jock like Kim Clijsters could have a baby in her mid twenties and then once again play high-level tennis. I wish the acclaim Clijsters justifiably garnered for her U.S. Open win had been less about the fact that she was "coming back" from pregnancy, and more about how quickly she'd made it back -- and how good her comeback was for the women's game.
It has been a tale of two seasons for Rafael Nadal. For the first five months, fans and pundits alike were wondering if Rafa might take over the No. 1 ranking and, ultimately, end his career with more Grand Slam titles than Roger Federer. After the past few months, fans and pundits are left wondering what they were thinking. Forget about breaking records, Nadal needs to find his game, which has gone MIA.
From January to May, Nadal won five titles -- the Australian Open, Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Barcelona and the Italian Open -- and reached the finals of two other events. He seemed unstoppable and indefatigable, the Spanish Bull who had everyone, including Federer, on the ropes. But after the Italian Open in May, Nadal failed to win a tournament and reached only one final, in Shanghai, where he lost to Nikolay Davydenko.
The first half of Nadal's season was so strong that he clinched a spot in the Barclay's World Tour Final on May 19. The second half was so dismal that he failed to win a match in London against the world's eight best players.
In fact, if you had to pinpoint one area that Nadal's game has suffered most, it's against the elite players. Rafa is 14-11 versus the top 10 in 2009, but most of those wins came in the early part of the season. Since beating Novak Djokovic in the semifinals of the Madrid Masters in May, Nadal is an abysmal 1-9 against top-10 opponents.
Obviously, injuries have played a role in Nadal's reversal of fortune. Tendinitis in both knees forced him to withdraw from Wimbledon, and at the U.S. Open he had an abdominal strain. During his match against Djokovic at the World Tour Finals, Nadal received medical assistance for his lower back, though afterward he made no excuses and graciously credited Djokovic for his outstanding play.
All of these nagging injuries will lead some observers to start hammering away at the notion, first popularized when Nadal won his first French Open, that Rafa's body is breaking down, that the end is nigh. Of course, every time this sentiment reaches a fever pitch, Nadal ends up proving his detractors wrong by winning a big title or notching a significant win.
That's not to say Nadal's dip in form isn't troubling. In London, he was outmuscled and even outhustled by his opponents. No one seemed intimidated. His shots landed short all too often, and his service returns were, at best, rally shots to start the point. With his confidence at a low point, Nadal will have to regroup during the offseason -- all three weeks of it -- before preparations begin for the Australian Open.
Before he can take a deep breath, however, Nadal has to play the Davis Cup final this weekend. It might be a blessing in disguise. The tie is on his favorite surface (clay) in front of his home fans, which could give him a much-needed mental boost. And before you buy into the theory that Nadal's body is toast and no longer capable of standing up to the rigors of the tour, remember that he's still only 23 years old, with a peerless drive to succeed and a record of proving his critics wrong.
It might take some time for him to regain his form. But write off Rafa? Do it at your own risk.
The last few months have been difficult for those who run the ATP Tour. As always, injuries piled up this fall, leading players to complain about the length of the calendar, and those complaints seemed louder than usual because the women now follow a more reasonable schedule. Then Andre Agassi revealed that he failed a drug test in 1997 and lied to a panel of experts and received no punishment. The tour doesn't want to discuss the incident further, leaving it open to questions about who knew about the failed test, when they knew it and whether the drug-testing panels of the late 90s were truly independent.
At least we can say this: Men's tennis will end on a high note. After four years in Shanghai, the ATP's final tournament of the year has moved to London's O2 Arena and so far it's a great success. The stands are full with loud, enthusiastic people, something we haven't had at a season-ending event for the men in four years (longer for the women). The best eight players in the world are there (minus an injured Andy Roddick), and more than money is on the line (Rafael Nadal could end the season at No. 1 or No. 3 depending on his performance). If you're a United States viewer, the television coverage is superb. Tennis Channel has all the matches starting at 7:30 a.m., followed by prime time rebroadcasts (perfect for a DVR).
Finally, we have a season-ending championships with some heft, a grand finale deserving of praise. This is in stark contrast to the WTA's season-ending event in Doha, which played out in front of empty crowds and received little attention in the United States, despite the fine play of both Serena and Venus Williams, who met each other in the final. The WTA wisely ends its season earlier than the ATP, but its choice of Doha as a season-ending host is, so far, a dud. Though the contract pays well for the tour, it does so at the expense of the event's prestige. It feels more like an exhibition, a meaningless tournament that even an avid fan could do without. The ATP's move to London has made its last tournament vital.
If you've been watching the tournament on television, you might share a few quibbles: The lights are dim, the courts are a strange blue-on-blue (it looks like the players are inside an aquarium), and the enormous ATP World Tour logo fixed to the net drives me bonkers. I'm willing to put these minor annoyances aside, though, and say this is the best indoor event I've seen since the year-end championships was held at Madison Square Garden way back in the 1700s. Professional tennis really should end before Thanksgiving, but this year I'm glad it won't.
