I have no idea what happened to Max and Bhupathi. (The announces tend to say it “BOO-put-tee,” but I just can’t do it. I say “Boo-PATH-ee.” Anybody know which is right?) Yipes.
Coria really is exciting. I was happy Agassi got out of it in three sets- pleasantly surprised, actually, even though I figured Andre could take him on a hard court. He’s tiny and doesn’t serve hard, but he’s got all the shots beyond that.
The former would be correct: ‘Boo-putt-ee’. I just don’t think they could get a rhythm going in the match; and when someone has trouble breaking Fabrice Santoro’s serve then you know something’s not right.
Hah. I think this’ll be one of those rare times when I’m wrong because the right answer is too damn silly. My mom and I have called him “Betty Bhupathi” too many times… 
The Capriati/Hennin semi was incredible. I thought Hennin had the first set in the bag and next thing you know Capriati makes this incredible comeback. Reverse in the 3rd set. Incredible tennis. Capriati definitely had an “on” night and it was great to see her play up to her potential…if she could only conquer those demons that plague her when she is serving for the match. She could have had it wrapped up in the second set. Arrgh!
Hewitt and Capriati should hire sports psychologists because they have so much potential and they are their own worst enemies. You can just feel their frustration.
I thought Davenport was going to give Clijsters a run for her money. But the real Lindsey was a no-show. What a shame. A Capriati/Clijsters final would have been great to watch.
I am still hoping for Hennin to pull off a victory over Clijsters but the latter looked so strong last night I’m not so confident anymore. Was Clijsters just that good or was Davenport just so bad last night?
BTW, did anyone else notice how the male commentator (not Johnny Mac, the other dude) said, “And in the crowd is Jay-Z and…” and then he completely stops because he has absolutely NO IDEA how to pronounce “Beyonce.” 
I’d say Clijsters is just that good. Davenport seems to be slowing down a bit with all those foot injuries and I don’t think she can keep up with the Belgians. She would’ve beaten them easily a couple of years back, but not now. It’s unfortunate that Clijsters hasn’t won a slam yet, but I think she’ll take this one. With Serena out, she’s dominating the women’s game and this is long overdue.
I don’t blame him… up until about two months ago I thought her name was “Benoyce.”
Clijsters is that good. It’s weird how in the women’s game, the top three or four players usually just beat the crap out of the rest of the top 20. There’s a serious gap there. Serena, Clijsters and Henin (and Venus, sometimes) compete with each other, but nobody seems able to compete with them very often. Looks at the way Clijsters creamed Davenport and Mauresmo, and how Henin destroyed Myskina in the past few days. Capriati was great, but she should’ve won. She’s choked away a lot of big matches like this and never beats those best few players. I think they said last night that she hasn’t actually won against a Top Ten player since Australia in 2002.
Be thankful you don’t have Cliff Richard singing unaccompanied to the “delight” of the crowd.
Oh, man. That’s another prediction gone down the drain. Anyone else think that Clijsters wasn’t playing her best? I was willing to wager on a Clijsters victory
Vive Justine!! Wow. Before the match, and in the latter parts of the first set, it didn’t look like she had it in her. There isn’t a player out there who can match her competitiveness, and she has such a complete game. What a wonderful thing to watch. She was one of my favorite players before, but this takes things to a new level. She finished her semifinal a few minutes after midnight and won the championship at around 9:30 p.m. The most Super Saturday ever for one player, I’m sure.
On the other hand, world #1 Clijsters is now 0/3 in Slam finals, and this one was a really good opportunity for her, facing an opponent who earlier in the day said she might not even be able to play. And she really had her chances, too. Almost ran away with the first set after coming back from 0-3 down, then lost it and never got things back together. I’m starting to wonder if Clijsters is Flemish for “choke.”
green, like I said, I was pulling for Henin-Hardenne - she’s my favorite player outside of Serena, and the last 24 hours may have put her over the top - but until the match started, I was doubtful she could come bounce back. But I’ve said in other threads that it seems like Clijsters always finds a way to lose the really big matches, and even though she really got her groove going in the middle of the first set (from about the fourth game through the ninth), she did it again tonight. She may break through yet; she certainly has the ability. But she’s just not there mentally when she needs to be.
Yeah Henin has arguably the most complete game in women’s tennis. Power, great technique - and the best backhand! All at what, 5’3", 5’4"?
That was Clijsters’ best chance so far and she did choke. With the way she was playing leading up to the final (I don’t think she even lost a set) she was the favourite but lost it completely. And with the Williams sisters returning soon, these opportunities might turn out to be few and far between.
How about them men’s semis? I was unable to watch the Roddick-Nalbandian one but I checked the results this morning…and wow.
They said last night that Henin is 5’5 1/2"; the WTA website says 5’5 3/4." She needs every quarter-inch. I don’t think anybody else is as complete… who else would you put up there?
You’re right that Clijsters hadn’t lost a set until the final. The tightest match she had was 6-2, 6-4 against Shaughnessy in the third round. Hence my comment a few posts ago about the gap between the top few women and everyone else.
I was in pain after the Agassi match, and it was even worse when Roddick came out, guns blazing (9 aces in his first 3 games) and still couldn’t win the important points. He really looked finished. But he kept going, fought off a match point in the set 3 tiebreak, and didn’t quit. It was a testy match, too, they sniped at each other and the umpire a bit. Tomorrow should be interesting… Roddick will need more great serving and 100% of his energy to beat Ferrero. He seems like the kind of guy you can’t beat with just power. It’d be pretty interesting if both French Open champs also won the US Open.
You know, I could’ve sworn that just a few months ago Roddick was listed at 6’1", but he’s now 6’2" on atptennis.com. The bugger’s still growin’!
I’ll try and catch the replay of the Rod-Nal match, it seemed just too good. It would be really interesting if both French Open champs won the US, and I think that has a fair chance of happening. But Roddick has the pressure on him to win the final, just as Ferrero had at the French. It’s gonna be such a good match, but it’s hard to predict who will come out on top. Andy had trouble with Nalbandian and Ferrero plays a very similar game to Nalbandy. But if I had to pick one, I’ll pick Andy in five sets, or four really tight ones.
If Roddick’s power can rattle Ferrero, or if the four matches in four days catches up to him (didn’t seem to against Andre, but that was a tough match itself), he’s got a chance. Then again, Roddick had to work very hard today, and Ferrero covers the court amazingly well and was hitting winners from everywhere. This seems like the kinda match that’ll have at least one tiebreak (not least because Roddick’s serve is so hard to break, and he’s still not much of a returner). I tend to go for the smarter player in big matches, and I think that’s Ferrero here.
What’s with smart play or guts? Everybody knows the guy with the big serve wins in men’s tennis, witness Roddick’s victory. What a boring match. The match of the tournament was clearly Capriati-Henin, a match so good it didn’t realy matter who won after a point – people will be watching reruns of this one for years. Capriati’s place as a great competitor in tennis history is assured even if she never wins a big one.
By contrast, we had Roddick vs. fillintheblank – 138 mph serve, change courts, 136 mph serve change courts, 140 mph serve change courts, 129 mph serve, game Roddick. It’s a fair win, and I don’t blame Roddic for using the big gun to win, but it sure is boring to watch.
It seems like a lot of people have taken the “big serves dominate and make men’s tennis boring” meme a bit too much to heart. Sure Roddick has a huge serve, and when it’s clicking, it’s absolutely unreturnable.
But that doesn’t mean that he can’t also play some beautiful tennis. Especially when matched up against a shotmaker like Ferrerro. Granted, the match was a blowout, but once the ball was actually put in play (by either player off the serve), the points were really quite good. And when Roddick started showing off his net game in the third set, I had visions of his winning multiple Wimbledons to go along with his US Opens.
All in all, I think I found this US Open to be eminently enjoyable, surprising since my favorite player (Pistol Pete) has now retired.
Oy vey. Roddick won today because Ferrero was too tired to show up. He did indeed have a great day serving. But let’s take a quick look at recent history here.
2003 US Open winner: Roddick. Huge serve.
2003 Wimbledon winner: Federer. Not a huge server at all, and in his last two matches, he beat the two biggest servers (Roddick and Philipoussis).
2003 French Open winner: Ferrero. Not a huge serve.
2003 Australian winner: Agassi. Good placement, great return game. Not a huge server.
2002 US Open winner: Sampras. Big serve, but he had a beautiful net game.
2002 Wimbledon winner: Hewitt. Not a huge serve. He’s been trying to serve bigger lately, and I think it’s really screwed him up.
2002 French Open winner: Costa. Nope.
2002 Australian Open winner: Johansson. Nope.
Like Miltan, I was surprised that Roddick came to net so much in the third set. I think it’d be great if he added that to his game (and also if he quit returning serve from 10 feet behind the baseline).
I thought it was quite a close match actually. I was rooting for Ferrero. Both players served extremely well and that resulted in just two breaks of serve in the match. Ferrero had a real opportunity in the second set tiebreak when he was serving at 2-1 up, but he sent a couple of forehands sailing. That was his best chance, I believe.
No doubt the rallies were good whenever Roddick’s serve was put into play, and I still think Ferrero is five times better than Andy from the baseline, but most of the match was typical Roddick stuff, service winner after service winner. It was a nice match, but I enjoyed the women’s final more - much more drama.
If Roddick adds a net game to his repertoire then the next three or four Wimbledons are there for the taking. But he’d better hurry up, I wonder how long his shoulder can last whilst Andy continues to serve like he does.
When Ferrero came out in his first service game with a big ace, I thought, “Ha! Take that Roddick!” It’s not always about the power, but also the placement. Did anybody else hear the guy congratulate Justine by calling her Christine? I expected the whole stadium to go OOOOOOHHHHhhhhh at the same time when he did that.
I’d also like to point out that Roddick isn’t always about the big power. During the (admittedly few) rallies with Ferrero, he wasn’t always just smacking the hell out of the ball. He’d wait until he got a good clean shot on the cross court or down the line and then let loose. He seemed to me to be playing with a bit more finesse than he has in the past, as evidenced by the serve-and-volley tactics others have mentioned.