I’m not sure what you are saying here. In the absence of a break of serve, ANY set will go to 7-6, unless the set is a final set in a no-final-set-tiebreak tournament (like Wimbledon). Thus, going first in the set is an huge advantage, because if the set is on serve after the person first to serve wins game five, any loss of serve by the second to serve in the set is instant game-over, whereas a loss of serve by the first to serve can be overcome by breaking-back.
To hand that advantage to the person who is already ahead in the match would mean it would be MUCH more difficult for a person who loses the first set of a match to overcome that loss and win the match. This would not be a good thing for tennis.
Anyone care to make predictions about the finals? Here’s mine:
Women’s:
Serena Williams vs. Melanie Oudin (Serena wins in straight sets)
Yeah, I like the 17-year old, and she has a fairly wide open draw to the finals. And since she’s so young, I think her first-time jitters won’t be as great as the veteran jitters of the other women players, many of whom are just cracking up, as I keep repeating ad naseum. However, I do think Kusnetova may knock her out, but I’ll bet on Oudin regardless. Serena is just so dominant, you can’t really bet against her. I’d say of the remaining women, Clijsters has the best chance of knocking her out, but I’d give that a 20% chance at most. And much as I like Oudin, she has very little chance against Serena, unless the champion decides to beat herself.
Men’s:
Joe-Wilfried Tsonga vs. Roger Federer (Fed wins in four sets)
The men’s draw is far trickier, and really, almost all of the guys left can make it through on a really good day. But I like Tsonga, he’s proven he can make the finals of a major, and when he’s really on, he’s definitely a match for Fed. His greatest strength is that his game can just totally take the control away from the opponent’s hands, but he does suffer from lack of consistency from match to match. I might’ve picked Nadal, but I think his injury problems will end up hindering him just enough to take him out. As for Fed, who can bet against the best player of all time and the current 5-year reigning champion of this event? The guy I can see taking him out is Jon “The Mountain That Moves” (geek reference) Isner. If he plays like he did against Roddick, it should be a VERY interesting match vs. Fed.
I thought Roddick understood that, but his matches this week didn’t show it. Against Isner, he came to net 27 times in five sets! Against Gicquel, 17 in three, and in the first round against Phau, 25 in three sets. I know this isn’t Wimbledon and I’ve heard the court is playing very fast, but by comparison, Federer came to net 42 times in four sets against Hewitt and 35 in three sets against Greul. (In his first round match, I admit, he hardly bothered with the net.)
Roddick didn’t just start improving his net game this summer, he’s improved it bit by bit over the years. And it seems like he went away from it during the Open. I was sorry to see that. But if you do like serve and volleying, the last night match tonight is Taylor Dent against Andy Murray. There should be plenty of net rushing from Dent.
Unfortunately, Murray looks really good so far, up a set and a break against Dent. He’s like Federer-lite, with a very good game all around, just with no dominating aspects, except perhaps his amazing return game. If he makes another final against Fed, perhaps third time’s a charm…
This leads me to a question I wanted to ask a few days ago:
Is the serve and volley style of play inherently more fun to watch? Or is its enjoyability a product of me being used to seeing baseline play?
I will see a serve and volley point now and again, but the excitement I am alluding to is from watching a player that plays serve/volley a majority of their points.
The Dent and someone else match was really fun to watch. It was also stressful as hell. When a player rushes up to the net it makes me nervous because that player has only a percentage of the net covered. It’s impossible to have 100% of the net covered if you’re right up on it. So it makes me nervous that yes, they have most of it covered, but they have to have quick reflexes and hope their opponent doesn’t hit that angle they need to escape the player at net.
I think your line of thinking is correct in that they aren’t inherently more fun, it’s just that we, as an audience, crave variety, and when 90% of the players out there are baseline ralliers, the 10% that like to charge the net are more of a rarity and more interesting to watch. If 90% of the players were serve-volley types, we’d probably be cherishing the few baseline players. If both players are serve-volley types, then the points would tend to be much shorter, and we’d miss out on some of the great baseline chess rallies. I like the balance of baseliner vs. net player, as sometimes we get the baseline rallies, and sometimes we get those nerve-wracking charges to the net, and both players end up having to vary their play to account for the opposing player’s strategy.
Jesus, Murray just pulled off a few return aces in a row to break Dent in the third set. I haven’t watched many Murray matches, and am now finally appreciating just how dominating his return of serve really is. I can see why he’s 6-2 against the Fed.
The serve and volley game has a swashbuckling elegance to it and charging the net is exciting when it’s done well, but what counts the most are variety in the sport and the skill of the individual player. It’s not inherently much more fun to watch a long string of points that goes ‘serve, return lob, putaway.’ People complain that there are too many short points now and that serves are dominating, but serving and volleying makes for even shorter points.
And on the flip side, Agassi was the subject of a lot of interest when he was coming on the scene because there weren’t many pure baseline players, and nobody hit as hard as he did. The return of serve wasn’t an offensive weapon for most players. Over time that changed and that style isn’t unique now.
It seems to me that advantages on the field of play should be earned, as opposed to doling them in the name of parity. Administrative tasks before the match starts should level the playing, not in-game mechanics.
Thus, instead of a coin-flip to just arbitrarily give a huge match-long advantage to one of the players at random, give it to the underdog to start the match and force the favorite to earn it.
Also, it isn’t a black and white issue of the person ahead in the match getting to keep it. Down two sets to love, if you battle back and win the third, you now get to serve first in the fourth even though you’re still behind.
Um, no. And if that were really the case the women and men would be playing in direct head-to-head competition with each other. I don’t think any reasonable person watching tennis would ever suggest that the very best men and women are equal in muscular strength and stamina.
BTW, the principal author and force behind Title IX was the incredible Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink, a very teeny-tiny woman who mightily resisted when the “muscular” men in charge tried to limit her enormously powerful intellect and spirit.
Oudin & Petrova in the third set, Oudin was up a break, but Petrova just broke back. And except for the really tight first set, Oudin has really been keeping her composure. This should be a fun finale to watch.
The first time Grand Slammer has knocked out top contenders Dementieva and Sharapova, and now the 13th seed Nadia Petrova, coming back from a set and a break behind. I think she showed a tiny bit of nerves at the first two match points she had, but other than that, she’s really got the poise of veteran champions. And Melanie is now officially the Cold Warrior, mowing down four tough opponents from Mother Russia, with icy cool nerves of steel. With Kusnetsova next, perhaps. I don’t think she’ll be welcome in Moscow anytime soon!
This is Oudin’s first time at the U.S. Open, but it’s not her first slam. She made the fourth round at Wimbledon just two months ago, for crying out loud! (She had two other first round losses but Wimbledon pointed the way to this.) You have to enjoy watching her play. She’s tireless, she has game, and she’s really tough. I hope she starts winning some first sets and making her own life easier out there.
Oudin showed serious promise at Wimbledon when she beat Bammer and, even more impressively, Jankovic. I’m not saying I thought she was going to make the quarters at this tournament, but I’d at least heard of her and we knew she was a promising player. Who the hell knew Yanina Wickmayer?
I caught much of the Oudin match in the background; very fun to root for her as she dug out of the second set hole and then take the third. USA! USA! USA!
Haha, sorry, I could have sworn I heard one of the commentators say that about her; maybe they were saying something like her first U.S. Open, not her first Slam. But yeah, I’ve heard of her beating Jankovic, I just forgot it was at a major!
Well, I really think this half of the draw is Kusnetsova’s to lose, but the thing is she’s kind of the expected finalist at this point, and who knows how she’ll deal with the expectations against Wozniacki and Oudin. Whatever the case, it’s already Oudin’s breakout Slam, and Kusnetsova would be her biggest challenge, but I think the Georgian has the goods to do it. It should be a fine match, provided that the Russian makes it past Woz. And whoever wins that match I would expect to win the semifinal.
And how cool would that be, a Wickmayer vs. Oudin unseeded semi?
Men and women DO compete head to head in tennis. It’s called mixed doubles.
I never once suggested that men and women are equal in muscular strength and stamina. Are you suggesting that women are physically incapable of playing 5 set matches?
The LPGA doesn’t seem to have any problem discriminating against men, unlike the PGA which does not discriminate against women.
My point was that the women should at very least put in the same amount of work as the men in order to earn the same pay. Whether that’s in the form of women playing 5 sets or the men playing 3 doesn’t matter to me. I find it offensive that women are deemed too weak to play using the same rules as the men, but feel entitled to the same pay anyway.
You know what the famous strategy in mixed doubles is, right?
I saw two of the best women in the world play a match at the year-end championships a decade ago. Seeing Steffi Graf beat Hingis 6-0 in the fifth did not leave me with an appetite for seeing more women play five set matches.
Federer polishes off Robredo in convincing fashion, so much so that they cut the TV coverage from his match for the entire third set in favor of Isner v. Verdasco! It’s always so amazing to me how effortless Fed makes it look; he’s so bloody efficient. He doesn’t waste energy on his shots, and in his footwork; it all seems perfectly calculated. With his style of play, he can be around forever, as opposed to the explosive Nadal, who seems destined to face career-threatening injuries sooner rather than later.
Isner looks really sluggish, as if he’s still not fully recovered from the Roddick match. It’s tied 1 set apiece in the third, on serve, but I have to give the edge to Verdasco here. He’s really making the American move side to side, which does not suit the tall man’s strengths.
(She had two other first round losses but Wimbledon pointed the way to this.) You have to enjoy watching her play. She’s tireless, she has game, and she’s really tough. I hope she starts winning some first sets and making her own life easier out there.