Ted Robinson’s Matchpoints

Forty-eight hours later and I’m still in awe over Sunday. A 10-hour plane flight, with time to absorb nearly a dozen London newspapers along with nearly a hundred messages, many from those who would be classified as “casual” fans, has lent to the aura of this match as “the best ever.”

Now I hear today that SI will feature the match on its cover. When Pete Sampras won his record 13th Slam and 7th Wimbledon, we came home to see a muscled and tattooed Jason Giambi on the SI cover. Sampras was appalled. And now we know that tennis fell victim to the BALCO scam.

This was pure.

This was cojones grande, the only way to describe Rafa doing what he could not 12 months earlier, find a way to win the third set from Federer.

This was a champion falling in “brutal gladiatorial combat…but tumbling with valour” in the stirring words of London Daily Mail writer Paul Hayward. And how fine is that description.

In 24 hours back home, there is a talk-show buzz and coffee shop chat about this match that I have not witnessed in many years.

These two made tennis relevant. Now can it sustain what these two have created?

More from the Wimbledon cache:

* The disappointment over early exits by Andy Roddick and James Blake certainly went away. Stories always emerge; be it Andy Murray’s next step towards the top echelon, Marat Safin (up 35 places to 40), Rainer Schuettler (up 55 to 39) and Arnaud Clement (up 73 to 72) all made themselves relevant again, the two-week siege and double wins for the Sisters, Britain’s obsession over 14-year-old junior champ Laura Robson and her marvelously refreshing attitude over new fame, and the continuing presence of so many former champions at the AELTC.

* The roof can’t arrive fast enough. Sunday’s final ended about 10 minutes before a nightmare encounter would have occurred. The Club, understandably, wanted play to continue until 9:30-9:45 p.m.. They, like everyone, wanted a result. The money and disruption for Monday play, perhaps as little as two games, would have been wasteful. Yet, there was a point at which the players would have said, understandably, that a Championship, particularly from a match so superior, couldn’t be decided in darkness. Thankfully, we were spared the moment. A match for the ages had a proper ending in the dusk of Centre Court.

And traditionalists need not weep. Centre Court will still be open. Remember that grass needs light. The roof will only close once it rains, a 12-minute process. Thus, the courts will be still be covered for a short period. The benefit of the roof will be to guarantee play after a short stoppage and thus never again the drama of Sunday night.

* Major consensus in London was that the Williams Sisters success was due in part to the weakness of the WTA Tour. This is a debate for another time but the perception must be countered by the Tour.

* Start perhaps with Aggie Radwanska, the most impressive of the game’s young women. She has a Martina Hingis-like presence on the court that adds conviction to less-than-punishing shots. She simply doesn’t beat herself. Her lack of serve may hinder the hopes of a Wimbledon title, but the women’s game needs a player like Aggie to rise.

After all, this week’s rankings still feature Patty Schnyder, a career fourth-round player with one Slam semi to her credit, at 13 in the world. Lindsay Davenport won one round at Wimbledon and rose to 23. Tough to explain that to the sporting public.

* While we’re on that point, Serena passed Venus on the computer (reason 5,742 why I hate the concept). But my colleague, SI’s Jon Wertheim, poses a terrific question: has Venus’ career eclipsed Serena’s?

* Now we move to the hard courts and wonder whether Donald Young, John Isner (both of whom fell and are close to being out of the top 100) and Sam Querrey can make a move. Can Bethanie Mattek continue her momentum from the spring/summer and make a Robby Ginepri-like charge through the summer?

And can Rafa play well in the States, particularly the Open? Will his knees, the ones that Uncle Toni admits are so tender that the family wants Rafa to play LESS on the hard stuff, allow him to show New York his greatness?

And does Roger, whose performance at Wimbledon showed he is certainly not done, feel a little pressure to win Slams sooner rather than later?

Leaving Centre Court 15 minutes after Serena completed the Sisters destiny, a Saturday Wimbledon final, and there was a throng gathered at the base of the staircase outside our NBC broadcast location.

I have never seen that kind of gathering so I paused to assess.

It was Richard Williams holding court.

My views on the man are clear: he is reprehensible in his words (racist) and deeds (the abandonment of his first family including three kids, see VENUS ENVY by Jon Wertheim for more details.)

My views on the father are also clear: he and Oracene Price raised two intelligent, talented and increasingly classy women.

He has said he is leaving Wimbledon, that he can’t watch the Sisters face each other. It doesn’t matter that he won’t be here. He has already won.

Women’s tennis is in a precarious state. Globalization doesn’t sell in America, the best emerging American player in recent years won’t acknowledge the U.S. (Maria Sharapova), the tour is losing its title sponsor and the world’s best player abruptly quit.

So enter the women who propelled the tour to new heights in the early part of this decade. They have been part-time players since with part-time success. But now, with a vacuum at the top of the sport, temporarily occupied by Ana Ivanovic while Sharapova flounders through the summer, Venus and Serena have made women’s tennis relevant again.

When they play Saturday, for the third time in a Wimbledon final at a Club they have owned (only one women’s final this decade has been without a Williams), America will watch. And that matters in tennis. The world will also watch, if nothing else but to see how time has treated the Sisters.

They will see a mature Venus who carries herself with grace and has superior grass court movement. They will see a pleasantly maturing Serena, who has finally tempered the loose tongue that has often dismissed and disrespected opponents.

Venus is never more confident than on Centre Court. It is her Magic Kingdom. Serena is healthy, playing in her eighth consecutive Slam, a personal record.

They were both pressed in the second sets of their semis, but neither was threatened with defeat. They simply serve too well.

But they have faced overmatched competition to this point, particularly Venus. No one else can challenge them thus the challenge must come from each other.

Rarely in their previous Slam finals did that happen. Five years of wisdom and maturity could well lead to a better match. As unpleasant as the assignment may be, I think the Sisters will put their lives on hold for two hours and give us a worthy final Saturday.

The buzz was still about Andy Murray at Tuesday’s Wimbledon card. The BBC telecast drew a 44 share; the percentage of TV sets in the country tuned to the match, and an audience of over 10 million.

We confronted this for years with Tim Henman – how to convey the obsession in England with a Brit at Wimbledon. Anyone that covers this event wonders about the day when a Brit wins. Will the town survive? Will anyone work in the next month?

Check out MediaZone Tennis | E-mail Ted at MediaZone’s Mailbag | Sign up for my RSS Feed

Murray’s win over Richard Gasquet afforded a small peek at the possibilities. Longtime Wimbledon observers called it one of the best atmospheres they have seen alongside the famous 2001 Rafter-Ivanisevic final. The AELTC gambled with weather and assigned Murray-Nadal the late match Wednesday. More important the Brit gets maximum time to recover from his late night than to worry about rain. Oh, they must hope to avoid a repeat of the disastrous scheduling that cost Henman a shot at the 2001 title.

On court, the Williams Sisters relentless march to the semis continued. And their success, along with the absence of so many of the top-ranked women, has raised questions.

Tracy Austin wrote in a London paper Tuesday that this “was a thin time at the top of women’s tennis….There is a big vacuum at the top of the game that none of the current players seems able to fill.” True I say, but no fault of the Sisters. Certainly their path here has been easier with the lack of significant opponents, but their play at Wimbledon, especially Venus, requires no apology. Simply, they have the track record.

The question arose in a Tennis Channel discussion with Jon Wertheim: Would you rather have the Sisters playing part-time for more years or the Clijsters-Henin mode of full-time play and early retirement? Jon’s position was that the WTA Tour requires full commitments from top players to make the “business” of tennis viable. Agreed, but I would lean to the longer run. Allow me to watch players grow, develop, mature, peak and finally, slowly decline. Meteoric rise and fall is of no interest.

How in the name of sense can the seedings be allowed? I am told that the women at Wimbledon are seeded by the rankings with no exception, explaining the incredible scenario of Thursday. Elena Dementieva will be the higher seed against Venus….and a massive underdog!

An action-packed week for tennis: Roger Federer finally picked a coach and the selection of Jose Higueras signaled Federer’s intent on returning to form on clay (and the results were immediate, as Fed’s first title of 2008 in Estoril came in his first week of working with Higueras), the Davis Cup fallout continued with the French press hammering Richard Gasquet for ducking Andy Roddick last weekend, James Blake went to Houston and reached the final on clay albeit against a lesser field (but I see the Monte Carlo draw and Sam Querrey is the lone American) and, thanks to SI’s peerless Jon Wertheim, I learn that Alexandra Stevenson, 27 and ranked 258, qualified at Charleston and won a match before falling to Jelena Jankovic.

Check out MediaZone Tennis | E-mail Ted at MediaZone’s Mailbag | Sign up for my RSS Feed

But the real story of the week was in Charleston. And her name is Serena Williams.

She won the event, her second consecutive. She beat Maria Sharapova decisively which, after smacking Justine Henin in Miami, gives her wins over the top 2 women (computer be damned.)

Serena is fitter than any time since her reign atop the game ended in 2004. She is displaying the toughness that characterized her great years. Dropping a set to Vera Zvonareva in the Charleston final didn’t deter her, just as in the Miami final against Svetlana Kuznetsova or the Charleston match with Sharapova.

That match was a significant statement. Serena’s world changed when Sharapova hit her off Wimbledon Centre Court in the 2004 final. Now Serena has won the last 4 matches against Sharapova and hasn’t lost to her since 2004. Serena’s serve was emphatic as she won 16 of 18 points on her serve in the decisive third set in Charleston.

Serena is now back to 6 in the world. She heads to Europe as a threat to win again and women’s tennis needs this. The Slams will be much more fun with Serena in the mix.

Interesting to hear mixed reviews of Andy Roddick’s win in San Jose. Some feedback focused on strong play from Roddick, a sound strong backhand that he was willing to rip up the line, his potent serve (particularly in the final against Radek Stepanek) and a growing confidence as he rolled through the week (albeit against no top ranked players until the final.)

Check out MediaZone Tennis | E-mail Ted at MediaZone’s Mailbag | Sign up for my RSS Feed

Then there were the comments that ranged from concern to contempt for Roddick’s attitude. He derailed Japanese teen Kei Nishikori, conqueror of James Blake in the Delray final, and unloaded a verbal barrage in the process. Nishikori first claimed not to hear Roddick, then admitted an unwillingness to repeat the words publicly.

The esteemed Jon Wertheim, who shares with me a tendency to like Roddick, framed the San Jose incident in the light of recent transgressions, notably Andy’s explosion at umpire Emmanuel Joseph during his loss to Phillip Kohlschreiber in Australia, and wondered if there has been a sea change in Roddick’s demeanor. Fair question — is he being influenced by Jimmy Connors?

Here’s what I know: from an early age, Roddick understood his position as the heir to the Sampras-Agassi throne. As a sports fan, he was aware of tennis’ position in the American sports arena and went to pains to sell/promote the sport much more than himself. His triumphant media tour of New York after winning the 2003 US Open was masterful. It signaled that American tennis was set for the next 6-8 years.

Of course, we couldn’t have predicted Roger Federer. Andy could never have imagined not just Fed’s 12 Slams but also the 15-1 head-to-head dominance of Roger.

And for four years, imagine how many times Roddick has heard that line of questioning….Why is Roger so good? What can you do to stop him? Can you beat him? Is Roger the best ever? Think Roddick may tire of that?

Something else I know: Roddick has been great with young American players on tour. At Wimbledon, he has insisted on using the upper-tier of the men’s locker room, the area to which lesser players and juniors are relegated. There Andy hands with the group that has largely been his peers while the other top-ranked pros dress on the lower level. Roddick is also a thorough American sports fan, thus the concept of “talking” to an opponent may not strike him as foreign as it does many who love tennis.

Story I never forget: 2000 Davis Cup in Los Angeles. Johnny Mac, as captain, chooses 17-year-old Roddick as practice player. What Andy learned was that the role called for him to be “fresh meat,” in this case for Andre Agassi. The great Agassi punished Roddick on the court in their head-to-head practice match. And then Andre piled on a verbal assault. The cumulative effect was so fierce as to force Johnny Mac to halt the proceedings.

I have only talked briefly to Andy about that time, but I am fairly sure he has never forgotten. So when he “talks trash” to Nishikori, Andy may think it’s nothing compared to what he took from Andre. And to the treatment of umpires, well could Connors be advising Roddick that his flare-ups are nothing compared to the classics of Jimmy’s era?

The world of super models, high-stakes poker and private jets in which Roddick lives is another issue, one raised in a fair manner by Jon Wertheim. And I agree with Jon’s conclusion. If Roddick has veered in some ways, the Andy I know will return.

Lost in the news over Monica Seles’ retirement last week was the WTA announcement of an initiative to enhance player safety. Most importantly, criminal background checks will be conducted on player entourage team members and others seeking credentialed access.  It’s a terrific, if overdue, step after the litany of abusive parents (Jim Pierce, Damir Dokic and the horrid 2005 story of Evgenia Linetskaya) and coaches (Joe Giuliano.)

Rankings updates: Roddick, who took a wild card into Memphis (d. Gilles Muller (32) in first round), is still 6, a distance behind Nikolay Davydenko (5) and safely ahead of Richard Gasquet (7).

Biggest rebound is David Nalbandian, coming back from 25 last fall to his present 8.

Ivo Karlovic turns 29 this week and celebrates with a career-best rank of 21.

US rankings: Sam Querrey 63, Vince Spadea 70, John Isner 93, Mardy Fish 94, Bobby Reynolds 100, Donald Young 102 (d. Sam Warburg in 1R Memphis) and Robby Ginepri back to 108 after beating Blake to make the semis in San Jose.

Some final thoughts from the Aussie Open:

And tennis fans know that one slip by Federer does not cost him the spot. But, here comes Djokovic with consecutive Slam finals, four consecutive Slams reaching at least the semis, and a split in the last 6 months against Nadal (Djokovic in Montreal, Nadal in Shanghai.) It’s a worthy question: has Novak caught Nadal as No. 2?