Tennis, Anyone?
I was going to write another post about the aftermath of Katrina, but I'm enjoying a bit of a diversion. I've been watching some absolutely riveting tennis from the U.S. Open. Earlier, Elena Dementieva beat Lindsay Davenport in a third set tiebreak, and now James Blake and Andre Agassi are battling it out and look like they are going to go five sets. (UPDATE: Agassi won in a fifth set tiebreak. That fifth set had to be one of the best I've ever seen.) Dementieva is now in the semi-finals, after reaching the finals last year. I am amazed by how she is able to be so accomplished in spite of the fact that she has maybe the worst serve in professional tennis. She is just a bulldog when it comes to hanging in the match, and she knows how to put points away. And she's not bad to look at either. I don't think I'm the only one who would relish a Dementieva-Sharapova final.
I'm not generally a big tennis fan. I don't follow the tour week to week. Most of the time I find the action to be uninteresting, quite frankly. I don't even understand the mechanics of the seedings and the draw. It would seem to me that if you have seeded players, they should be placed in the bracket such that if the higher seed won every match, it should work out that in the fourth round it would be 1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15, etc. and by the quarterfinals it would be 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc. Then you would draw lots to place the unseeded players in the bracket. The number 1 seed should expect to play, barring upsets, the 8 seed in the quarters and the 4 seed in the semis. But it never works out that way. For example, this year's U.S. Open draw would have had the 1 seed (Roger Federer) play the 6 seed in the quarters, and the 3 seed in the semis. Without upsets, Maria Sharapova would have had to play the 5 seed in the quarters. This makes no sense to me. But I digress. Suffice it to say that I don't often get interested in a tennis tournament as much as I do with golf, but the tennis at this year's U.S. Open has been superb.
I also got to thinking about comparisons between the majors in tennis and in golf, because I find there are some parallels. I look at the Australian Open as the PGA Championship of tennis. It's the obvious fourth choice among the players and fans (with apologies to fans Down Under.) It is on hard court, but is kind of the poor cousin to the U.S. Open, much as the PGA is in golf. No young golfer dreams of making a putt to win the PGA, and no tennis players regard the Aussie Open as their top prize, except for the players from that part of the world. (Okay, it's not a perfect analogy, but you get my drift.) The French Open, meanwhile, I equate to golf's (British) Open Championship. They are both unique in their venues - the French Open played on clay, the British Open on links courses - and bring different types of players into and out of contention than the other majors. Then there is Wimbledon, which is the Masters of tennis. Both are staid, proud and dignified, and widely viewed as the most prestigious title in their respective sport. And the U.S. Open is like, well, the U.S. Open. Both offer unique challenges you won't find anywhere else - the toughest course setups in golf, and nighttime tennis matches in front of raucous crowds. In both those tournaments, the audiences are immensely supportive of the American participants against foreign opponents - and that's a great thing in my opinion. I'm glad to know that Canadians aren't the only ones who react to our homegrown athletes like we're small town hicks.
Watching the U.S. Open has not only been enjoyable, but it has also inspired me to want to pick up a racket and go out and play, which I haven't done in several years. So if anyone is up for a set or two, let me know. But be forewarned - I can serve almost as fast as Elena Dementieva.
I'm not generally a big tennis fan. I don't follow the tour week to week. Most of the time I find the action to be uninteresting, quite frankly. I don't even understand the mechanics of the seedings and the draw. It would seem to me that if you have seeded players, they should be placed in the bracket such that if the higher seed won every match, it should work out that in the fourth round it would be 1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15, etc. and by the quarterfinals it would be 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc. Then you would draw lots to place the unseeded players in the bracket. The number 1 seed should expect to play, barring upsets, the 8 seed in the quarters and the 4 seed in the semis. But it never works out that way. For example, this year's U.S. Open draw would have had the 1 seed (Roger Federer) play the 6 seed in the quarters, and the 3 seed in the semis. Without upsets, Maria Sharapova would have had to play the 5 seed in the quarters. This makes no sense to me. But I digress. Suffice it to say that I don't often get interested in a tennis tournament as much as I do with golf, but the tennis at this year's U.S. Open has been superb.
I also got to thinking about comparisons between the majors in tennis and in golf, because I find there are some parallels. I look at the Australian Open as the PGA Championship of tennis. It's the obvious fourth choice among the players and fans (with apologies to fans Down Under.) It is on hard court, but is kind of the poor cousin to the U.S. Open, much as the PGA is in golf. No young golfer dreams of making a putt to win the PGA, and no tennis players regard the Aussie Open as their top prize, except for the players from that part of the world. (Okay, it's not a perfect analogy, but you get my drift.) The French Open, meanwhile, I equate to golf's (British) Open Championship. They are both unique in their venues - the French Open played on clay, the British Open on links courses - and bring different types of players into and out of contention than the other majors. Then there is Wimbledon, which is the Masters of tennis. Both are staid, proud and dignified, and widely viewed as the most prestigious title in their respective sport. And the U.S. Open is like, well, the U.S. Open. Both offer unique challenges you won't find anywhere else - the toughest course setups in golf, and nighttime tennis matches in front of raucous crowds. In both those tournaments, the audiences are immensely supportive of the American participants against foreign opponents - and that's a great thing in my opinion. I'm glad to know that Canadians aren't the only ones who react to our homegrown athletes like we're small town hicks.
Watching the U.S. Open has not only been enjoyable, but it has also inspired me to want to pick up a racket and go out and play, which I haven't done in several years. So if anyone is up for a set or two, let me know. But be forewarned - I can serve almost as fast as Elena Dementieva.
posted by Jaymeister at 9/07/2005 11:52:00 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home