The Glint of Light

I’m very upset at ESPN.

Look, normally I’m a huge fan of ESPN. The idea of a channel (or five) for sports, 24/7 really appeals to the side of me that is convinced that there is nothing else in life besides sports (that’s the majority side of me, for anyone who knows anything about me). I’m also a huge fan of having multiple channels, so that multiple myriad sporting events can be on each channel at once. I’ll be totally honest; it’s addicting. I’m one of those people who watches Sportscenter. For hours. For the same news over and over again. (quick guess: how much life do I possess? person who comes closest IN THE COMMENTS [hint hint] gets a surprise!).

I also like tennis (that’s a surprising one, no?). I do not possess the willpower, nor the time, however, to stay up until 2:00 am to watch the Australian Open women’s (or men’s) finals, no matter how good they are (sidebar: the only time I’ve canceled everything to stay up and watch sports in the middle of the night was the last World Cup. I was in India and for about the first month of my trip, I was still on American time). The idea of showing the games on tape delay (something that ESPN2 has apparently grown very fond of, as I’ve seen everything from Djokovic-Tsonga and Murray-Nadal to Dulko-Ivanovic on tape delay at between 10:00 and 2:00), while, on the surface somewhat prehistoric (you know, those times before texting and iPhones) appealed to me.

Seemed to appeal to the executives at ESPN2 as well, since they advertised that they would show the Henin-Williams final in prime time, as well as an “encore presentation” of the men’s final at 10 am Eastern time. So, even though it was a Saturday night, I canceled all my plans and settled down on the couch at 9:00 pm to see Justine the Comeback Kid and the Defending Champion duke it out in a match that I already knew Serena Williams had won in three sets. Basically, I expected to see three sets.

I saw two.

They played two. Seriously. They played around half of the first set, the second half of the second set, and the third set. For all the advertising, for all the talk about putting the game in prime time, it seemed that the two-hour time slot rampaged past my desire to see what ended up being a great women’s final. Sure, the sections shown were most likely the most “action-packed” (although having entertaining events with Dick Enberg commentating tennis is inordinately painful), but for actual fans, for thinking fans, it isn’t about the part where Justine won fifteen points in a row to close out the second set. It’s about her lead-up, how she managed to figure out Serena Williams’ defenses, about WHY she could do it earlier.

Now I understand the overwhelming compulsion to effusively show thunderous action that is the highlights of the day’s Winter X Games, and I understand that, no doubt, there were throngs of people gathered at 11:00 pm to see snowboard halfpipes or whatever (if you like Winter X Games, I apologize; I hate it when people ridicule my sports too), but for us tennis fans, it’s a utter, complete, total insult to cut off 1/3 of a match. Come on, ESPN2. Come on.

You know what makes it worse? The game itself was not much longer than the necessary space in the time slot (it was 2:07 hours for a 2:00 hour time slot) and the fact that ESPN2 was scheduling tapings all evening means that the time slot could have been expanded to accommodate the length of the women’s match; after all, it’s a tape delay. And you know what’s worse than that? The actual play that they showed ended at 10:44, meaning that there was another quarter of an hour where they could have shown the game (they showed the trophy presentation and speeches instead).

If they removed all the pre-match discussions, the analysis between sets, and a bit of the unnecessary advertising, they could have most likely fit the match in their schedule. If they had pushed everything back at most a half-hour (something they could have no doubt done), they could have fit the match right in. But they didn’t. This upsets me.

This morning, I watched the entirety of the men’s match on tape delay and, with the exception of the third set, Henin-Williams was a significantly better match (the quality of the tennis might have been not very different, but the skill level/skill at which the opponents were playing was significantly different and better in the women’s match). The men’s match was the once that received the better coverage and, well, I could see all of. I’m not saying gender has something to do with it, I’m just saying…*

* – (of course, it’s just as likely because Federer is an icon of the sport, but still! Justine’s a great story and this is America; surely people are Serena Williams fans? Right? Right?)

Bah. It doesn’t really matter. I know some people have been expecting rants from me, so I’m glad to oblige with this little mini-rant. To be honest, I’m much more at home talking about the finals.

Analysis after the “jump”, broken into little sections about various thoughts of mine.

Stats courtesy www.australianopen.com. Their serve analyzing tool is awesome. You should check it out.

Murray thought #1: Service Numbers:

Food for thought.

As – aces
1S% – first serve percentage
2SW% – second serve winning percentage
RP% – percentage of receiving points won by Federer on Murray’s serve

STAT          SET 1          SET 2          SET 3

As              0                    2                8

1S%           45%               59%           60%

2SW%        33%               54%           60%

RP%           46%               39%            31%

I think this really encapsulates exactly how Murray went about his service games in the match. The last row should be a fairly good indicator of how successful Federer was against Murray’s serve; one can see that this indicator goes down as the other indicators go up (not really a surprise). Murray’s service game drastically improved as the match went on, which is essentially what the last row seeks to say.

As indicated by the top three rows, I think this can be credited to two factors: Murray’s improved first serve and the impact this had on his second serve. As the match opened, I cannot recall a single service game where Murray actually looked comfortable and powerful against Federer; as the match bore on, Murray steadily became more and more comfortable and his first serve returned. One of the primary marks of success in a Grand Slam is winning service games and as I looked earlier, one of the main components of this is having a dominant first serve. Murray’s returned earlier in the match (particularly in the tiebreak) and his first serve returned, his service games improved.

The second factor is his improved success on his second serve. As the game wore on, Murray was able to increase the number of points won on his second serve. I’m not totally sure why this is the case, but my theory is that it had to do with the placement of his serves and the dominance of his first serve. Around half of his second serves are on the edges of the court and, from my memory, those were later in the match; perhaps he gained more confidence or control over his serve as the match wore on. His first serve was already illustrated to be more dominant, so it could be some kind of residual effect (which I’m not sure exists or not; I’d like to check that out).

Murray thought #2: Playing Style

There was much discussion among the commentators of the match about Murray’s style of play. I have my own impressions.

In the first set particularly, Murray and Federer seemed to be playing in two quarters of the court, instead of the whole thing. Murray would hit his backhand to Federer’s backhand, who would strike back, and so forth. The commentators (Patrick MacEnroe particularly) believed that this was a purposeful strategy on the part of Murray to play the game on his backhand side, his stronger one. I’m skeptical. It may simply be that I was watching Federer more than Murray, but it seemed to me to be a strategy on the part of Federer as well.

Federer would control the ball with his backhand and go progressively to the farther and farther to Murray’s left, forcing him to react, move to the center of the court, and move back to the left. It seemed to me that Murray was having problems with movement to his left and, it seemed just to me that Federer recognized it as well. Later in the match Murray was constantly touching his left calf, the muscle that he would have pulled had he been quickly lunging to the left and I’m convinced that Federer saw this prior to the match and decided to pick up on it.

The thought of Roger Federer, a player with as much control and strength as he has, tamely going along with his opponent’s strategy in a Grand Slam final and winning(!) seems very far-fetched to me. I’d prefer to think that it was a purposeful strategy on the part of Federer as well (or even both. One could argue that it was a happy medium between the two strategies.

However, as Murray became better and better as the match continued, one thing that woke was his aggressiveness. Now, unsurprisingly, I’m normally against any player being too aggressive or attacking (or really being attacking in any form), especially against one of the greatest players in the history of the game, but the more Murray opened up his forehand (and Federer’s), the better he played. In the third set particularly, Murray was moving Federer around and Roger Federer seemed very much out of sorts. While I normally wouldn’t endorse such a strategy, for Murray, frankly, it worked.

Ahh, what a match it could have been. If Murray came out firing from the beginning and the entire match was like the third set (instead of the backhand passing of the first two sets), I have trouble imagining that the match would have been a straight-sets victory for the Swiss superstar. It takes a very close match to get to a 13-11 tiebreak and, to be honest, it looked like it could have been longer.

As one last note to the above, Murray as many unforced errors (18) in the last set as in the two before. In the last set Federer also hit 18 unforced errors.*

* – setting aside for the moment, that is, that I think there’s no real distinction between “forced” and “unforced” errors. Just like with the statistic “errors” in baseball. I used unforced errors here because www.australianopen.com, where I am getting my statistics, only has unforced errors on a set-to-set basis.

Federer thought: Underhanded Compliments

Shorter thought. Normally I’m a huge fan of Roger Federer because I find him a gentlemen (although no idea if that’s actually how he is in real life). He’s generally quite polite, kind, and complimentary to his opponents both before and after matches, particularly in finals. It’s a good habit and endearing as well.

I don’t really like how he dealt with Andy Murray here. Between his comments prior to the match about how Murray wasn’t his level of play or after the match when his compliment to Murray was how Murray played a “good tournament” (as opposed to “a great game”) didn’t really make me like him all that much. It may just have been his delivery, but the latter comments came across as somewhat bratty. I don’t like bratty. Bratty isn’t good.*

*-If Federer is becoming brattier, that might be different from the natural progression of other players. Agassi, for example, started as a total brat and became a cerebral superstar as he aged. We can see how legendary brats like MacEnroe and Connors have mellowed since they began to broadcast. I’m not sure if Federer will ever be their level, but there’s a certain arrogance to him that reminds me of Sampras. Sampras, of course, is still very arrogant.

Is Federer afraid of Murray or does he just think Murray is well below his league? I’d be willing to wager it’s a combination of both. Federer’s still a great player and I respect him a great deal, but I’d respect him even more if he continued to hold to the high bar that he has set himself with his past actions.

Williams thought: Racism?

How many black players on the tour can you name? I get six (James Blake, Gael Monfils, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Venus Williams, Serena Williams, and Donald Young). There are more (there’s even a black tennis pros site), but if I can’t tell them off of the top of my head, the chances that some anonymous people who are reading this blog know more is quite low (and if it is the case, please comment! I’ll be very impressed. I only knew Young because he partnered with Melanie Oudin once; I barely know who he is). That says something about tennis.

Anyway, the defending champion, now-five-time-champion Serena Williams did not have a match that I can remember where the crowd was behind her. That’s not a surprise. She’s one of the aforementioned types of people (a brat) who hasn’t been on her best behavior recently. She’s also American and, due enormous resources and the heavy-handed international presence of the country, Americans rarely are super-liked by foreign fans (there’s also a tradition of Americans being brats. Huh. Wonder if they are related. And, yes, I may get into politics in this blog. Currently I’m on sports. Comment if you want politics!).

I’m just curious as to what percentage of the lack of support is due to her country and her antics and what percentage is due to some unconscious racism. My guess? Very little is due to the color of her skin. It’s easy enough to dislike someone who verbally abuses linesmen.

Henin thought #1: Better Finals

This was the first three-set women’s final since 2006, when Amelie Mauresmo defeated Henin (then Henin-Hardenne; she’s since separated from her husband) in the final at Wimbledon. Since then, seven women, more than any other four-year stretch in WTA history, have held the #1 ranking. Doesn’t that mean we have parity? Does it really? Are better finals better or is parity better?

Personally, I’d like both. With the Williams sisters, Henin, Clijsters, and ten million Russians all returning to tennis strength, I think we might just get that.

Henin thought#2: Match Strategy

I was going to comment on how easily Clijsters and Henin managed to get to the finals of their respective majors, but their both great players and I’ve already covered the idea of parity so I think I’ll leave that alone for now. I expect a flurry of media articles on the subject, so I don’t want to flood your inbox.

I’ve always remembered Henin for her defense. She was always quick on the court, excellent movement, and that amazing backhand. I remember her standing toe-to-toe with players who were far bigger and much more powerful/stronger than her (Amelie Mauresmo comes to mind) and forcing them into long rallies where she would run them down or make shots that they could not stop, all the time using their power against them. That’s what’s so fun about Henin. She’s small but she’s tenacious and I love players who play good defense.

So what happened? She was unusually aggressive against Serena Williams, a player in the Mauresmo mold. Henin is more versatile, a better athlete, and a better technical player than Williams but Williams’ one advantage is her incredible strength/serving ability. So where was the Henin I remember? Henin was aggressive, attempted to make every shot a winner; she was far different from the way I remember her.

Part of this, I imagine, was reactive. If you look at the statistics for the match, Henin and Williams are nearly equal in every statistic except serving and break points: Williams has an advantage in aces (12 to 4), fastest serve speed (198 kmph to 179 kmph) and break point success (55% to 31%). From what I remember, it was simply that Henin had more opportunities to break and could not, since Williams would use an ace or a big serve, something Henin was not utilizing.

I imagine this is partially just Henin not having played for a long period of time. At one point in her career she was a great server; she’s just been on a very long break. I guess this will come back. One last table/food for thought:

UEr – Ratio of Williams unforced errors: Henin unforced errors (simplified whenever possible)
Scr – score in set, Williams-Henin.

STAT         SET1       SET2       SET3

UEr            1:1          13:7        9:10

Scr            6-4          3-6        6-2

Funny how it just boils down to mistakes.*

*-Yes, yes, I know unforced errors are badly defined, stop reminding me, self.

Blog thoughts?

You have something you want me to write about? Something you dislike about this? anything? Please comment! I love it when people comment, shows that people actually read this, and it makes me feel better. Also, I might just do a personalized rant/analysis jest foar youuuu. And you know you want that. *wink*

Seriously, if you have any suggestions, questions, comments, concerns, anything, please comment.

I also accept complaints about length.