Across The Net: Wimbledon at the Middle Sunday and Defending Kournikova

Posted by ikabod Crane on 07.02.2007

In a rainy first week, Wimbledon is behind schedule, but lots of good tennis is on tap for the upcoming week.

Wimbledon 2007 is stuck somewhere between the 3rd and 4th round. Ideally, the second Monday includes all the men's and women's round of 16 matches. By Tuesday, the quarterfinals should be set. Instead, rain and Wimbledon's usual refusal to play on the middle Sunday have left the tournaments behind schedule. This opens up some interesting questions for various title contenders:

1. Can Rafael Nadal win 5 grass court matches in seven days against some good fast court competition to claim his first Wimbledon crown?
2. Does the top half of the men's draw have a huge edge being one match ahead of the bottom half? Especially if rain stacks up play even further on the bottom half players?
3. Does rain equal slick courts that favor big servers such as Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova?
4. Will Federer only having to win 3 matches in week two help or hurt his rhythm? (Haas is now out with an injury)

Women's Collisions

Venus vs. Maria Three time Wimbledon champion Venus Williams is one win away from facing 2004 Wimbledon titlist Maria Sharapova in the round of 16. The two went three sets in the 2005 semifinals with Venus prevailing. If Sharapova and Venus serve lollipop second serves as both are prone to do from time to time, it will be the first time two tall former Wimbledon champions lost their nerve (and serve) at the same time. This one could be interesting.

Serena vs. Justine The Australian Open and French Open champions are each one win away from a clash that could decide the #1 player for 2007. Power favors Serena, but for some reason I think Henin finds a way through this match.

Featured Men's Matches

Breaking News: Haas withdraws with a torn stomach muscle

Haas vs. Federer Tommy Haas is one shoulder injury away from an NBC reality dating show (I promise to devote an entire column to The Age of Love after Wimbledon is over). Still, Tommy Haas is ranked 10th in the world, reached the semifinals of the Australian Open, and crushed Andy Roddick in the finals of Memphis earlier this year. Hass took Federer to five sets at the Australian Open in 2006 and lost 6-4, 6-7, 6-3 to Federer on grass at Halle 2006. Of course, Federer has won seven straight matches vs. Haas so Haas is an underdog. This is a shame: Haas was off to such a good start this year and now injuries have set him back again

Nadal vs. Robin Soderling I am not calling an upset here, but Nadal has already said he has a better chance to win Wimbledon if it does not rain much. That might already be in his head. Nadal also had to play a late match in poor lighting on Thursday and cannot be happy about not being able to play on Sunday. Wimbledon's traditions are great, but they can annoy players too. Soderling is 6'3" and if the courts play slick and the ball bounces low, we may see a dramatic match.

Also, Jonas Bjorkman and Wayne Arthurs face off in the over 35 division. David Nalbandian vs. Marcos Baghdatis should be fun too.

Tournament Analysis so Far

Federer has yet to drop a set and has to be happy at how he came through vs. Safin. After falling behind 2-0 in the second set, Federer righted the ship, broke back and kept Safin from ever really being in a spot to believe he could win. If Safin believes he can win, he is far more dangerous. Nadal having to play five matches in a week against perhaps Youzhny, Berdych, Djokovic/Hewitt and Federer/Roddick to win Wimbledon is clearly a tall task. Andy Roddick wisely avoided a fourth set and a second day vs. Fernando Verdasco of Spain. Paul-Henri Mathieu could be tough for Roddick, if Mathieu takes care of his own serve and forces Roddick to volley up.

The women's draw has held form as expected. The heavy favorite has to be the winner of the Williams-Henin quarter. However, Mauresmo, Jankovic, Ivanovic and Sharapova each have realistic shots at the title. Venus Williams and Nicole Vaidisova can join that conversation if they pull an upset. The depth of contenders is making the women's draw more interesting than expected. Thank you Serbia for rescuing the WTA!

Kournikova Was Never Elite, but Cheap Shots Ignore What She Did Achieve

Here is the letter I sent to golf journalist Michael Arkush who compared Anna Kournikova negatively to golfer Natalie Gulbis in this article.

I think your take on Natalie Gulbis being "no Anna Kournikova" is either a backhanded compliment or totally unfair to Kournikova. I am no Kournikova apologist. Both of her parents were Olympic athletes, and with even a marginal serve, she could have hung out around the top 5 of the women's game for a few years. Instead, her serve was terrible and was her undoing in singles. Still, Kournikova was a semifinalist at Wimbledon in 1997 and a quarterfinalist at the Australian Open in 2001. In Golf terms, that means she finished in the top 4 of a major and the top 8 of another. Also, Kournikova was runner-up at the 5th largest tennis tournament (the Miami/Key Biscayne event) in 1998 where she lost to Venus Williams 2-6, 6-4, 6-1. Once again, being 8 points away from the 5th biggest title in women's tennis is at least equal to losing in a playoff in Ohio. Finally, Kournikova achieved her highest world ranking of 8, won two Grand Slam women's doubles titles, was runner-up at 3 Grand Slam doubles events (two mixed, one women's) and achieved a world doubles ranking of #1. So, did Kournikova underachieve? Yes. Was she hampered by a bad serve and a bad back? Yes. Is "Gulbis no Kournikova" as you said? Yes, in that to this point Kournikova achieved more than Gulibs has.

Taking cheap shots without doing the slightest research is not good journalism.

I realize Kournikova is never headed to The International Tennis Hall of Fame, but for her to become a cheap metaphor for sports failure is generally unfair. Kournikova's career can be rightfully criticized, but the idea that she never enjoyed any success in tennis and was completely a creation of her looks does not line up with the facts. If you ever get to be the 8th best in the world at what you do (or 1st in the case of women's doubles), you did something really right for awhile at least.