Across The Net 11.26.07: Davis Cup Preview and Tentative Federer-Sampras Analysis
Posted by Dan Martin on 11.26.2007
Can the U.S. end its Davis Cup drought? Is Roddick the anchor? What if anything do the Federer-Sampras matches mean? Roger won 2 and Pete won 1 in a 3 match exhibition series in Asia. What does any of this mean?
The Davis Cup Will be Decided Next Week can the U.S. Win?
On paper, the U.S. has to be considered the favorite vs. Russia. Andy Roddick has been part of Davis Cup ever since his results and ranking justified his inclusion. No one can doubt that he wants this badly especially since it is one of his career goals. James Blake is a streaky player not known for his resilience in best of 5 set matches. Still, Blake is a capable side kick and the U.S. has an advantage on a fast indoor court in singles. Bob and Mike Bryan are the number 1 doubles team in the world. While I must admit that when I have seen the pair practice and play they have rubbed me the wrong way, the Bryan twins give the U.S. a clear advantage in this encounter. On paper, the U.S. squad not only can win, it should win vs. Russia on a fast court in Seattle.
Strategies from the U.S. and Russia
The U.S. will likely use the home surface choice to its optimal level. In 1990, Andre Agassi and Michael Chang beat a decent Australia team on indoor red clay. Indoor red clay is one of those unique Davis Cup inventions where a slow court team slows things down to a ridiculous degree in order to blunt the power of the opposition. The U.S. team has been victimized on the road by slow clay courts over the past few years. Captain Patrick McEnroe is no fool and will make sure this court is as fast as possible. Andy Roddick has the fastest recorded serve on the ATP Tour. The Bryan Twins are good on all surfaces including indoor courts. James Blake has a high risk power ground game that benefits from a court that lets him hit winners. Therefore, the U.S. strategy can be described succinctly as "let'er rip." If the U.S. jumps to an early lead and bullies Russia into submission, the battle could be over before it starts.
Russia's captain Shamil Tarpischev is considered to be a Davis Cup genius. He also coached Russia to the women's Federation Cup title earlier this year. His job is to make sure that if the U.S. does start bullying his players that they do not wilt. Given the reputation many of Russia's top players have for mental fragility this is no easy task. Nevertheless, Tarpishcev has made all of the right moves recently. He removed Yevgeny Kafelnikov in favor of then unknown Mickhail Youzhny to clinch Russia's first Davis Cup title in 2002. Last year, Tarpischev used Dmitry Tursunov and Marat Safin to defeat the U.S. in the semifinal round when the practical wisdom said Niokolay Davydenko would spearhead Russia's chances. I expect Tarpischev to try to out flank Patrick McEnroe by keeping his line-up close to the vest and using Youzhny's variegated skills to make the doubles match competitive. As I stated last week, I expect Igor Andreev, Youzhny and Tursunov to play the singles matches. Andreev is a clay court player, but he also has a massive forehand and could rip a lot of winners on a fast surface. Tursunov could beat Blake on this surface if Blake is error prone. Youzhny is kind of a poor man's Roger Federer and will be used in at least 1 singles match and the doubles match. The Russian path to three wins runs through James Blake. If Tursunov and Youzhny both beat Blake then the U.S. will be pushed to the brink. Andreev beat Roddick at the French Open this year and Youzhny helped eliminate the Bryan Twins at the 2006 U.S. Open. Therefore, Russia can win.
Poise Counts
As Kramer once told Ms. Rhode Island, "poise counts." This Davis Cup is tilted toward the U.S. so long as they do not tighten up due to pressure. James Blake is likely to never win a Grand Slam title. The Bryan Twins have accomplished most things in doubles and this would be a crowning event where doubles is often the difference between winning and losing. Andy Roddick has been #1 and did win the 2003 U.S. Open, but this may be the biggest prize he has left. If the reality of the situation gets to any of these players, expect Russia to take quick advantage. A poised effort ought to result in the first U.S. Davis Cup title since 1995. Patrick McEnroe does not need to out think Tarpischev because the surface is set up for a straight forward strategy of power tennis. The poise to execute this strategy is all that remains.
Federer vs. Sampras
I do not get the Tennis Channel so I did not see any of these matches. I did read a number of accounts, watched highlights on youtube and got accounts from tennis players who do have the Tennis Channel. The highlights I saw from Federer's 6-4, 6-3 win over Sampras in South Korea looked like a relaxed match. A competitive tennis player I know thought Federer spun a lot of serves in to keep the match close. The highlights did show a light hearted match, but each man hit his fair share of good shots. One thing I noticed from the first match was how pure Sampras' serving motion is even after 5 years of retirement.
Federer won the second match 7-6, 7-6 and commented afterward that Sampras could be a top 5 player today if he wanted to do so. Sampras declined the invitation to make a comeback. Some fans compared this match to a Federer-Ivo Karlovic match with Federer holding easily, but never threatening Sampras' serve until the tie breakers. Sean Randall of Tennis-x.com disagreed with Federer's assessment. I guess I will take Pete at his own words from earlier this year and agree that Sampras can play with anyone in the world for 2 sets, but the biggest prizes in tennis require playing many matches in short succession and playing 3 out of 5 set matches. The final exhibition was the real "shocker" depending on who you ask. Sampras won 7-6, 6-4 but was complimentary of Federer's game in victory. Sampras claimed Federer hits shots Pete did not have in his arsenal. Federer asked for a rematch. Sean Randall once again expressed skepticism about this result claiming the result insures another big pay day for both men as rematches are scheduled.
Exhibitions are a funny thing. Andy Roddick beat Roger Federer 1 week before the 2007 Australian Open only to be soundly beaten 6-4, 6-0, 6-2 by Federer two weeks later in a real match. I attended a 1994 match between then world #3 Jim Courier and John McEnroe who had been retired for over 1 year. Courier lost in straight sets in large part due to the crowd wanting to see Johnny Mac win. John McEnroe discussed letting Borg win an exhibition match in Minnesota to please the Scandinavian-descended fans a few years after Borg retired in his autobiography You Cannot be Serious. McEnroe also discussed beating Michael Chang in an exhibition after learning Vitas Gerulatis had died from accidental carbon monoxide poisoning. McEnroe described feeling surreal and that he did not miss at all stupefying the crowd and Chang as he routed a top 10 player while in retirement. Whether Sampras was kept in it by Roger in an attempt to generate interest in future exhibitions or whether Sampras had a day like McEnroe had vs. Chang is beyond me. Until I see the match I cannot render a judgment. I do know that exhibitions are not the real thing, but maybe Sampras deserves more credit than Randall gave him. I would appreciate any thoughts from those of you who watched.
Federer and Sampras Doing Right by the Sport
Roger Federer and Pete Sampras could be accused of raking in huge amounts of cash this past week. No doubt that occurred and will occur in the rematches as well. Still, each man is a legend of the sport and promoted tennis in Asia where tennis is booming. Each man generated global mainstream media attention for tennis. Each man likely funneled cash into their charities. Along with the Sampras series, Federer's double surface exhibition vs. Nadal helped generate a lot of media attention for tennis. Love or hate Federer, he does promote the sport through his media accessibility, his willingness to play high profile exhibitions with Sampras and Nadal, and his activities with UNICEF and Tiger Woods. Federer is an ambassador for the sport and whether it is Bjorn Borg, Rod Laver or Pete Sampras the great champions seem to appreciate how he conducts himself and how he promotes tennis.
Hopefully, this is the beginning of a more public role for Pete Sampras as well. Sampras has supported the Tennis Channel, Masters Series Indian Wells and dabbled on the North American senior tour. Sampras always kept the media at arms length as a player. Perhaps, now that he is in the Hall of Fame and has become friends with Federer, Sampras can let his guard down a bit more and let his fans and tennis enthusiasts alike appreciate his contributions to the sport. I never see Sampras being the towering figure John McEnroe is on the tennis tour even today.* However, Sampras doing things his own way can be a man who draws positive attention to the sport he loves so much.
*John McEnroe sometimes sucks up the finite amount of media attention tennis gets and overshadows current players. Pete would not do that to be sure.
