Category Archives: Andy Murray

AUSTRALIAN OPEN: Real Housewives of Tennis and the Welcome Tension of Andy Murray and Tomas Berdych



When Jimmy Connors didn’t approve of John McEnroe, he put his finger in Mac’s face and started jawing. When Andy Murray was unhappy with Tomas Berdych Thursday at the Australian Open, he tattled.

I’m having a hard time getting past that. Maybe it’s a British thing? Berdych made some remark to Murray as they walked past each other on a changeover after Berdych won the first set. And Murray, all 6-foot-3, 185 weight-lifted pounds of him sat down and, well, snitched. He complained to the chair umpire that Berdych talked to him.

Boo hoo. Let me put this bluntly: I am the official judge and jury on this. I’ll score the spat in a few minutes. But the bigger picture is the thrill you had to feel watching that match. I’ve watched it twice, once stopping every time they showed the players’ fiancees on ESPN to see if I could read Kim Sears’ lips. I’m pretty sure one time she said. “Oh for fun’s sake.” And “Take that, you fun-loving Czech funner.”

I don’t think funner is a word. Maybe a British thing? Surely it’s not a swear word, as Brits have made it clear to all Americans that they aren’t the ugly ones with bad manners. What would I know about it anyway, coming from the country of Milwaukee’s Tim Smyczek, who already locked up the tour’s good sportsmanship award for the year when he allowed Rafael Nadal to hit his first serve again after a fan yelled in a big moment.

Anyway, there was such an edge to the match Thursday that you had to keep paying attention. ESPN has been criticized for showing side-by-side photos of both fiancees and comparing engagement rings. Both rings were estimated over $300,000, Berdych spent more, the funner. I have no idea why ESPN was criticized for that.

Loosen up, tennis. It was fun. I guess that’s the message here. For someone like me, who loves the sport, I’m fine with it as it is. But I have to admit enjoying that added element — personal tension — Thursday. We rarely see it, except when Serena Williams plays Maria Sharapova, which will happen in Saturday’s final.

The general sports fan would be a whole lot more interested in tennis if the sport had just a hint of reality show to it.

Real Houswives of Tennis. And it was just a few months ago that Roger Federer’s wife, Mirka, was calling Stan Wawrinka a “crybaby”

Continue reading

AUSTRALIAN OPEN: From Valedictorians to Class Clowns, Here are Grades for the Year’s First Major

Maria Sharapova icing down during a match

Maria Sharapova icing down during a match

Stan Wawrinka, next banner up

Stan Wawrinka, next banner up

Genie Bouchard. Next.

Genie Bouchard. Next.

We got an inspirational new champion, a re-invented former champion, a few possible future champions and then, well, failure and theater of the absurd. Really, Australian Open officials? It’s OK to have players out there in 110 degree heat because people used to chase antelope in Africa?


So here are the final grades for the Australian Open, of valedictorians, teacher’s pets, class clowns and everything in between.


LI NA: In a sport in need of mainstream attention, Li not only gives tennis something every sport dreams of – something to market to the massive population and economy of China – but also a post-championship match victory speech that goes viral. As a result, Li might be the most important player in the women’s game today, maybe even more than Serena Williams. Li was able to win the Australian Open without beating a top player, but that’s not her fault. Eight months ago, with her results failing and the Chinese media ripping her, Li nearly retired. Her work with new coach Carlos Rodriguez has helped the sport big time. Grade: A+

STAN WAWRINKA: Wawrinka’s championship was even more impressive than Li Na’s, considering the tougher competition he had to beat. He spent the past few years thinking he was never going to be able to break through the Big Four in men’s tennis, but finding honor in getting up after every defeat to keep fighting anyway. And then he took down Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal. You can’t win two major tennis matches by fluke. He earned this. Grade: A+


ANA IVANOVIC: The game has just been waiting for her to get her nerve back. And she came out firing again. She beat Serena Williams, not to mention Sam Stosur, and showed that she’s perfectly capable of being a top 10 player again and a threat to win another major. . .if she keeps believing. Grade A-

ROGER FEDERER: New racquet, new coach (Stefan Edberg), new, aggressive gameplan. Same results? Federer lost to Rafael Nadal again. Well, that is a completely unfair analysis. Federer is finally doing all the right things. It is the only way he’s going to win another major, and he finally seems to realize that. It’s not just that he’s coming to the net, but that he’s trying to step into the ball and attack. Sure, he waffled on it against Nadal. This is all new to Fed. It was a GREAT first step. I was starting to watch him and wonder who he’d lose to next while slicing and dinking. Now, I can’t wait to see him. He still can’t beat Nadal, but he now is a threat to win another major or two. He still has game. He even has a legit shot at the French Open. Grade: A

DOMINIKA CIBULKOVA: Hard to know if Cibulkova just changed her career, but remember this: She came into the Australian Open as a known choker. She left with wins over No. 3 Maria Sharapova, No. 6 Aga Radwanska and No. 11 Simona Halep before reaching the final. Forgive her for some nerves early in her first major final. That happens. The thing about women’s tennis is that there are only a couple of superstars. The women’s players are sort of cookie-cutter, and if someone with talent and nerves of steel comes along, then it’s going to take a top player playing well to beat her. Hope is that this won’t be Cibulkova’s Melanie Oudin-moment, and that she’ll have found her nerve for the long run. Grade: A+



Aga Radwanska plays brilliantly, wins

Aga Radwanska plays stupidly, loses

Aga Radwanska plays stupidly, loses

AGA RADWANSKA: She might have played the match of the tournament in beating Victoria Azarenka. She was everywhere on the court, with just enough power. Azarenka was flustered and confused. And the media hailed Radwanska as a genius for that match. But in her semifinal match against Dominika Cibulkova, Radwanska played as if she had had a lobotomy. I’m not even sure Radwanska tried. When things weren’t working, she kept doing them. There was no hint of strategy. This is the problem with the almost-greats. You see incredible things, and then you are reminded why they don’t reach the mountaintop (see Tomas Berdych). Same thing happened with Radwanska at Wimbledon. So what’s the grade? Well, I think she’s good enough to win a major, and marketable enough to be a star. And that semifinal match was so bad, I can barely remember the Azarenka match. Grade: F.

TOMAS BERDYCH: He reached the semifinals, and then smiled and credited his team when he was told that he had become the only current player outside the Big Four to reach the semis of all four majors. Hey Tomas, that’s not really a compliment. Another way of putting it: You are the only player on tour to reach the semis of all four majors, but never win one. Berdych is adding topspin to his forehand, which is being credited for his recent improved play. I don’t know about that. That flat forehand was the reason he was winning matches. The way he fell apart briefly against David Ferrer in the quarters was shocking. Lost his nerve at moments against Stan Wawrinka in the semis, too, but in hindsight, it’s hard to mark him down too far for losing to the champ. One more thing: there was nothing wrong with Berdych’s much-criticized prison-cell shirts, other than his team was wearing them, too. Grade: B

DAVID FERRER: When he lost to Berdych in the quarters in what I’m calling the Bridesmaid Bowl, he lost his unofficial title as best player never to win a major. He pushed the line judge, too, but at least he isn’t hitting balls into the stands at crying babies anymore. Still fighting hard. Still stuck in the land of almost. Maybe Wawrinka’s win will show him what’s possible. Grade: C

Continue reading

AUSTRALIAN OPEN: Federer Faces Facts, Makes Racquet Again. It’s About Time

imgres-1The first thing you noticed when Roger Federer played Andy Murray on Wednesday at the Australian Open was that his headband and wristband were bright red. So were his shoes. It took a minute to realize why that would stand out.

Here’s why: Roger Federer was playing in color again. For the past few years, he has been in black and white, playing an obsolete style with obsolete equipment, stubbornly in denial about what was going on around him.

It was sort of sad, really. He always had some excuse for his decline. I covered the match where it first should have been hammered into his head, a loss to Robin Soderling at the French Open. Federer blamed the weather for that one, as if Soderling were playing under a different sky.

That was 2010. But now Federer has finally faced facts.

Please read the rest of the column here

WIMBLEDON: Andy Murray’s Win Took Forever, Will Last Forever

images-8 images-9 


This one is forever. For Andy Murray. For Britain. It took forever.

It lasts forever.

Andy Murray is the Wimbledon champion. How many times has he heard that in his head over the years? How old was he the first time? How many times has he told himself he’d never get there? He beat Novak Djokovic 6-4, 7-5, 6-4 Sunday, and is the first Brit to win Wimbledon since Fred Perry in 1936.

Understand that for the Brits, this is like the Boston Red Sox finally winning the World Series. It would be like the Chicago Cubs … well, let’s be serious.

Sometimes, it seems impossible breaking forever, making forever.

“I think I persevered,’’ Murray said. “That’s really been it, the story of my career probably.’’

We’ve seen this journey for years, Murray’s and the Brits’ together.

Please read the rest of the column here

WIMBLEDON: Can a Djokovic-Murray Rivalry Without Friction or Contrast Carry Tennis?




So this is what tennis is turning it. its next generation. The straight man vs. the punchline.

Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic won their semifinal matches Friday to advance to the Wimbledon final. It’ll be the third final in the past four majors that they have played each other. In a crazy Wimbledon of upsets, it so happens that the No. 1 and the No. 2 seeds have reached the end. They are supposed to be here. They are consistently the best players in the game.

And remember their last classic against each other? It was in … uh. Well, no, they haven’t had a classic yet. I’m not sure they ever will. But for this to work, they’re going to need their Federer-Nadal Wimbledon moment.

These rivalries in sports are mandatory. They drive a sport, get people talking, choosing sides. Tiger or Phil. Bird or Magic. Roger or Rafa.

But in tennis, generations go so fast, and there is little time to replace them, promote them and define them.

Defining Djokovic and Murray is going to be a problem.

Please read the rest of the column here


WIMBLEDON: Andy Murray Closing in on History? Brits Need a Drink

Andy Murray now two matches from history

Andy Murray now two matches from history



It can be fun to laugh at the panic attacks that Britain has over Andy Murray. Fans want him to win soooo badly at Wimbledon, but they know he’s going to lose. They feel it in their bones. It drives them nuts. It defines them, too.

Wanting a close-up of such fun, I made sure to arrive at Centre Court ahead of time Wednesday, after the early match but before Murray’s. And finally, he and Fernando Verdasco took the court to … polite, quiet applause.

Look, this was a quarterfinal match at the place that will define Murray’s career, and through three games, the stands were half empty. The first set was nearly over, and it still wasn’t packed?

People were arriving casually. No panic. I felt cheated.

What happened? Fans had left after the first match to have a few drinks.

Please read the rest of the column here


WIMBLEDON: Searching for Challenges for Serena. Andy Murray in Vegas Showdown?


Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs


Serena Williams and Andy Murray



We have now come up with two opponents who can beat Serena Williams: Andy Murray and 21-year-old Serena Williams. That’s where the discussion went Thursday after Williams clobbered Caroline Garcia 6-3, 6-2 in the second round at Wimbledon.

Responding to a tweet from a reader, Murray wrote in a column in a London newspaper that he would love to challenge Serena and suggested Las Vegas as a possible site. And apparently Martina Navratilova said on The Tennis Channel that Williams is so amazing at 31 that she would beat Williams at 21.

No, she wouldn’t. And Murray would win easily, but that doesn’t really matter. It’s just filler conversation. This is crickets-chirping time in the women’s draw, as everyone is just waiting for Williams to finish off her last five matches. By everyone, I mean the other players.

At this point, Williams’ opponents are Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova and Steffi Graf. She is competing against history for label of best ever.

But what about Serena vs. Murray?

“That would be fine,” she said. “I get (to hit in doubles) alleys. He gets no serves. I get alleys on my serves, too. He gets no legs, yeah . . . I doubt I’d win a point.’”

Please read the rest of the column here



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 110 other followers