And the winner is… Andy Murray vs. Rafael Nadal, 6/3  7/6  3/0 ab. – Australian Open Quarterfinals 2010! Gentlemen, please come up to the stage to accept your award!

Murray, looking up from his PlayStation: “Who, me?”
Nadal, with raised eyebrow: “This is my favorite awards espectaculo, no?”

AM, on stage: “Well, this is certainly a surprise. I’d like to thank my team, Miles…I mean… my mum, Alex Corretja, Dani, my manager, my physio, my hitting partner, my conditioning coach – I owe him these biceps, take a look at these babies! – my sparring partner, Ricky Hatton, my nutritionist, my hot blond girlfriend, and the new cast of Miami Vice who will be in my box throughout the year to help me get over the hump.”

Thank you Andy, thank you. We’re sure you’ll be back again next year. You’re too great a player not to win a Slam very soon. A word from Rafa?

RN: “Well, thank you veri much everybody, no? It’s a pleasure to be here. First of all, I want to congratulate Andy for his great season, even though I beat him at Wimbledon when it really mattered and at the end of the year in London too. Andy, you are a great player, and I’m sure you gonna win a Slam very soon. I also want to thank my box, Tio Toni, Carlos, Rafael, Benito, my hot brunette girlfriend, Shakira, the Prince Felipe who is here today, and the World Champions of fútbol. And Kia Motors and GE Money, who make this awards possible. And the Canarias Islands, which have the best fishing in the world. And Steven, who watches all my matches, even in the middle of the night. Steven, I want to congratulate you for a great season, and I sure you gonna be back here very soon. So thank you veri much everybody, and I gonna see you next month, no?”

Thank you very much Andy and Rafael, for these moving speeches. Let’s give them a hand, Ladies and Gentlemen. Just one hand, Rafa, please, the left one…I mean, the right one. Andy….Andy, can you hear us?

So to venture a quick analysis of this match…All right, it could have been longer. But as a personal experience, there is nothing like waking up at 3:00am in the New York winter to watch a match between two players whose matchup might be the most exciting in the game today. The blue court in Rod Laver Arena shimmers like a translucent lagoon in which the pure joy of sport appears to be greater than at any other tournament. On this day, Nadal and Murray are absolutely ON FIRE from the very start. The first set in particular is spectacular, with both players going for broke on almost every point, hitting winners on the run, dropping delicate touch volleys, spinning perfectly measured lobs, all while criss-crossing the court like hares at the first hint of  springtime. The 6/3 first set score is deceptive. Nadal goes up a break in the third game of the match, to see his advantage immediately erased in the next game by Murray, who ends up winning the set by holding after breaking at 4/2. Rafa wins his share of spectacular points, but in very un-Nadal like fashion, fails to convert on crucial break points later in the set.

The second set is  also played at a very high level, but one gets the feeling that much like Sysiphus rolling the boulder up the hill, Nadal can’t quite clear the peak, with Murray acting as its ruthless guardian. Like the Australia Day fireworks  that provided a slight interruption early in the set, his serving is absolutely brilliant, leaving Nadal no chance whenever he has the slightest opening. 2nd set to Murray in a tiebreak.

The third set’s play comes as an anti-climax. Somewhat mysteriously, Nadal tweaks his knee in the first game while routinely catching up to a ball, and although his level is still high, his demeanor appears dispirited. He abandons with the score stuck at 3/0. Game, set, match, Murray. It is a masterful performance.

In the outcome of this match, even greater than Murray’s brilliance perhaps, is the sense that Rafael Nadal’s career might have been permanently impaired by a body suddenly reticent to the almost superhuman efforts imposed upon it by its master. What might have been if his health was equal to his talent? Will he ever win another Slam, or even another tournament? What a shame one of tennis’ brightest lights should be dimmed so soon! As we all know, Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open told a very different story. Beyond the outstanding play and the dramatic twist of this Murray/Nadal Australian Quarterfinal, this match now stands out for a very intriguing reason: unbeknownst to Nadal at the time, the Grand Slam was within his reach…

Quote of the Year 2010:
Andrew Murray, Australian Open Awards Ceremony, following loss to Roger Federer: “I can cry like Roger, it’s just a shame I can’t play like him.”

Commentary: Very funny, but nobody cries like Roger. Like his versatile game, he has mastered all the variations of the crying game as well. Tears of joy, tears of sorrow, record-breaking tears, tears at seeing the Australian greats who are there no doubt to see him cry, tears of frustration at not winning the French all those years…

In conclusion: if Andy Murray had played against Roger as well as Roger had cried against Rafa the previous year, he would no doubt have beaten Roger, since Rafa had beaten him, and he had beaten Rafa, who has not cried against either of them. It’s a simple mathematical problem that, once resolved, should finally enable Andy to win a Slam.

This was before I actually heard him play live for the first time, at an open rehearsal with the New York Phil. And I must say that I was extremely impressed with what I heard on that day. There was no absolutely no cheesiness, no gimmicks, no intention of conveying anything other than absolute professionalism. When you’re playing the Sibelius Concerto, there’s no room for that anyway. I listened particularly intently, since I’m also performing it this season. What I heard, at a relatively early hour of the morning, was a musician totally dedicated to the music, performing with wonderful sensibility and intelligence. Every bowing, nuance, and detail of the score was perfectly apprehended, not only as someone who had performed it countless times before, but with the intensity and passion of someone playing it with orchestra for the very first time. And this was for a rehearsal, albeit a public one. Did it matter that his sound doesn’t possess the hyper-brilliance of a Vengerov or Repin? No, it was simply beautifully done, and that is enough in itself. In these times of hype and marketing – not to mention total delusion – it is great to hear someone worthy of all his success.

So on second thought, we need more Joshua Bells. Let the recording companies and Madison Avenue merchandisers find them and shamelessly market them to the masses.

What impresses the most about Rafa is his character. His persona plays as large a part in his success as his speed or coordination. Serves, forehands and volleys seem almost less relevant to him than the desire to excel, to better himself through practice every single day until the moment comes to finally reap the rewards. Nadal would simply not be Nadal without those qualities.

Perhaps his unique tennis upbringing made some of these virtues easier to assimilate. Were it not for the watchful education of Uncle Toni, would Rafael have the humility to fulfill the qualities instilled in him? Rather than the glory and the trophies, he seems to be pursuing and ideal, no? A simple devotion to excellence, both as a player and person. He is an incredible athlete, but just as valuable as a brilliantly crafted point of tennis, are moments such as these.

What if, like Rafa, we all had the ability to pursue our talent to the very fullest of our abilities? If we had the strength to suppress all weakness of character, the inherent doubt and fear that inhabits all of us, if we found a way to drive straight to the peak of one’s intellectual and physical capacities?

On the other hand, let’s consider certain flawed geniuses, derailed by one self-indulgent penchant or another. Many have character traits that personify romantic excess: drinking, womanizing, gambling. Would our world be the same without these lunatics? We do value Sade and Casanova, after all. We wince with incredulity at Jean Genet and Jerzy Kozinski’s audacity. Mozart, Schubert, Paganini and others seem to have led the good life . In a twist of irony, Dostoevsky wrote “The Gambler” in order to pay off his gambling debts… Moral virtue is not a pre-requisite for artistry and excellence. But perhaps I am getting sidetracked; maybe those artists needed their vices the same way Rafa needs his discipline and rectitude.

Amongst those of us whose ability is not transcendent enough to break through those clouds, there are great talents that never fully blossomed. Not through lack of effort but through lack of a nature-defying force of will. The Mozarts, McEnroes and Bobby Fishers do not need any help with their god-given talent, but how many more Bachs, Beethovens and Einsteins would we have if they gave more of themselves than they even knew they possessed? To consider this possibility is certainly tragic. Rafael Nadal is a mortal like the rest of us, but his genius lies in extending himself to a point of total transcendence .

I found a way to delay this post for over three weeks. If I had shown the same resolution as Rafa, I might have written Crime and Punishment or composed the Eroica during that time. Are such weaknesses not a part of human nature? The question I keep asking myself is: Is Nadal as human as the rest of us?

My vote goes to Stan Wawrinka. Not because, like me, he has a Polish surname that few can pronounce, but because he has perhaps influenced the outcome of the tournament more than any other player in the draw. Nadal especially can thank Stan for making his road to the finals much easier to navigate. Instead of playing Andy Murray, who had started to feel like a bête noire on the hardcourts (with defeats in the 2010 Aussie Open quarters, the 2008 US Open semis, or the recent Toronto semis), his portion of the draw left him with F. Lo, Verdasco and Mikhail “Red Army” Youzhny, with only the latter having caused him any real trouble at the slams.

I’ve always admired Stan’s game, with his heavy ball and versatile one-handed backhand. He doesn’t have the grace of a certain other Swiss guy, but his strokes and posture remind me of Boris Becker’s intimidating ground game. With his recent propensity to coming forward more often and a much improved mental disposition, he’s an even more exciting player to watch who definitely belongs in the top 10.

As in other sports, tennis results do not always reflect the rankings. How does one explain that Federer has lost regularly to Nadal, who in turn has been outplayed on hardcourts by Murray, who was a flop against Wawrinka? Doesn’t No. 1 beat No. 2, who in turn always beats No. 3? That’s not the way it works, otherwise we’d be stuck in a strange spatio-temporal loop, with no hope of any change. In this case, Wawrinka conquered Murray, who had a chance of winning it all. Unfortunately, once the victor’s name is etched on the 2010 US Open trophy, Stan – who lost a tight one to “Red Army” in the quarters – will remain a footnote to all but a few.

Like an election whose outcome has been influenced by a chaotic primary or a “triangular”, outside actors often play a role in the shaping of historical events. If not for Ross Perot’s candidacy which split the Republican vote in ’92, whould Bill Clinton have been elected president, for example? Sometimes it takes the confluence of skill with the unlikely element of luck to achieve one’s goals. A perfect concours de circonstance, the flutter of a butterfly’s wings whose effect is felt across the universe. It’s all working out very well for Rafa. History awaits.

I don’t care how many times Gasquet’s broken my heart over the last few years, and how hopelessly erratic his career’s been so far. Watching him wield his backhand like a wand-racquet is one of the most beautiful sights is any sport. I’m always amazed by the way he’s able to hit winners off that side from any corner of the court, the adjustment of his racquet face, the perfect shoulder turn…His second-round upset of Davydenko was admittedly against a player still trying to feel his way back into the game after a long layoff due to a wrist injury, but still… I hope Richie doesn’t wake up today with a cold, though.

Might Roddick have had a chance in his second-round night match against Tipsarevic if he hadn’t lost his marbles over a foot-fault call (which was a good one, even though the lineswoman put her foot in her mouth by not knowing her left from her right)? Roddick seemed pretty lethargic, and although the incident shook him out of his haze for a while, he just didn’t seem there.  He appeared gaunt, perhaps as a result of his recent mono diagnosis. Could it also be dawning on him that his last chance at a slam was last summer at Wimbledon?  A quick psycho-analysis might reveal a post-traumatic letdown. That’s my (totally superficial) diagnosis.

Still trying to make sense of Hedgehog’s (Novak) comment about the spreading shade beeing like “sleeping with my girlfriend” after his first-round escape against Troicki. In what way, exactly? How about some details? Tennis-wise, though, his habit of struggling in the early rounds of the slams has to be draining, and he seems too passive to me to have a shot against the likes of Nadal, Federer and Murray.

Soderling (a.k.a. The Wood-chopper) made mulch out of Taylor Dent, who didn’t make a single dent into Soderling’s game. I admire Taylor’s serve-and-volley game, but his physique doesn’t match his style. When I see him, I think of Edberg, Sampras and Navratilova and how quick and agile they were. If Dent’s conditioning were up to par, he might have more success, even in the age of the brutish return.

Murray/Dustin Brown: Andy Murray is nothing if not consistent, a model of level-headedness in his play. Perhaps too much so occasionally. In contrast, Brown plays an amazingly powerful, flashy style. Murray seemed a little taken aback in the first few games of their second-round encounter, with the Jamaican trying to hit outright, flat-stroke winners on every single point. But like a musician who plays the fast parts spectacularly but doesn’t take the time to concentrate on musicianship, Brown’s game is one-dimensional, and he can’t string a whole piece together. Murray’s court-sense being second-to-none, he easily steadied the ship and came away with an easy win.

Ryan Harrison seems to be coming into his own, with an impressive first-round victory over Ljubicic. His natural facility, all-around game, and the quality of his serving bode well for American tennis, whose youth has been in hibernation for a while now. Even in his narrow defeat to Stakhovsky, there’s a lot to be optimistic about. He also seems to be a very mature and composed 18-year-old. Harrison possesses the power, not to mention determination, missing in Donald Young’s game, who was easily dispatched in the second round by Gilles Simon.

This is fabulous news!

The women’s draw, notwithstanding the absences of Serena and Justine H., is somewhat of a wasteland after just a few rounds of play. The dramatic concussion suffered by Azarenka before her second-round match against Dulko leaves a big hole. This seems to be Maria Sharapova’s year, with her most dangerous opponents Venus, Clijsters, Stosur and Dementieva all playing each other at the bottom of the draw. Ivanovic and Kuznetsova’s confidence appears to be rising, but they are still too short on victories this year to be considered legitimate contenders. And Wozniacki, even as the #1 seed, will not make it past Maria.

In a category on her own, the amazing Francesca Schiavone seems to be on a collision course with Venus Williams in the quarters. She thrilled the crowd in her second-round match against Bondarenko with her all-around play, including a great  between-the-legs shot á la Yannick Noah (the first to attempt it regularly), followed by a sweeping forehand winner. Her game might not resist the big hitters’ power, but there is no one in women’s tennis with a more exciting game – including Justine Henin. If her passionate play carries her past Venus, she would meet Clijsters (against whom she has a disastrous 0-11 record) in the semis; but I really want to believe in the victory of style over the bulldozers of the Shara-power variety. Who wouldn’t want to see her win the Open? If there is a tennis god, make your presence felt immediately. Please.

In the aftermath of this historic match, both players have payed a physical price for their efforts, Mahut struggling with early losses in Newport, Segovia and Istanbul, and Isner questionable for the Open with torn ankle ligaments. Both have said they’ve recently felt stiffer than usual and needed more sleep and recuperation time, among other symptoms. Isner is a top-20 ranked player who is directly admitted into any draw, while Mahut’s current ranking of 158 forces him to go through the qualies.

Which he did, losing in the final round in a close 3-setter…

Come on, USTA, what were you thinking? Even at his current ranking, is Mahut any less deserving of a US Open wild-card than the latest two-fisted American junior straight out of Bollettieri’s? Thanks to Isner and Mahut, the game of tennis perhaps never received such admiring and wide-eyed interest as during those several days of mind-boggling physical, mental and tennistic prowess. Yes, a wild-card is a privilege. One of the greatest tournaments in the world cannot make such a decision lightly. But Mahut isn’t your average journeyman; he is a truly gifted fast-court  player, having consistently excelled on grass (with finals at Queens and Newport in 2007), and ranked as high as #40 in the world just 2 years ago.

Considering that his body had still not fully recovered from Wimbledon, not allowing him directly into the main draw, where a day of rest between matches would have benefited his recovery, deprived him of a more-than-deserving opportunity to shine once again on the Grand Slam stage – and who knows? finally express the full measure of his talent to his suddenly-numerous fans. People love the Federers, Nadals, and Sharapovas, but real tennis fans also have a soft spot in their hearts for unheralded but beautiful players like Mahut. 

Is it naive to assume that Tennis Australia, with its tradition of sportsmanship and fair-play (and the French, who often value style over results), would have offered Mahut the wild card if it was the slam immediately following Wimbledon? It’s the US Open’s loss. And it’s not too late, by the way, Mr. Pollard…

Why should I write about music and tennis, not to mention the rest of the world? What do they have in common? On the surface, not that much. Music is a universal art, enjoyed by regular folk and the privileged alike; until recently tennis was thought of as an elite country-club sport. Not so anymore! Tennis is hit, sliced and volleyed from Cyprus to Chicago and Nantucket to Novosibirsk. With the arrival of personalities like Andre “Image is everything” Agassi or the Williams sisters, anyone who loves tennis has models to emulate. And with China’s conservatories literally bursting at the seams with millions of students, who can say that classical music is going extinct?

Practised at the highest levels, both music and tennis can transcend the ordinary to reach the level of high art. One could compare Stefan Edberg or Martina Navratilova’s high-wire acts to virtuoso showcases by Paganini, Liszt or Wieniawski. On the other hand, Rafa Nadal seems more “Brahmsian” to me with his topspin and physicality, while Sharapova is Tchaikovsky. She just is. All strings and brass, all the time.

For those who love Opera, consider the following cast of characters: the over-the-top drama of Italian Opera in John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors, Wagnerian tragedy in the lives of Monica Seles and Arthur Ashe, or Leconte and Gasquet’s play in the ”Symphonie Fantastique” spirit - although that’s not really an opera at all. But since there is one about The Great Gatsby – by John Harbison, apparently… Roger Federer should undoubtedly be cast as the main protagonist. He would fit in perfectly in a gentrified social setting, if it wasn’t for the badass brilliance of his game.

There are amongst the women - mostly Eastern Europeans, like Jelena Jankovic, Daniela Hantuchova, Anna Chakvetadze – players who have escaped the rigors of their musical (although I’m not convinced of her talent!) practice regimen in favor of a different kind of drilling. Which would you chose? An F# minor fingered octave scale or a volleying drill in the blaring heat? The practice room can be a dark place, so there’s something to be said about following the sun around the world! Although Cincinnati seems to be pretty stifling at the moment…

What of the strings alluded to in this blog’s title? Many tennis players listen for the pitch coming off their racquet strings by gently tapping two racquets together to check for the desired tension (as do the stringers!). They’re not quite “playing” their racquet, or even tuning them on the spot like instrumentalists, but they certainly use their ears. In the age of Luxilon, do any of the current stars have perfect pitch? During a match, players can first tell what sort of stroke has been hit by the sound coming off their opponents’ racquet. How about a change of pace in the middle of a rally – a player suddenly coming to the net, or playing a drop shot? That’s rhythm, say like a steady 4/4 pulse suddenly disrupted by syncopation, jazz-like. As you can see, many things in tennis make me think of music, and certain things in music make me think of tennis!

We’ll discuss the US Open run-up next time. It’s gonna be an interesting one…