Featured Columns

The Australian Open 2008 has – so far at least – been dominated by two talking points. A much publicized (but hardly revolutionary) surface change from Rebound Ace to Plexicushion, and an ever-present corruption hangover that is still causing the sport a few headaches. The matches themselves have offered nothing too spectacular with Andy Murray’s first round loss to the ever improving Jo Wilfred Tsonga proving to be the highest profile surprise of the tournament.

Some scheduled intriguing matches early on in the draw failed to deliver. Lindsay Davenport, despite two recent title wins was far from her fittest against a quicker, seemingly more agile Maria Sharapova and slumped rather disappointingly to a 6-1, 6-3 loss. The much anticipated clash between Roger Federer and Fabrice Santoro also frustrated as the Frenchman’s usual sublime wizardry was never allowed to shine.
However, the tournament has enjoyed it’s first classic match, and it is no surprise as this second round encounter pitched Marat Safin against Marcos Baghdatis. It was a salivating prospect between two much loved figures down under. Safin, of course was the champion in 2005 (with that semi final win over Federer) and is a player who on his day really is capable of beating anyone. He could have dominated the game for many years (Safin of course won the U.S Open in 2000 and was world number one briefly in November of the same year) but his much documented love of life outside the sport and a notorious temper led to an inconsistent career, not to mention a few injuries. His opponent, Marcos Baghdatis is one of the tours most colourful and popular characters. Unlike fellow showman, Novak Djokovic, Baghdatis possesses a warm vibrancy that makes him immediately endearing and infinitely more charming than the impersonating, torso bearing Serb. It was in 2006 of course that Baghdatis’ never say die attitude and sense of fun on the court that earned him a place in the Australian Open final and in the hearts of millions of fans worldwide.
It was the Cypriot Baghdatis who started Thursday’s night match as the slight favourite, and this was justified after the number 15 seed proceeded to take the first two close sets 6-4, 6-4 with just one break of serve in each. Safin then began to show us a glimpse of the majesty which earned him the title three years ago. Scintillating ground strokes and a measured yet brutal power game left Baghdatis with no answer. Safin, who has never won a match from two sets to love down seemed to have the ascendancy as they entered the fifth set but soon looked groggy and seemingly mentally exhausted. Errors crept back into the increasingly fuming former champion and as the rackets were once again flung and slammed to the floor, it was Baghdatis who rediscovered his consistency and his underrated first serve to wrap up the match 6-4,6-4,2-6,3-6,6-2 in three and a quarter hours.
Lleyton looms next.

For years the debate surrounding Amelie Mauresmo was whether she could ever conquer her nerves and win a Grand Slam. She undoubtedly had the talent to do just that; as early as 1999 at the age of just 19 the Frenchwoman reached the final of the Australian Open – beating then World number 1 Lindsay Davenport and two other seeds only to lose to second seed Martina Hingis at the last hurdle.
The years since then saw Mauresmo quickly become a household name and her silky smooth classic game style complete with a gorgeous one handed backhand was a breath of fresh air within a women’s game that was becoming more and more brutal and lacking in finesse with the rise of the Williams sisters style of baseline power. Over the years Mauresmo had won many tour titles and was a consistent name within the throes of the games top five. That final down under was the closest she had got to winning a Grand Slam with many pundits, experts and ex-players sometimes very publicly stating that the woman from St Germains simply didn’t have the mental toughness to triumph in the games’ biggest theatres.

That all changed of course in 2006 when, after nine Grand Slam quarter finals and four semi finals Mauresmo reached another final, her first in seven years and at the Australian once again. It was to prove an anticlimax, her opponent; a troubled Justine Henin-Hardenne tamely withdrew early on. She had done it, the second longest wait for a major (32 attempts in all) had ended. Mauresmo’s name would be engraved upon the Daphne Ackhurst Memorial Cup and her place in history was assured. But she didn’t feel like a champion. At Wimbledon of the same year Mauresmo won a Grand Slam the way she wanted to, by beating a field of fully fit players and fittingly a fully fit Henin in the final.
Suddenly, Mauresmo had gone from ’one of the best players to never win a major’ to one that had accomplished an awful lot. She has been number one in the world (briefly in September 2004 and for most of 2006) and in 2005 she won the Season Ending Championships. Add to these achievements those two Slams and it is easy to see how any player may feel satisfied with their career. This is especially true of Mauresmo who has a renowned love of life outside the game and is as far from the Russian machine-like temperament of a Chakvetadze as you can get.
2007 signalled Mauresmo’s first year-end finish outside of the top-ten in seven years and was a year blighted by two separate two month lay offs with an emergency appendectomy and a right abductor strain respectively. Despite a third straight title win in Antwerp it was a year of disappointing major campaigns and latter stage finishes in smaller tournaments.
Her latest loss, a third round exit to new Australian starlet Casey Dellacqua was a big indicator that the passion for the game is beginning to leave Mauresmo. Completely out of sorts and on many occasions seemingly forgetting the games fundamentals, Mauresmo was a shadow of her former self. True she lacks match practice after a dismal end to 2007. Never one for the public eye I fancy that if such results continue then we could be seeing a Clijsters-like early retirement and the loss of one of the games great ambassadors and finest talents.

Written by Scott Perlstein
These days the pros are hitting harder and harder. You can do this too. The stroke used to be hit mainly with arm power. You closed your front hip and stepped parallel to the baseline. You tried to have an up and out follow through. We talked about kissing your shoulder on the follow through and inclining the elbow and the racquet. This is how Connors hit.

 The next evolution became to use your hips and shoulders. You did this by opening the front hip. This allowed you to rotate through and follow though over your shoulder . The key is to place the front foot more forward– having the toes facing more toward the net. On the follow through you still want to kiss your shoulder.  Now you rotate  so the racquet goes over the opposite shoulder on the finish with your elbow up and the racquet’s label out to the opponent or up to the sky. This is the Agassi finish.

 The next evolution is to body hit. Every pound  of your body hits  the shot. The key to getting the body through is to change the sequence of preparation. On the traditional footwork and drive method  you tried to bring your front leg and racquet movement together. On the body hit you get turned earlier and harmonize the back foot and racquet together. This is the Federer forehand. The key is to get behind the ball earlier.  You must also have the front hip opened or you will not be able to rotate through. Once you get there you might as well attack it. This is something  Federer has said. He has worked very hard on getting behind the ball early.

For our teaching purposes  this has been a three step progression. At the San Jose tournament in 1991 I was watching Sampras run through his volleys. We started teaching run through volleys from that point.  About 7  years ago I noticed that  Hewitt was running through the approach shots. Once again this put more pounds on the shot. Finally watching Federer body hit we are teaching run through ground strokes. All three shots, volley, approach and ground strokes are hit with full body participation. Once you learn this it will make so much sense you will wonder why  you didn’t do this before.

For more tennisclass please visit: TennisPro

Written by Mike Romeling
Hey Pancho Gonzales wherever you are, you would have been eighty years old if you were still with us and probably still capable of swinging a mean racket. I guess because your career lasted so long, it was easy to think your life would too. If it had, you would have had a chance to see this new guy Roger Federer play. He’s dominating men’s tennis now like no one has since…well… since you actually. I think you’d like his game because in many ways it resembles…well… yours actually.
Someone once said they’d never seen you make a move on the court that didn’t have grace and purpose. We say the same about Roger who also shares your uncanny ability to go from brilliant defense to devastating offence in the blink of an eye. Tony Trabert, the great player and later promoter for the professional tour once said this: “Gonzales is the greatest natural athlete tennis has ever known. The way he can move that 6 foot 3 inch frame of his around the court is almost unbelievable. He’s just like a big cat. He instinctively does the right thing at the right time. Pancho’s reflexes and reactions are God-given talents. He can be moving in one direction and in the spilt second it takes him to see that the ball is hit to his weak side, he’s able to throw his physical mechanism in reverse and get to the ball in time to reach it with his racket. The way he murders that tennis ball, I think his name is Pancho Villa, not Gonzales.”  It would have been the very definition of poetry in motion to have seen you and Federer on the same court
Federer probably has a small edge on you in terms of creative shot making while you have the edge on him in terms of your legendary serve. Roger’s first serve goes away on him for periods of time during some matches. But between a fine second serve and the rest of his brilliant game, he seldom pays a price for this. Your serve was so legendary that it’s tended to overshadow how complete a game you possessed. Efforts were son being made to measure its speed and a buzz went through the tennis world when it was reported that one of your serves clocked in at 154 mph. But with ball speed technology in its early stages and the fact that no one has matched that speed since, the claim has largely been forgotten. Nevertheless it was a powerful first serve and probably the most accurate and consistent the game has ever seen. Allen Fox, one of your fellow players on the professional tour said he never once saw you lose your serve when you were closing out a set or a match. Jimmy Connors, Bud Collins and Charlie Pasarell have all echoed the sentiment that if their lives were to depend on another player bringing home a match, they would pick you. Jimmy had some first hand knowledge because he came up against you in the quarterfinals of a tournament when you were 43 years old and he had arrived on the scene with his great baseline game. You announced not only your intention of winning but your intention of also playing strictly from the baseline too. You accomplished both intentions. More recently, Connors surprised and perhaps bewildered an interviewer who asked him whether Borg or McEnroe was the greatest player he ever faced. Connors replied they were tied for second behind you.
Other players you defeated in your forties (yes that’s right—your forties) included Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Arthur Ash, John Newcomb, and Tony Roche. The Nike Sports Research Laboratory once commissioned a study concerning the highest achievement in all sports by athletes of advanced age. Their conclusion: “Gonzales’s extended heyday could not, of course, last forever, but while it did it was incomparable.”
We wait now to see if Roger can keep going at his incredible pace for a few more years and perhaps be considered the premiere player of all time. And while we wait, the sports sites and tennis bloggers are throwing up a spate of “Best Ever” lists to determine the player Roger might supplant. And guess what? You are hardly ever there. Not at number one, not at number five, not at number ten. I saw you once listed at number twenty. Occasionally if I’ve got the time and am feeling sufficiently irritated, I fire off an e-mail to one or the other of these sites and state my opinion that any list without you AT LEAST in the top three is D.O.A.
What happened? Well, I suppose time itself is one easy answer. Many fans and bloggers would be of an age where you would seem to be back there somewhere in the ancient past. On the other hand, it’s less forgivable when professional sportswriters seem unaware of your place in the game’s history. After all, they are paid to do their homework.
Then there is the mistaken idea that the so-called modern game began with Open Tennis. Nothing could be further from the truth.  You can’t even really say that modern tennis began anywhere; rather the game has evolved as all games do. That evolution was accelerated between the two World Wars when that unlikely rag-tag road show called The Professional Tennis Tour began. The greatest of the pre-World War II players were Ellsworth Vines, Fred Perry and Grand Slam winner Don Budge. If you had to pick a point where the game tipped into the modern era, this group of players would be likely choices as the catalysts. Indeed, Don Budge enjoyed a long reign as the consensus “best ever” but later graciously ceded that accolade to you. Jack Kramer dominated the tour for a while before you and was a brilliant player. When he retired and became the tour’s promoter, the two of you entered into what became a long, complex, and often contentious relationship.
Over the years and decades of the tour, it became increasingly obvious that the professionals were playing at a level far beyond the amateurs. Every time players (including you) came out of the amateur ranks to join the pro tour, the results were repeated defeats at the hands of the top pros, and frequently defeats of embarrassing dimensions. Some amateurs eventually adjusted and raised their games; some never could.
Besides the growing disparity between the two tennis worlds, there was a little secret going on in the amateur game. The players weren’t really amateurs any more. The top guys were receiving big sums of money under the table—what we might call appearance fees today. It could not remain a secret forever and beneath the weight of all these factors, the staid and straight-laced tennis world was dragged—not without some kicking and screaming—into the Open Era in 1968. By then Rod Laver (after frankly admitting he had needed to learn how to play tennis all over again to compete with the pros) had risen to the top of the professional ranks and he promptly went out and annihilated everybody to win his second Grand Slam. It was the final proof in the pudding of how superior the professional game was.
Before this happened though, you dominated professional tennis like no one before or after. You are officially credited with having been number one in the world for eight consecutive years. But there was a good deal of political hanky-panky that went on with the rankings back then, and some tennis historians credit you with as many as ten consecutive years at number one. To put this in some context, Pete Sampras achieved six consecutive years. Pete also won Wimbledon seven times, but as your fellow professional Alex Olmedo said, “Nobody mentions the fact that he [Gonzalez] beat every Wimbledon champion 10 years in a row . . . if there had been open tennis, he might have won 10 Wimbledons.”
Now we need to get a little personal if we want to fully explore why you seem have fallen by the wayside. If we go way back in time, we might choose the legendary Bill Tilden as the original “bad boy” of tennis, but instead you are usually pasted with that moniker. It was said you were a sullen loner, you were rude on and off the court, you never helped promote the tour, were dismissive of the press, a bad husband…well it goes on and on. Memories are long among the press, tennis officials, former players and ex wives. I’m afraid these aspects of your life still overshadow your tennis accomplishments. If you had been a baseball player, much would be forgiven by now as it has been for, say, Ty Cobb or Shoeless Joe Jackson or Mickey Mantle. But you were in the world of tennis , a beautiful sport, but in your time it had both feet still in  the illusion of country club, after-you-Alphonse, lily-white propriety. Later “bad boys” like Jimmy Connors, John  McEnroe and Ilie Nastase fared better. Forgiveness for you never truly came, though many would claim that was your fault.
Maybe it was. But we all want—perhaps need—to believe there are circumstances and experiences that explain, and even somewhat mitigate, the darkness in our lives. Let’s explore some possibilities.
You were a Mexican in a white man’s sport where even the clothes and the balls had to be white. Some say you ought to at least share the honors with Althea Gibson for breaking the color barrier in tennis. You were ostracized by the Los Angeles tennis establishment under the guise that you weren’t showing up enough at school. Even so, with no coaching of any kind, and denied entry into tournaments until you were 19, you nevertheless began beating the best players in the country and finally could no longer be ignored. The great sports writer, Dick Schapp was perceptive enough to engage with you in 1958 and explore the ways discrimination had colored your tennis career and your life. Those who believe a little cash and fame should be enough to erase those deep scars probably did not understand what you and Schapp were talking about, and perhaps still don’t. And speaking of scars, much of your animosity toward the press had to do with that scar on your face. It was from a mundane childhood accident, but the press quickly latched on to the falsity that it was from a knife fight you had engaged in as a Mexican gang member, known in those days as Pechecos. It was too good a story and too good a stereotype for many writers to let go of, and you rightfully resented that most never did. Your brother Ralph tried to help people understand: “He could be quite charming and many that saw that side of him loved him, but too many saw his bad side and had no idea what created it. Racism comes in many shapes and forms. Those who have not had to deal with it cannot even recognize it when it is an integral part of them.”
Wish I could tell you things were getting better but I can’t. The best our politicians seem able to come up with these days is to build silly fences to keep Mexicans out while many who—legally or otherwise—manage to cross the border are often kept in squalid poverty working our fields to put food on the tables of a nation with a massive obesity epidemic. Go figure.
Then there was the money thing. You were generally pretty savvy in money matters but that seven-year contract you signed with promoter Jack Kramer turned out to be a bad deal. Soon Kramer had to offer the top “amateurs” big bucks to lure them away from their lucrative under-the-table earnings and into the pro ranks to challenge you. In some cases you were regularly beating the pants off guys who were making as much as five times more money than you. At one point Kramer offered you more money if you would “carry” a recent recruit to make him seem more competitive with you. You agreed at first but soon told Kramer it was screwing up your game. To his credit, Kramer let you keep the money anyway. You went to court once to try to increase your take, but in those days the concept that contracts were made to be broken had not arrived yet. All this hardly helped your mood.
It was true you had rocky relations with many players, officials and promoters. Rod Laver said you were a jerk on the court. Jack Kramer thought the resentment among the players was a result of your failure to help promote the tour, though they all knew it was your star power that kept the whole enterprise afloat. You generally showed up for the matches, beat someone’s brains out and immediately disappeared. Still, this notion is overstated. You were always friends with Lew Hoad who later, when asked who he thought was the best ever, said jokingly, “That Mexican prick, Gonzales.” Your fellow pro, Allen Fox was a good friend too and stated, “I idolized, loved, and profoundly respected [Gonzalez] the man.”  Another contemporary player of yours, Barry Mackay did some fine writing about the pro tour and wrote that after having some long late-night conversations with you, he came to a deeper understanding and affection for you than he had expected. And even after all the years of acrimony, Jack Kramer wrote that many years later, you two were able to meet on cordial terms and recall together those barnstorming years out on the pro tour. He said that was a great joy to him.
I hope it was a joy for you too, because what you guys did was pretty amazing and pretty gutsy. Not just you and Jack, but all the other half-forgotten great players, like Frank Sedgeman, Pancho Segura, Alex Olmedo, Allen Fox, Barry Mackay, Tony Trabert and so many others. You guys yanked tennis out of the safe and coddling arms it was so accustomed to and took it out on the road and up to a new level. And what a circus it could be sometimes as you crisscrossed the country to just about any town where you thought you had a chance to cover your nut. One night you told Kramer you weren’t feeling well and didn’t think you could play. He just laughed and said, “We always play, kid.” You guys needed to bring along the paraphernalia to set up your own court if necessary. If it were raining, you would set up on the floor of some nearby gymnasium. At least once, when the local courts looked more suitable for grazing goats than for playing tennis, you set up a court in a parking lot. And as you began to be surrounded by the arriving cars and pickup trucks, it could be said you probably created the first of what has now become a sports institution: the tailgate party.
Yes, the credit for what you did is shared by many, but former player and coach Ion Tiriac said it best when he spoke of those years and your premiere place in them: “Pancho was more the man of the day than anyone else. . . . He was the beginning of professional tennis as we know it. He was the father of everything we have today.”
I’m even going to throw in some kudos for the fans who came out and paid to see you guys. There were just enough of us to make it work, just enough of us who knew the greatest tennis was not being played amid the strawberries and cream at Wimbledon or the million dollar mansions of Long Island; it was being played in whatever town you and the other great professionals hung your hats on any given night. Thanks for the show.
Finally, it is said you were a bad husband to your various wives. It appears that’s more or less true although it would paint a more complete and fair picture to say that you shared an all too common human failing: you consistently picked partners with whom there was never a snowball’s chance in hell that a lasting loving relationship would result. Nevertheless, your last wife Rita and two of your eight children, Skylar and Jeanna Lynn, remained close to you until the end.
One could wish that the end of your life had been better for you. Over the later years you lost your endorsement deal with Spalding and your lucrative position as tennis director at Caesars Palace. When you died in 1995, you were flat broke. Andre Agassi, who was then your brother-in-law, paid for your funeral.
We might say we’ve come full circle here except for considering the initial question: were you the best ever or—as they say these days—the G.O.A.T. (greatest of all time)? Well, we’ve seen there is a lot of ammunition to fire in your direction. I wrote earlier that you should be AT LEAST in the top three because I see only two other contenders. Many would disagree, but it seems to me most other candidates fall into the “what if” category—what if Borg hadn’t burned out and retired early; what if Lew Hoad hadn’t suffered chronic injuries; what if Agassi hadn’t lost his focus for long periods; what if Connors had snagged a French Open to give him a career Grand Slam to go along with his incredible record of 120 tournament victories: and of course what if Federer continues on with his spectacular run.  But if f we eliminate the “what ifs” and consider only the issues of accomplishment and dominance, it would seem we are left with you, Laver and Sampras.
The Rod Laver question seems easier to resolve than it might appear considering Rod’s two Grand Slams, even if the first Slam was not against the best players in the world. But the simple fact is, you and Laver played often, and despite being past your prime—sometimes way past your prime—you won a bunch of those matches Your most memorable win came at Madison Square Garden in February of 1970 in a $10,000 winner- take-all match. You were 41 years old and the match went five sets, but it was you who disappeared into the Big Apple’s glittering night with the cash in hand.  I used to have the feeling back then that you had gotten into Laver’s head a little bit and I had to smile toward the end of your life when you told a New York Times interviewer that Laver had everything but the thinking part. It would seem difficult to  look at those wins—and at the age you won them– as anything other than a tip of the scales in your direction.
More subjectivity must come into play with Pete Sampras since we have no match-ups to compare. Sportswriter Bruce Jenkins wrote this in 1999 for the San Francicso Chronicle,   “ … you put everyone on equal terms, and he [Gonzalez] kicks everyone’s butt. . . . As much as I like Sampras, if you put these two guys on the court, I’m betting that Gonzalez is the last man standing.”
Beyond subjective opinion, there are some concrete issues to consider. The pendulum swings your way in terms of consecutive years at number one, and you remained in the top ten for an incredible quarter century, winning your last tournament at age 44. Rest assured that record remains safe. There is also the issue of clay court results. Pete was such a great player, a fierce competitor and such a credit to the game that I think many of us found it almost painful to watch his futility as he tried to adapt his game to clay. It was a struggle that seemed to grow rather than diminish over the years. It’s been easy to shunt it aside into the category of the-less-said-about-it-the-better. But for the purposes of this discussion, it needs to be acknowledged that you and Laver found ways to win on clay as did those players we tend to rank a notch below Sampras—Borg, Connors, Rosewall, McEnroe, Lendl among others.
For those who insist on counting “majors” as the only measure, Pete of course still holds that record at 14. Federer is closing in fast at 12. But even here, it is possible to fit you into this measure as well. During your incredible run of dominance in the pro ranks, there were only two, rather than four tournaments considered “majors.” These were the U.S. Professional Championships and the European Professional Championships. Since these were the “majors” where inarguably the best players in the world at that time were competing, it could be said they were the true “majors” of their day. You won 12 of those. If we tack on the two U.S. Opens you won during your brief amateur career, we find you already tied with Sampras. By the way, you still hold the record as the only man to win a U,S. Open by coming back from a two set deficit.  If we speculate what you would have done if four “majors” had been available to you each year, it is easy to project you would have won twenty or more.
Well, the debate will without doubt rage on as we watch Roger Federer reach for the stars. Some of us may rightly be accused of over-thinking, getting tangled in the web of endless statistics, wandering through a maze of unknowable imaginary match-ups. So let’s give former American player and one of your rivals, Marty Riessen, the last word and our compliments on his stark simplicity: “Pancho was an idol of mine, as he was to many kids taking up the game in the fifties . . . of all the players I have seen (Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, et al.), I would have to rank Pancho number one . . . simply because, at his best, he could beat everybody else.”
There’s a final exclamation point we might tack on to your incredible career. Tennis has been notoriously unkind to even the greatest players when they left the game, even briefly, and tried to come back. Both Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe sadly found the game had passed them by when they tried. You yourself did it twice and each time came back in ahead of curve, And again what amazes is that you were thirty-six years old the second time  in 1964, after retiring in 1961 to pursue your other passion—drag racing. Improbably you came back to tennis and won the 1964 Professional Championships and followed it up by winning the Indoor Professional Championships. Howard Cosell was there and reminisced about it many years later. “I remember once when he [Gonzalez] was long past his prime watching at . . . White Plains (1964 U. S. Professional Indoor Championships) . . . where he consecutively defeated Anderson, Rosewall, Hoad, and young Rod Laver to win the tournament. . . . It struck me as one of the extraordinary achievements in my lifetime in sports.”
These days I still play the sport as much as I can. And sometimes, if I’m approaching some courts that are flanked by some old sun-bleached, rusty-bolted bleachers, I’ll wonder if years ago, you guys had stopped here on your caravan of tennis nomads that wove its way down the highways and into tennis history. I’ll fancy that maybe some remnant of your burning competitive spirit still lingers and will rub off on me, perhaps carry me to victory. Truth is, though, at this stage of life it’s enough of a gift to just be able to walk out of the court and swing a half way decent racket. What I feel more is a pang, a wish, to see you play one more time in this real world, and not just on some grainy videos.
But if even Houdini couldn’t make it back to us from the other side, I don’t suppose you can either. Still, if you could, I imagine you’d have a couple things to tell us. You might tell us that all these “best ever” lists. along with many other things we argue and obsess about, don’t really mean  much in the end. You might tell us instead to grab our rackets and get out there in the sunshine while there’s still time.

Written by Reiji
The game I saw first is Dementieva vs Likhovtseva. It seemed both player’s  style are quite similar. For Elena, it might be a tough game. But, on the  whole, her footwork and forehand was brilliant, so she wons 6-3, 7-5.
Next game is Kirilenko vs Sugiyama. In the first set was Maria was  overwhelming,6-3. Her playing style was quite different with the one I saw 2 years ago. Now Masha plays quite aggresive and powerful tennis. To see her  game is alot of fun. Also, her play is very speedy. However, 2nd set was  disaster. She choked or I dont know  the reason why..1-6. I guess she was irritated that most audience supported Ai. Moreover, she seemed to lose self confidence and lack consistency. Masha once complained to judge. Finally she lost to Ai, 3-6. It was sad.
Third game is Sharapova vs Schiavone. Actually Masha’s play was terrible! She made so many double faults. I’ve never seen such a horrible masha 7-5, 6-2!. But in the  third set, she showed real her play. A lot cross shots. great strokes. So she could win 6-1. That was awesome. But actually, I sometimes slept because of jetlag.
It’s great to see many top players’ game. But at the Toray open, it is prohibited to speak or cheer for players loud. It made me quite bored and sleepy. I wanted to say many times”C’mon Masha”.The game I saw first is Dementieva vs Likhovtseva. It seemed both players style are quite similar. For Elena, it might be tough game. But, on the whole, her footwork and forehand was brilliant, so she wons 6-3, 7-5.
Next game is Kirilenko vs Sugiyama. the first set was Maria was overwhelming,6-3. Her playing style was quite different with the one I saw 2 years ago. Now Masha plays quite aggresive and powerful tennis. To see her game is very fun. Also, her play is very speedy. However, 2nd set was disaster. She chalked or I dunno the reason why..1-6.I guess she was irritated most audience support Ai. Moreover, she seemed to lose self confidence and lack consistency. Masha once complained to judge. Finally she lost to Ai, 3-6. It was sad.
Third game is Sharapova vs Schiavone. Actually Masha’s play was terrible! She made so many double faults. I’ve never seen such a horrible masha 7-5, 6-2!. But at third set, she showed real her play. A lot cross shots. great stroke. so she could win 6-1. That was awesome. But actually, I sometimes slept because of jetlag.
It’s great to see many top player’s game. But in Toray open, it is strictly ban to do private speaking or cheerup players loud. It made me quite bored and sleepy. I wanted to say many times”C’mon Masha”.  But I enjoyed it on the whole.
Reiji

Written by Roberto Barrio
In 1997 Martina Hingis had her hayday: she featured in all 4 Grand Slam finals and took home 3 of them, becoming the youngest player ever to reach the number 1 spot in the world ranking. And she was only 16. Ten years later she is sending mayday signals. It’s getting evident for the tennis community that her dream comeback is now becoming a cruel nightmare.
Back in the day the ruthless girl who owned the circuit in the late 90s managed to earn as many lovers as detractors. It is understandable that people fall for the winner the same as they tend to hate the arrogant. Success came to Hingis at such an early stage that she might have thought to be a goddess of the tennis court, which is probably true. And nothing changed that perspective maybe until the bitter defeat by Steffi Graf at the French Open in 1999.
She had already fell from the tennis throne by the end of 2002 when she was forced to retire due to injuries aggravated by desperation.
But it was Martina’s destiny to be a tennis legend, to become a cult player. And that is why she came back. And she did so not as the cocky and fussy girl the she once was but as mature and charming woman in love with the sport that once put her in the spotlight. And then everyone was able to see all her great qualities better than ever: her skill, her movement, her intelligence, her charisma. She was considered the underdog, the ultimate defender of the brain in its lost struggle against the muscle. Even the doubters turn into stone when she qualified for the Year End WTA Championship.
And the process was left almost completed at the last Wimbledon, the tournament she entered after more than a month without practice, against medical advice, in the knowledge that the result would certainly be a disappointment. Using her own words, she went to Wimbledon because “it kind of gets tiring when all you do is watch others. That’s why I didn’t want to miss out on Wimbledon after I missed the French”.
Martina put herself in the verge of disaster against a wildcard on the opening day, being forced to save 2 match points before knocking out her teenager opponent who happened to be British: a local girl. The crowed still loved it. For her second round match, she was allocated on Court 13. It takes some effort to remember the last time she played a Grand Slam match on a court as small as that one. But she did, and she won and those who care enough to turn up loved it.
It doesn’t really matter that she crashed out in the 3rd round against a player ranked some 50 positions below. Or that she could have made it to the semis without meeting opposition highly ranked than her. Martina had already admitted that she was not a contender. Even her more faithful fans are slowly coming to terms with the fact she will never win a Grand Slam title again. But they love her more than ever. In the dusk of her career, you could find players with more titles but none of them will fill as many pages and represent the kind of character that goes straight into the legends book. Martina Hingis has now become a cult player.

Written by Tony Profumo
There are currently two major story lines in tennis, and both could take dramatic turns at this year’s French Open. In men’s tennis, the remarkable rivalry between the world’s number one player, Roger Federer, and world number two, Rafael Nadal, has simply knocked everything else off the front pages. On the women’s side, the most compelling tale has been the unexpected comeback of Martina Hingis and her almost meteoric climb up the rankings list.
It would seem hard to fathom that any player with a 37-3 record this year would have anyone to worry about. However, the problem for Swiss megastar Roger Federer is that all three loses came to the same man, Spanish sensation Rafael Nadal. Only a few days shy of his 20th birthday, Nadal is the defending champion and right now the undisputed king of clay, having dispatched Federer in the finals at both Monte Carlo and Rome. The battles have been epic. Their nearly five-and-a-half-hour final in Rome was a clay court classic. The match so exhausted both players that both withdrew from Hamburg, leaving the talented Tommy Robredo in charge. It also left Federer with no clay court titles this year going into Roland Garros. Moreover, whether he admits it or not, it leaves him in the unfamiliar position of being the underdog in the fight for the only slam title he does not yet own. He keeps saying he’s getting closer to Nadal, and the fact that Rome was settled in Nadal’s favor by only two points, would seem to back that up. However, “close” counts only in horseshoes, not tennis. The big question is: can Roger Federer, the man many are touting as the best tennis player who ever lived, get by Nadal and claim that vital French title?
Are there any other men who could challenge Nadal or Federer at Roland Garros ? Not likely. The hot Spaniard, Robredo, the talented, big hitting Chilean, Fernando Gonzalez, and the 2004 winner Gaston Gaudio of Argentina, all have a shot at the title, but only if both Federer and Nadal stumble, something that no intelligent punter would lay down a wager on. American hopes? News that Andy Roddick has injured his left foot has probably driven the final nail in that coffin. Roddick was a long shot to begin with, and a hobbled Roddick probably has no shot at a tournament as taxing as Roland Garros. James Blake’s best surface is hard court, not clay, and despite his great foot speed, he is unlikely to kick up too much dust in Paris. For now, and perhaps for the foreseeable future, “An American in Paris” will be the title of a Gershwin tune, not a tennis headline.
What about the women? Defending champion Justine Henin-Hardenne remains the favorite, despite the fact that she has won no clay court tournaments this year, having been knocked out of the Family Circle Cup by Patty Schnyder and of Berlin by Nadia Petrova. Still, many consider her the best clay courter among the women. The big question is: what is her health like?
Petrova, the Russian who was flying under the radar, has now climbed to number three in the world and also has three clay court titles under her belt this year. She has never been to a slam final, though, and so she remains an unknown in terms of performance on the really big tennis stages.
Kim Clijsters has a clay court title too, in Warsaw, but seems strangely unenthusiastic about her own chances at Roland Garros. She has announced her engagement, has insisted she is quitting the sport next year, and may already be showing signs that her mind is now elsewhere.
That leaves Amelie Mauresmo, the current world’s number one and the top seed. She would seem to deserve the ranking, having captured the Australian Open title this year. So why are so many people still skeptical about her chances of taking home the French Open title too? Mauresmo has consistently had trouble playing before the hometown crowd in Paris. Throw in the fact that recent illness forced her to pull out of Rome, and her conditioning may be as questionable as her mental toughness when facing downthe toughest opponents of all in tennis, the French fans.
Which, of course, brings us around to THE story in women’s tennis in 2006?
With the Williams sisters seemingly more interested in the Hollywood party circuit than the tennis circuit, and with so many other players, including Lindsay Davenport, constantly struggling with injuries, the women’s game had fallen into the doldrums by the end of 2005. So, who rode to the rescue? Why, of course, the best horsewoman in tennis, Martina Hingis. After a three-year break from the game, during which she indulged her love of show jumping horses, Hingis’ ankles and feet and mind had healed enough for her to try a comeback, and what a comeback it became. From the moment last fall that  word leaked out she might return, Hingis has been the hottest item in the sport. Fans were delighted, but critics were weary. Ok, she might beat the lesser players, but she’d be no match for the power girls. But one by one, she recorded victories over them, starting with the “it girl” of tennis, Maria Sharapova, and later including Lindsay Davenport, Svetlana Kuznetsova and Elena Dementieva.  It all came together last Sunday in Rome. There Hingis bested arch rival Venus Williams in the semi-final, dropping the first set at love, but handling the next two sets so smartly that they looked routine. The final against hot 20 year old Dinara Safina was almost a foregone conclusion.  Hingis rolled through the first set, had a hiccup toward the end of the second, but overcame her nerves and fought off four break points to serve out the match.
That tournament victory was highly significant, because Hingis comes into Roland Garros match tough and now brimming with self-confidence, and if she can keep it up, she also comes in playing a different brand of clay court tennis, an aggressive brand, which keeps her planted right on the baseline when rallies get started, but moves her toward the net as often as possible. That’s a place her opponents do not want to see Martina Hingis. She also has one of the best transition games in the sport. Hingis is better from no-man’s land than any other player in tennis, with the exception of her fellow Swiss Roger Federer. While by no means the favorite, Hingis is now the leading dark-horse candidate to capture the French title. Can she actually do it? I wouldn’t bet against her.
But, it won’t be easy.  Hingis does NOT fly under the radar. Once booed off the court at Roland Garros, Martina has become the fan favorite at every stop on the WTA tour she has visited so far.  Aside from Sharapova, she has become the glamour girl of the sport, but a glamour girl actually admired more for her tennis skills than any other trait.  Commentators, who once blasted her, now refer to the “genius of Martina Hingis.” Friendly commentators tag her “the magician.” All that positive attention means that Hingis now has little time for herself, with both the press and the WTA tour intent on exploiting her celebrity status.  Dark horses usually benefit from the lack of attention they get.  Hingis finds herself in the rare position of being a dark horse many people are expecting to win.  It would so help along the story line if she did.
At any rate, the fate of two Swiss players, one fighting to prove he really is the best in history, and the other the comeback kid who has already tasted greatness, but now wants a second helping, are the story lines going into the 2006 French Open.

People are finding it hard to ignore French teenager Alize Cornet as she storms her way through the rankings. At last year’s US Open, she fought a tough 3 setter 3rd round match against top player Jelena Jankovic, and had the Serb praising the teenager with compliments: “she kept coming up with all these amazing shots and I thought to myself ‘this is impossible, she’s a Junior.’”. Why France’s prodigal child could be just what the tennis world is looking for.
The first time I saw Alize Cornet play was a rainy day in May, when she was up against former world number one Venus Williams. I had heard brief murmurs about Alize Cornet and her performances, but, as is expected from French players at Roland Garros, I knew not to get my hopes up. And yet I was deeply impressed by her attitude. She wasn’t overwhelmed by the occasion and ran down everything Venus Williams came up with. Williams eventually won in two sets, but Cornet didn’t go out without a fight.
Having exited the main draw, Cornet, 17 years old at the time, decided to take part in her last Grand Slam as a Junior. She breezed through the rounds and it was only when she got to the later stages –semi finals and finals- that she was really tested. Playing against 18-year-old Duque Marino, the French prodigal child found herself suddenly trailing by a set on ‘her’ home turf. Determined not to lose in front her crowd, Cornet stepped up a gear  at 2-1 down and showed just why many tip her as a raising star. Having easily held her serve two games before, Marino had no way of knowing it would be the last time she would hold serve for the match. Cornet won the Final 4-6 6-1 6-0 and found her name linked to another former teenage sensation, Martina Hingis (1993), current world number one Justine Henin, and familiar French hero Amelie Mauresmo.
Although Cornet lacks Mauresmo’s somewhat classic touch on the court, she makes up for it by creating her own style. She mixes flair with intensity, and watching her many are reminded of France’s other golden girl, Tatiana Golovin. Cornet is developing the ability to create a shot from a dead ball situation, allowing her to wow the crowds as she comes up with amazing angles. She is also incredibly athletic, thus allowing her to run down balls her opponent might expect her to stop chasing or to be out of reach.
But despite the numerous comparisons with other players, Cornet is still her own person. She has and incredible charisma both on and off the tenniscourts, making her an instant favorite to watch amongst fans and players alike. She is competitive on and off the court but mainly with herself, and fans can expect her to give her best in every match. Even exhausted, she will still try to run down every ball, and will try to fight until the end of the match before giving up.
If Cornet is considered France’s prodigal child, it is not without reason. Mauresmo is nearing retirement and many murmur that this could be her last season. Golovin looks set to take over from Mauresmo as Fed Cup leader, and Marion Bartoli is often surrounded by controversy. Cornet, on her part, remains friendly and approachable, and doesn’t let her talent go to her head. Talented and ambitious without the arrogance one would expect, Cornet provides a friendly face, breaking the tennis world’s stereotype of coldness and distance between fans and players.
Although Cornet hasn’t had the ideal preparation going into the Australian Open, one would be foolish to write her off too soon. She is set to clash with Daniela Hantuchova in the second round. The Slovakian is the favorite to win the match, but as Jankovic learned in the US Open, Cornet will go out to prove she can compete against the world’s elite players.

Tennis sensation Martina Hingis retired at 27 due to injured and allegations of drug abuse. The Swiss Miss tested positive for traces of cocaine after her loss at Wimbledon in June.
Like so many others, I was absolutely shocked when I get the news. Hingis had failed a drug test? Because of cocaine? The whole situation just seemed so absurd. How could no one have known about it? Hingis is one of the most famous players on the tour, and no one, absolutely no one, knew she was taking drugs on the side? The WTA Tour has a reputation for being cold and cutthroat- and still no one even suspected she was doing cocaine? Furthermore the WTA itself only heard about Hingis’ positive results after her press conference. Wimbledon occurred late June. Hingis gave her press conference on November 1st. How could positive results have been kept from the WTA for over four months? Nothing makes sense anymore.
But amid the confusion one harsh fact remains. Hingis has retired, this time for good. This time there will be no amazing comeback. This time the ‘reluctant rebel’ won’t be coming back from the cold to save the sport she once vowed never to return to. This time the cocky smiles and arrogant smirks and quirky comments during press conferences will be said or done by someone else. This time, the famous on-court wizardry which enchanted most of the tennis world will be cast by another player.
This time, Martina Hingis has retired for good.
I still find it difficult to believe. Hingis has always been there, has always been an element of stability in a world which is forever changing. She was there and was the cause of when I first discovered tennis back in 1997, when a young teenager mentioned she was going to save tennis and only later would we realize she actually did. She was there in 2001 and completed what was then deemed as impossible by consecutively defeated the Williams sisters in the Grand Slam of the Australian Open. She was there, too, in 2005, when against the odds and expectations she decided to come back from her 3 year retirement with careless whispers of how she felt incomplete when she wasn’t on a tennis court.
Hingis was just always there, with her cocky smile and charismatic attitude and breath-taking skills. She set the standards so high that now, 10 years later, people are still comparing her to what she once was and, perhaps, what she still is. There is that famous “Hingis touch”, the “Hingis wizardry”, in any case, her style lives on. She stands for what some believe tennis should be- an artistic and mental combination of flair and sophistication, where power should matter little if not at all, because what really counts is the ability to create something from nothing, to perform magic on a whim and make it seem almost random or nonchalant.
She was, of course, anything was predictable, and that’s what I liked so much about Hingis. Truth was you never really knew what to expect, except, maybe, something. She could produce whatever she wanted, whenever she wanted, however she wanted. Presented with a ball down the T and she could pretty much put it wherever, leaving the opponent forever guessing. She could do so much with so little than one began to suspect the only real way to defeat the great Swiss Miss was to overpower her.
Back in 2002 it was the power-hitters who drove her out. Today, it is those allegations, and the latter are perhaps the most dangerous, for they will live lingering scars which won’t necessarily fade with time. Hingis so fiercely denies any wrong-doing that one is tempted to believe she is innocent. In her press conference, she delivered an ambiguous statement which only increased confusion, and yet the manner she delivered in made many suspect she was telling the truth.
After all, if anything Hingis has always been brutally honest, both with herself and with the public. She has never lied to the sport she loves so much, and that, in part, is what makes it so difficult to believe she did do cocaine. I do not know Hingis personally but nor do I claim to, I am merely speaking as an observer- she didn’t seem the type to do drugs. She was above all professional, why then would she take an illegal drug, during a Grand Slam in the middle of the year, knowing that she could very well be tested?
The sad reality is the drug accusation will probably tarnish her legacy. One can only hope, though, that what Hingis has accomplished throughout the years and what she has brought to the sport will not be over-showered by accusations which may later prove to be false. Regardless, the damage has been done, and Hingis has left.
I have many memories of Hingis but there is one in particular I am determined to hold onto. It was during the Acura Classic, in late summer. Hingis was playing against Swiss compatriot Patty Schnyder. Under the hot California sun, they performed an entertaining match that Schnyder would eventually win in 3 sets. But at one moment during the match, Hingis performed a magnificent drop-shot in which the ball simply died once it hit the ground, creating the illusion that having left the Swiss Miss’ racquet life was simply not worth living anymore. The crowd appreciated the artistic skill, and Hingis glanced up at the crowd with a smile brighter than the afternoon California sun.
Life will go on without Hingis, as it almost does. On a professional level I hope that Hingis finds the results and closure she has been seeking since that fateful day in June, for the legacy she leaves behind should not be tainted by allegations of cocaine abuse. And on a personal level I will hold on to that memory of Hingis, of when she was what tennis should be, a combination of flair and intrigue, a mystery which could never be solved.

If I’ve always associated Hingis’ comeback to Train’s ‘Drops of Jupiter’, then I feel that what happens afterwards follows more the script laid out in ‘Away From The Sun’, courtesy of 3 Doors Down: ‘It’s down to this, I’ve got to make this life make sense… The feeling’s gone, there’s nothing left to lift me up’.
Ironic, really, how it takes Martina Hingis withdrawing from the one tournament which got away from to prove that this time, she’s for real. She wants Roland Garros, it’s that tournament, the one which was within her grasp in 1999, but then slipped through her fingers. It was the lingering doubt at the back of her mind during her soul-searching 3 years, when she watched others win it, players she had once beaten.
This year, someone else will win it. Probably Justine Henin, who in all due fairness considers it the tournament as being “hers”, and rightfully so. But this year, much like those missing three years, something will be missing.
This year, Hingis won’t be playing. She gave up the one which got away. And that, more than the number of Grand Slams she won, the WTA titles she has, or the records she’s broken, shows she’s one of the best players of all time. It shows she cares, because if she didn’t, she still would have played. She would have ultimately lost, and it wouldn’t have bothered her.
A week or so ago I accused Hingis of not caring- about her career, her status, her game, her fans. Yet I see now I was wrong. Hingis does care, that’s why she withdrew. I’m sure it must have hurt her, deeply, to make that decision. Roland Garros is part of the reason she came back, so to give it up, even if it is just for this year, took courage most players lack. In her first career she played on injury when she probably shouldn’t have, and those lingering injuries were ultimately what forced her off the court. She shouldn’t have to pay twice for her mistakes.
Missing Roland Garros will have its’ consequences. I wouldn’t put too many expectations on the tournaments of her return. She will come back refreshed, but she will also be feeling lost, and maybe a little bit alone. She is not alone, she has her entourage, her fans, yet she will feel something is missing. Roland Garros is a part of her in the sense it’s the tournament she never won. She gave it up, this year, and every tournament she plays between her return and the end of the year will most likely be compared to it. She will probably be wondering ‘what if’, wondering if maybe she should have taken that chance, wondering if maybe, just maybe…
Those questions will be lingering at the back of her mind in her return, and could ultimately affect her confidence, her game. It is one thing to ‘disappear’ for three years and reach the semi-final of the first tournament in your return, it is quite another to walk away from the reason you came back.
She will probably tell herself there are other tournaments, other Grand Slams. She will probably tell herself that in some ways Wimbledon made her the star she is back in 1997, so perhaps it is more fitting for her to return for that tournament. She will tell herself it is not the end of the world, it just feels like it. She will tell herself she will get past it. She will tell herself there is always next year.
Perhaps it is not her injury but more how she recovers from it which will determine the fate of Hingis’ career. Withdrawing from Roland Garros was a huge decision, one which may cost her the shallow fans. But those who fell in love with her game, with what she represents to the world of tennis, will watch her from a distance, wondering what happened to their reluctant rebel, and hoping that by walking away from the French Open, she isn’t also walking away from her world. Roland Garros was ‘the one which got away’. Let’s hope that same expression won’t also apply to the player who changed the world.