The Sports Frog

Read Jon Wertheim's preview column at si.com. With that done, you can engage in a little coffee machine chatter without sounding like a complete tool.

The on-court buzz about Wimbledon 2008 is the blood-in-the-water that the men's draw is scenting about the possible decline of the best tennis player anyone has ever seen, Roger Federer. A complete ass-kicking like Rafael Nadal handed Federer in Paris will do that.

That said, and despite a strong field, bet against Federer at your own risk (unless you are part of the Austrian/Russian betting cabal and know something I don't. In that case, bet as you know the outcome ahead of time). It feels to me like Federer going for some redemption and winning out here and in Flushing will be how this year plays out.

Also, as usual, there is some solid chatter about the tournament unfolding in the Swamp here. Stop by and add a thought or two.

For anyone who has been paying attention, the murmuring about players throwing matches has been growing steadily louder in the last 24 months or so. Well, consider the murmurs now a shout.

From the Sunday Times (London style):

"Eight matches at Wimbledon have been reported to the tennis authorities on suspicion that their results have been fixed by professional gambling syndicates. The matches are named in a dossier compiled by leading bookmaking companies, which monitor suspect betting patterns and players thought to be willing to throw games. Four of the matches are from last year's men's singles at Wimbledon and involve foreign players who each lost by three sets.

...

It is believed Russian and eastern European gamblers are behind much of the illegal betting, although the dossier also names a gang of Austrian gamblers.

An official with detailed knowledge of the dossier of 140 "suspect" matches from tournaments around the world said: "If you look at a tournament, you might see one match for £23,000 [in betting turnover], one for £27,000, one for £36,000 and one for £4.5m. It doesn't take a genius to work out that something is going on in the last one."

Indeed it does not. The Times story details what Wimbledon is trying to do to protect itself, including strictly limiting access of outsiders to players and doing everything they can to keep inside information about health and what not from getting out to the general public. Which is all fine and good, but, how exactly does that help stop a player from pre-arranging to tank?

Perhaps the world's tennis authorities, if they can finally prove one of these, needs to start banning players. I don't see how else they will stop this.

Thanks to swamp all-timer wlu_lax for the heads up and the thread here in the Swamp. By the way, I love reading British accounts of such things, for goodness like this:

"One player has gone on record saying he turned down a £70,000 bung to lose in the first round at Wimbledon."

I, I, I don't know that that means. Bribe? Let's go with bribe.

are retiring like flies. Or like 65-year old professionals. Or something that retires.

It's a damned oyster carnival in here.

He's a vampire. And apparently a day-walker to boot.

No fucking way to beat a vampire day-walker tennis player. No reason to even try.

The first of what I presume will be inifinity + 1 majors to Djokovic with the 2008 Australian Open title.

7-5 and 6-3. Straight set win for the Austrailian Open win and her third major overall.

And looked the part for #1 in the world.

...I note that Maria Sharapova won again down under.

By the way, in case you missed it Roger Federer was pushed to five sets before advancing.

"Federer needed 4 hours, 27 minutes to beat 49th-ranked Janko Tipsarevic 6-7 (5), 7-6 (1), 5-7, 6-1, 10-8 in an extended afternoon match that pushed back the night session at least two hours. Federer had won 30 straight sets at Melbourne Park since dropping the first in the 2006 final against Baghdatis. The Swiss star had lost only six games in his first two matches this year.

"It's not such a relief it's more happiness," Federer told the crowd at Rod Laver Arena, where he has won the last two Australian titles and three overall. "I'm happy I could deliver a five-set thriller. It was good to be part of something like this."

Whatever. You almost got beat. Makes the remainder of the tournament on the men's side a little more interesting...

As if Putin being a tremendous thug weren't enough, now Maria Sharapova put a quick end to Lindsey Davenport's comeback at the Australian Open. Ah well.

In terms of calendar. The rules are still the same. And that guy pictured above still rules all he surveys.

With the Australian Open looming near to open the season, the best stop on the major sites for tennis chatter, Jon Wertheim at si.com has a look ahead in quiz form at the season to come worth a linger if you care about the sport at all.

He thinks Roger Federer will "only" win two of the majors this year to tie Pete Sampras with 14 for the tennis record. Put me down for "three" for Federer and Federer passing Sampras in September in New York.

Serbian.

19 years old.

Ranked #5 in the world.

Playing well in Queens and on course to meet up with Venus Williams.

But sorry, boys ...

... She doesn't sign foreheads.

Andy Roddick is ready to unseat Roger Federer at the US Open.

"I've been hitting the ball really well in practice. I've started serving well in practice. I've been playing the right way in practice," Roddick said after his workout Sunday. "So, you know, there's no reason why I can't make a run here."

He was given the day off Monday, when No. 1 Roger Federer was to begin his quest for a fourth consecutive U.S. Open title by facing 319th-ranked qualifier Scoville Jenkins of the United States. Federer is aiming for his 12th Grand Slam title, which would tie him for second in history behind Pete Sampras' 14.

"He's the favorite," Roddick said about Federer, his possible quarterfinal opponent. "The way I see it, there's the favorite and then there's people trying to unseat the favorite."

A 24-game fifth set epic, and at the most epic setting at the All-England Club, to boot.

"British hope Tim Henman needed two days to make it to the second round of Wimbledon, outlasting Carlos Moya on Tuesday in a riveting conclusion in which he won the fifth set 13-11 on his seventh match point."

The only thing non-epic was the ending...

"A double-fault by Moya on the third match point of the 24th game of the set gave Henman a 6-3, 1-6, 5-7, 6-2, 13-11 win that enthralled the Centre Court crowd at the All England Club."

A double-fault? I think he tanked it.

Not even the best tennis player in the world can put down the Clay King.

In Sunday's title match, Nadal defeated Roger Federer 6-3 4-6 6-3 6-4 and spoiled Federer's bid to win his fourth consecutive major title.

Nadal's victory was his third straight French Open title, becoming only the second man since 1914 to win three straight French Open titles (Bjorn Borg).

Nadal, a native Spaniard, now holds a career at Roland Garros of 21-0.

Propers to Deadspin for bringing this to the mainstream of the blogosphere. I have listened to it three times in the last fifteen minutes, and put it on my toddler's playlist.

For my money, Federer is the greatest mens tennis player of my lifetime (with apologies to Pete Sampras and Bjorn Borg). The one thing missing from his resume? A win in the French Open. And, during this his period of absolute dominance, the arrival of Rafael Nadal on clay has kept Federer from adding that piece to his already insane career resume.

Federer has had nothing for Nadal on clay for years now, and there was not a lot of reason to think that would change in Paris over the next few weeks. And then this pops across the wires:

Federer 2-6, 6-2, 6-0 over Nadal in Germany today. On clay.

Wow.

As is being noted in the Swamp (thanks to The Rabbit for the heads up), nothing in the write-up of that match that mentions an injury to Nadal. He just got gut-stomped. On his surface. By the best player in the world, who appears intent on addressing the hole in his career resume. In a win that ended Nadal's winning streak on clay at 81 matches in a row.

The French Open is just about here. And a whole bunch of intrigue just got pumped into the proceedings on the men's side of the action.

At the very least The Betting Fool admits it. He reviews some hits and misses in his 500th column today:

"*Speaking of hacking up a lung, and a kidney and -- eventually -- some spinal fluid, I wrote this in 2003 about Roger Federer. He had just won Wimbledon. I was not impressed. (Man it's fun to narc on yourself.)

I had blasted the Williams sisters for being too good (it was a great column all the way around) when I decide to type: "As for the men, I don't see anyone making a star out of Roger Federer. He'll be one in a series of flavor-of-the-week men's players, forgotten by next year's Aussie Open."

Well said, you freaking MORON. Lesson here: Don't write about a sport you know almost nothing about."

Methinks The Fool is a bit harsh on himself. It is nice however (Peter King) to see a writer go back and hold himself a little bit accountable for the stuff he gets dead wrong.

I bet he makes her tell her friends that she fell down the steps. He can't be looking bad in the public eye. Image is everything.

"Steffi Graf required three stitches Sunday after husband Andre Agassi inadvertently hit her in the face with his racket during a fundraiser that followed the final of the U.S. Clay Court Championships.

Graf and Agassi were holding hands -- her left to his right -- while rallying with a couple of youngsters when Agassi's follow-through struck his wife in the face."

Right. Inadvertent. Ted Kennedy inadvertently drove into an ocean channel once, too.

And it's about damn time. To be honest, the women should be making more than the men. Because their product is so much better. Women's tennis is actually a game of action, of volleys, of battles. The men's game has devolved into a service-focused game with little of the back and forth action that can make tennis such a great sport to watch. Too often, it's not even tennis so much as service.

So, good for women. And no, there will be no obligatory picure of Serena Williams or Maria Sharapova. None of that. Their skills have been promoted in this space for years. The lesser-known Sania Mirza, on the other hand, has talent.

You have got to simply love the quote-a-licious Serena Williams answering her critics. Is there a better draw for women's tennis?

"I've answered every criticism that I've had. And I plan on keeping answering them. The ones that hurt the most were that I wasn't fit. I felt that I was really fit.

"I felt that people said I wasn't fit because I'm larger in some areas than other girls. I don't have a flat chest, I don't have a flat ass.

"But I was looking in the mirror today. My waist is still 28 inches and I think it's all because I have a large bosom and a large ass.

"If I lost 20lbs, I'm still going to have these knockers - forgive me - and I'm still going to have this ass. It's just the way it is. I'm the same size and the same weight I was five years ago.

"I went three sets with Shahar Peer, and I went three sets with Nadia Petrova, and the next day I practised at seven in the morning. I wasn't tired at all and I was ready for the whole tournament. I was never not ready."

Now. And, arguably, all time.

Federer dispatched Fernando Gonzalez 7-6, 6-4, 6-4 and won the Australian Open, his 10th slam title overall. He did it without losing a single set, the first man to pull that feat off in a slam since Bjorn Borg did so in 1980. He is just four slams from tying Pete Sampras for most career slams, and, therefore, five from passing him. There is little reason to think, barring an injury, that he won't have done so or be in a position to do so by the 2008 US Open.

Unreal. The Federer facts on espn.com here are eye-popping. Consider that he is now 10-1 when he reaches a Slam final. Consider that in those ten wins, he has only dropped five sets. Oh, and how about this tidbit? He has reached seven straight Slam finals (winning six of them), only the second player to ever accomplish that. If he makes the French Open final, he has that record all to himself.

The "only" thing left for Federer to do is win the French. And, as even casual followers of tennis know, that is far easier said than done. The French is the repository of clay court demons, and Rafael Nadal is currently without peer himself on that surface (and has actual game on other surfaces). As good as Federer is, I don't know if he will ever get past Nadal on that surface. But I bet he comes close. And it will be compelling tennis in Paris this spring as a result. Even if Federer never wins the French (remember, neither did Sampras), it won't stop him from ascending to the top of the list of tennis' all-time greats.

I've never seen anyone like him.

Not gonna miss this Australian Open women's final. It should be extremely entertaining. And according to the Sydney Morning Herald, this match also could involve some pretty good tennis. This pairing on the court tends to serve up memorable matches.

Gimelstob on si.com yesterday ahead of Andy Roddick's match with Roger Federer, outlining why he thought Roddick would pull the upset:

"Andy is one of the few players who can successfully take Federer's time away. He can overpower Federer with his powerful serve. Moreover, with his increased comfort and proficiency at the net, Andy now has a way to rush Federer when his serve comes back. Andy has spent endless hours improving not only his volleying, but also his approach shots and net coverage. When I was in Hawaii with him last month, we spent much of our practices re-enacting patterns of play where he would approach and have to win points at the net. I believe this, in addition to the technical improvements Connors has made to shore up Andy's backhand, will make a significant difference on Thursday."

And...the match results are in and:

Federer in straights sets 6-4, 6-0, 6-2.

To recap, in the second set, Roddick was as effective against Federer as you or I would have been (tongue-in-cheek hyperbole included). To say that Federer is playing tennis that is in a different universe from mortals at this point would be an understatement. He's still the best I have ever seen. Not even close. But, thanks for playing Justin Gimelstob. Jon Wertheim with a can't miss post-massacre column of thoughts on si.com, including:

"Even in defeat, Roddick has a hell of a sense of humor. His postmortem was one for the ages. Among the highlights. 'It was frustrating. It sucked. It was terrible. Besides that, it was fine.' How will he sleep tonight? 'It depends on how much I drink.' Roddick was told that he had performed better in the news conference than on the court. His reponse: 'No s---.'"

Heh. Props to Roddick for handling the slaughter in that manner. It's simply his bad luck to have come along at the same time as Federer.

Quick, where's the tennis ball in that picture? I thought so. You couldn't see it because Serena is wearing a dress the same color of a tennis ball. Clever lass, she is. I'm sure that's why she beat the 27th ranked player in the world. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that she can wipe the floor with most women's players when half-healthy and motivated.

From the Daily Telegraph down under:

"SERENA Williams was bizarrely forced to defend the design of her dress last night, an eye-catching fluorescent lime-green and yellow number, after it was suggested her opponent may lose sight of the similarly-coloured tennis balls in the frock ...

"The seven-time grand slam winner and world No. 95 wore the controversial camouflage dress - one of her own designs - for the first time last night against Santangelo.

"'I never thought about that to be honest (the camouflage effect),' said Williams, who teamed the frock with a gigantic pair of hoop earrings and sashayed onto the court with a designer Nike handbag."