Contenders aren't content with just-the-two-of-us U.S. Open
As the U.S. Open nears, there is a slight degree of movement in the ranks. Reigning superpowers Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal might soon be challenged by a flock of intriguing contenders.
Coming out of the French Open and Wimbledon, I hadn't thought that would be the case. By romping to each of those finals, Federer and Nadal seemed headed to Martina Navratilova-Chris Evert levels of dominance.
|
|
| Andy Roddick can prove that his '03 U.S. Open title doesn't deserve a pre-Federer Era asterisk. (Getty Images) |
Though I still see these two as finalists in New York -- Wimbledon proved conclusively that Federer-Nadal is not restricted to clay -- to me the major story of the 2006 U.S. Open is less a matter of who will win but who has the goods to at least attempt to join Federer and Nadal at the top of the game.
Consider the range of personalities and playing styles that are bubbling beneath the two titans, ranging from cagey Andy Murray to clean-hitting Tomas Berdych, resurgent Andy Roddick, aggressive James Blake and shotmaker Richard Gasquet. Workhorse Ivan Ljubicic and fluid crowd-pleaser Marcos Baghdatis didn't do as well as expected during the U.S. Open Series but certainly have the skills.
This summer's series thus far has been bracketed by the triumphs of Blake in Indianapolis and Roddick in Cincinnati. But Blake floundered over the next few weeks, his game still subject to valleys of self-doubt and spotty play.
Despite losing his opening match at New Haven, Blake comes to New York a man well aware of his skills -- recall last year the way he thumped Nadal and took Andre Agassi to a fifth-set tiebreak in the quarters -- but hoping to at last consolidate them, shake off the demons of his 0-9 five-set record and make a case for himself as a true Slam threat.
Certainly he'll feel the crowd support from the New York fans, but I'm still not completely sold on Blake's ability to sustain excellence through more than three or four matches at a Slam. I hope I'm wrong, given that Blake is pleasing on many levels, ranging from his improved all-court game to his thoughtful, friendly personality.
While for Blake the U.S. Open is a matter of showing he's a sustainable top 10 player, in Roddick's case the issue is one of renaissance. He wants to prove that his 2003 New York triumph was something more than a blip before the Federer Era.
It was quite compelling in Indianapolis and Cincinnati to see Roddick applying the wisdom of his new coach, Jimmy Connors -- moving forward, committing to his shots, taking charge of points. In other words, doing things dozens of unknown teaching pros have been suggesting Roddick do for years.
This whole matter of coaching is an odd thing, a bit like the Wizard of Oz telling the Scarecrow he indeed has a brain. By contacting Connors, Roddick reached into the bag of mythology -- he'd hardly ever seen Connors play -- and grabbed someone he's willing to listen to.
A fairly benign draw in the first two rounds of the U.S. Open could give Roddick the confidence he needs to get himself back in the thick of things and, equally important, springboard him for a robust 2007.
Murray is rapidly becoming one of my favorite players to watch. I loved it when I heard how as a child he used to study his opponents and figure out what tactics would be necessary. This is a dramatic contrast to the narcissistic and often unproductive amount of time many players spend merely focusing on their own strokes.
