Federer's "End of an Era" Matches

Yesterday, Roger Federer lost in the quarter finals to Jo-Wilfred Tsonga in the Wimbledon Quarter Finals. Critics were quick to suggest it was finally all over for Federer and that he might not even return to Wimbledon. As Federer defeats at Grand Slams occur with more regularity, the "end of an era" predictions come out after almost every one. With the latest defeat, people are very quick to overlook the fact that this very month, Federer was competing in a Grand Slam final and came as close as he has in a while to beating Nadal at the French Open. A mere 6 months ago, he beat Nadal on the way to winning his fifth World Tour Finals. Lets look at the previous "End of an Era" matches and how Federer has recovered.


2008 French Open
Nadal d Federer 6-1 6-3 6-0


2008 Wimbledon
Nadal d Federer 6-4 6-4 6-7 6-7 9-7


2009 Australian Open
Nadal d Federer 7-5 3-6 7-6 3-6 6-2


In January 2008, Federer lost his first Grand Slam match to a player who wasn't Nadal in three years. Djokovic blasted him off the court in straight sets, but the general consensus was not that an era had ended, but that Federer was simply due a defeat. As Federer tends to do, he has retrospectively put that defeat down to an illness and/or injury.


After one round at the French Open, the Times was suggesting this was the beginning of the end. However, Federer reached his third consecutive French Open final and was once again facing Nadal in an attempt to complete the career Grand Slam. After destroying Djokovic in the semi finals Nadal was favourite but Federer had plenty of chances in 2007 before ultimately falling in 4 sets. 


What happened was quite extraordinary. Nadal won 6-1 6-3 6-0 in an hour and a half. In a Grand Slam final, Nadal had taken a set off Federer to love. The match wasn't even remotely close. The general impression was that Federer would never win the French Open but that he was still the number 1 player on other surfaces. He went into Wimbledon as favourite to win a 6th consecutive title.


Federer and Nadal both reached the Wimbledon final with minimum of fuss, a semi final line up of Safin and Schutller demonstrating that for all the drama of the final, the actual tournament was of fairly low quality. The final itself does not need to be gone over again, going down in history as it does as the greatest match of all time. As everybody knows (if you didn't before, you will have passed the score while reading this article, but why you were reading a tennis blog if you didn't know is another issue) Nadal edged the match and Federer had gone three grand slams without a victory for the first time since 2002.


The general consensus at the time was that Nadal was now the worlds best player. There were serious questions over whether Federer would win more than the 12 grand slams he had at that time. Having just beaten him on his favourite surface, and with an excellent overall head to head record, Nadal looked set to prevent Federer for years to come. As the BBC put it at the time "...defeat on his favourite surface will lead many to question whether he is still the worlds best player". It felt like the end of an era.

                                        Nadal thinks the trophy is edible. It isn't.


Federer lost early in the Olympics as Nadal confirmed he was the top man by taking gold. However, an inspired Andy Murray made his arrival at the top end of tennis by knocking Nadal out of the US Open at the semi final stage. I think its fair to say had Nadal made it to the final, he would have won. However, Murray froze (a habit he is yet to shake off) in the final and Federer won his 13th Grand Slam. 


However, at the Australian Open in 2009 there was no stopping Nadal, as Murrays incredible run of form stopped suddenly against Verdasco in the 4th round (when many predicted Murray to win the title) and the top two faced off again. For 4 sets the match was an absolute classic, before Federer suffered a fifth set collapse which slightly marred things, and Nadal now held 3 of the 4 Grand Slams. The Guardian noted that Nadal now looked set to be the first to win all 4 Slams. 

                               Federer cries as he remembers what his wife looks like


Reaction: The hold Nadal had over Federer at this stage meant that few thought Roger would regain number 1 or complete the career grand slam. Pete Sampras record of 14 titles was suddenly looking further away than ever. However, Federer went on to beat Nadal on clay at the Madrid Masters and was no doubt the happiest person in the world when Soderling stunned Nadal in the 4th round at Roland Garros. Federer went onto take the title at the French for grand slam 14, then take advantage of an injured Nadal to break Sampras record at Wimbledon. Federer was back at number 1 and achieved everything that looked so unlikely in January.


2009 US Open
Del Potro d Federer 3-6 7-6 6-4 7-6 6-2


Nadal had returned to tour in the second half of 2009 and looked a broken shadow of a man. Federer breezed through the tournament, introducing the world to the "tweener" shot on match points in the semi finals against Djokovic. Del Potro hammered Nadal 6-2 6-2 6-2 but was widely expected to be defeated by the man who knocked him out of the Australian and French Open.


For a set and a bit, Federer was comfortable. Del Potro then resorted to the "being a complete dick" tactic which succeeded in throwing Fed off his game. Forehands started finding their range and Federer was beaten by a player who looked set to dominate the game for years to come. Could this be the end of Federers reign at the top?

                                  Federer wins something else to serve coffee on


Reaction: Once again, a player who had dethroned Federer suffered a serious injury (does Federer have an alibi?) and is only just getting back to his best. Federer went on to face the in form Andy Murray in the Australian Open 2010 final, with many feeling this was going to be Murray s turn to further show that the new breed had taken over. Murray froze again and Federer won Grand Slam 16.


Wimbledon 2010
Berdych d Federer 6-4 3-6 6-1 6-4

A quarter final defeat to Soderling at the French Open saw Federer's epic semi final run come to an end, but somehow the reaction to this was fairly muted. Perhaps with Nadal back, many knew it just prevented the inevitable final defeat. However at Wimbledon Federer was still the King and had not missed a final since 2002. Berdych had done little to suggest he was capable of an upset and it was a massive shock when he prevailed in 4 sets. Sports Illustrated suggested that this was the end of an era. Fox Sports also had this opinion.


Both pieces suggested that we would never see Federer at his peak again. Perhaps an indication of the knee jerk nature of the press, but there is a difference between Federer winning every grand slam he enters that isn't on clay and Federer being unable to compete at all. Essentially the reaction seemed to suggest that as Federer was now vulnerable to defeats in the later stages of slams (lets not forget this was the quarters, not the first round), he wouldn't ever compete again. 


Of course, Federer has retrospectively blamed this particular defeat on a back injury, continuing the run of "matches Federer would have won, in his opinion, had he been fit or played properly" to every single match Federer has ever played.


Reaction: Berdych went on to ruin Wimbledon by defeating Djokovic then deciding not to bother turning up in what I recall as an absolutely terrible final. As for Federer, he has not won a slam since and, in a sense, it is the case that he is no longer guaranteed to at least reach the finals of Grand Slams. 


However, Federer was majestic in London in November at the World Tour Finals, hammering Murray, Djokovic and Nadal on his way to victory. In 2011, he has been the only man (and person obviously, as a woman was hardly going to manage) to beat Djokovic and put in his best performance in the French he has for years against Nadal. Had he won the first set as he should, he would probably have won it.


CONCLUSION


The defeat to Tsonga was shocking mostly as it came from two sets up, and Federer appears to have acknowledged that for once he deserved to lose. Exactly as last year, an end of an era has been declared. Here, here and here, for starters. But we have been here before. It should be accepted that Federer will no longer be reaching finals every time, but this is hardly the end. Federer is currently the third best player in the world and will almost certainly win at least one more major before he retires. He will still be top 4 when Wimbledon 2012 rolls around. As we have seen, it is not possible to just write him off on the basis of one bad result. Federer is on a gradual slide from the top and the latest defeat will not accelerate it.

Serena should be happy just to be at Wimbledon

Last week, serena Williams was particularly unhappy at being asked to play on Court 2. She noted that this happened to her and Venus a lot and she did not know why this kept happening. Other women waded into the debate suggesting that it was sex discrimination. Which I assume it absolutely is. Fundamentally nobody goes to Wimbledon to watch womens tennis. An unscientific survey based on conversations in the queue suggested nadal, federer and Murray (but not djokovic oddly) were the main draws. Which moves us to point 1 of why Serena should stop complaining and just be happy to be at Wimbledon.

People go to watch the men

As my official and determinative survey shows, people do not go to Wimbledon to watch the Williams sisters. Not once did I heat anyone remark 'I have queued overnight to watch serena lose the first set to the world number 104 but ultimately prevail'. Not once did somebody say they wished there were more women matches on centre. I did overhear some muttering that the Court 2 line up on Day 7 was disappointing. Why? Because it contained more womens matches than mens.

They get equal pay for far less work

Without wading into the equal prize money debate, it's fair to say it's a disgrace which should be ended immediately. Serena gets to play 3/5 less sets than the men while receiving the same prize money. The games themselves are far shorter too. After her tireless campaigning, Serena has succeeded in getting a considerable amount of money for little work. So she should accept that she might occassionally not be centre stage.

This is not unprecedented

By 2002, Pete Sampras had won 7 Wimbledon titles, and while not the holder had won it in 2000. His second round match was arranged for Court 2. Sampras opted to not throw his toys everywhere and demand respect and just got on with it. In 2007, French Open winner and 06 runner up Nadal (seeded 2) ended up on Court 2. McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Cash, Stich and Becker all lost on Court 2. All men. All bigger draws than Serena.

It makes no difference

The rules of tennis state a singles court is 79 feet long and 27 feet wide. Always. Court 2 is not shorter or narrower. It is the exact same size as any tennis court Serena has ever played on. Court 2 is also still a show court. She is not being asked to play on a smaller court located 34 miles from Wimbledon and accessible only by boat.

It now doesn't matter

Serena played on Court 2 and won. She played on Court 1 and lost. When news of her defeat reached centre, there was a large cheer. So maybe she should just shut up.

Thoughts on Wimbledon Day Two

James Ward Watch

After a first round defeat at Eastbourne saw him almost drop back out of the top 200, Englands number 1 was outclassed at Wimbledon by Michael Llodra, losing in straight sets. However, the 10 points gained mean he could shoot up to somewhere around the top 180 next week. As we all agree, a staggering achievement for a country of Englands size and tennis heritage. And hey, Ward just earned £11,500 he would not have received had he been born anywhere else in the world.

Mahut v Isner isn't all that exciting

                                            The Wimbledon crowd today


Everybody got all excited when they heard Isner and Mahut had been drawn together again. As if another 70-68 set was absolutely guaranteed to happen. It quickly became clear that actually the match between the world number 47 and 94 wasn't actually all that exciting. Sure we tolerated it as they set astonishing endurance records, but at 4-4 in the first set second time around it was already fairly dull for all involved. To be fair, a similar match up equivalent would be Granollers v Kubot or Stakhovsky v Kendrick. Nobody wants to watch those matches, unless the only other option is a women's match and therefore we shouldn't expect too much of Mahisner either. The decision to hide them away on Court 3 wasn't all that silly.


One way to guarantee British success


The organisers at Queens started this cunning idea of having Brits play each other in the first round, and were rewarded when James Ward beat one of the inept Dans that clog up the 200-300s in the world (Cox I think, but I am not convinced him and Dan Evans aren't just the same person), thus having GB in the astonishing position of having two men in the second round of an ATP event.

The women, to be fair, are slightly better and having two reach the second round wouldn't be that surprising. Still, just to be sure, Broady was drawn against Keothovang. Given how British women love to implode from comfortable winning positions, I was quite intrigued to see if this match could be completed before the universe collapsed through the sheer complexity of having both players bottle one match. In the end, Keothovang prevailed and joined Baltacha in the second round. Both did so without too much fuss, bar the typical serving the match out jitters. Both will lose the next round.

Centre Court tickets not all that worthwhile

                                       How easy Federer and Djokovic had it today

Not great value in centre court tickets the last two days. Andy Murray tried to inject some excitement by dropping the first set, but in general the top 4 had an absolute stroll in the first round. Federer dropped 12 points on serve all match, ensuring my prediction that Kukushkin wouldn't win Wimbledon proved correct. Djokovic then dropped 11 points on serve all match as he dispatched with Chardy. Nadal thought about giving Russell the first set, but obviously worked out there was something on TV he had to get back for and fought back for a straightforward victory too.

Plus, you also have to watch some women's matches.

Thoughts on Wimbledon Day One

A statistic to start you off with

Matches won by British players in Grand Slams, excluding top ranked Andy Murray, since June 2008: 0

Matches won by French players in Grand slams, excluding top ranked Gael Monfils, today alone: 2

Matches won by Spanish players in Grand slams, excluding top ranked Rafel Nadal, today alone: 1

Matches won by American players in Grand Slams, excluding top ranked Andy Roddick, today alone: 3

Matches won by Swiss players in Grand Slams, excluding top ranked Roger Federer, today alone: 1

Katie O'Brien should never be given a wildcard again


To be fair to Katie O'Brien, she avoided the classic British failure of winning the first set, leading by a break in the second then losing. And wow, she avoided that hard. Now to be fair, she was playing the world number 47 and a three time Grand Slam semi-finalist. Except those Grand Slam finals were in the mid 1990s and her opponent is 40. We'll leave aside what exactly it says about women's tennis that a 40 year old is in the top 50 (but as a hint, it says its a complete joke), but you would still expect somebody a good 15 years younger to put up a fight.

However, Katie O'Brien contrived to lose the first set 6-0, before at least battling back to only lose the second set 7-5. That was her 8th Wimbledon and she has won only 1 match. Today alone she won £11,500 and has probably banked nearly £80,000 in her career. Its time she was told "never again" and made to qualify herself. Given she used to be in the top 100, she might just about manage too. But almost certainly won't.

What happens if it keeps raining?

The roof at Wimbledon is a fantastic addition, allowing us to avoid repeats of matches from the 1980s in order to watch actual tennis. Of course, Dokic v Schiavone had us all crying out for the large "R" in the corner of our screen again, but that can't be helped. However the roof raises one very interesting question. What happens if it keeps raining?

Lets imagine no play is possible at all on the outside courts for all of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Wimbledon will essentially be a one court tournament. As a result, would the order of play for those days just be a stream of Mondays cancelled matches getting finished on the only court available? On one hand it is unfair if people pay for centre court tickets and end up watching matches that should be on Court Infinity. But the only other alternative is just to keep playing the Top 4 matches and end up with a situation where Murray has reached Round 4 while some players haven't started Round 1. I wonder if the LTA have a plan in place.

Why do the BBC only really care about Wimbledon?

  Henman is only involved in the finals of grand slams as a pundit, which is the exact opposite of how his career went


The coverage at Wimbledon is fantastic, with streams available to watch from numerous courts meaning you can almost avoid women's matches entirely. A number of top ex-players are in the studio and commentating and there is a highlights on every night. Compare this with the French and Australian Open where the coverage is as follows:

Rounds 1 to 4: Red button coverage, of the main court only, with only commentary and no studio analysis. Often, the commentary is done by that Scottish guy that definitely does football and golf too, and appears to go missing without even being referred to once we reach:

Quarter Finals: If Murray is playing, a studio is found. Sue Barker is wheeled out from where ever it is the BBC keep her. There is a chance that the match will be on BBC 2. However if it looks likely to clash with Country Tracks or Homes under the Hammer then the red button it is. Even at the Australian Open at 4am, the match may not be justified ahead of the rolling 24 news coverage.

Semi Finals: If Murray is playing, this stage is suddenly deemed acceptable to cancel whatever else the BBC was planning on showing. Optimistically, schedulers appear to believe games last about 20 minutes and it isn't soon before Sue Barkers dismembered voice is advising people tuning in for Songs of Praise that it will actually be on BBC2, as if they were just waiting for her order before checking one of the other channels. The other semi final (or both if its not Murray) are kept on the Red Button.

Final: The BBC pretends it cared all along. Tim Henman is in the studio and there is some proper discussion. Viewers are no doubt left perplexed at how there appears to be a major tennis final on their tvs when there hasn't even been a hint of an actual tournament taking place. Many probably believe the French Open is merely a Federer v Nadal playoff, with the other players only invited to Wimbledon.

Epic Bottling

Tonight, we will watch Rory McIlroy bottle the US Open from what is the most comfortable winning position in golf since McIlroy led the Masters by 4 shots in April. So in the spirit of massive collapses and grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory, lets look at some of the most spectacular collapses in tennis. Obviously we will be focusing on mens tennis because as everybody knows, in the time it takes to write about a women bottling a match, a further three women have lost from 6-0, 5-0, 40-0 up.

Stefan Koubek v Cyril Saulnier
Australian Open 1st Round, 2002
Saulnier leads 6-0, 6-1, 4-1, 40-15
Koubeck wins 0-6, 1-6, 7-6, 6-4, 8-6


We start with possibly the most spectacular choke in grand slam history. For all the talk of Coria in 2004 and Roddick in 2009, they were not in such total control of a match as the frenchman Cyril Saulnier was in his first round match in the 2002 Australian Open. At 6-0, 6-1, 4-1 up, Saulnier held two break points on Koubeks serve and victory seemed assured. Quite what happened at this stage is very difficult to pin down, but it seems Koubek fought back to hold serve and trail a mere 4-2 in the third. A further break back later and it was a tiebreak. Koubek won 8-6 in the tiebreak and went on to win the match.

Specific details about this match are almost impossible to find. What is odd about it however is that while Saulnier was in total control before losing, the final three sets were very competitive. Saulnier did not simply throw in the towel and disappear without a fight. Clearly the game went from being absurdly one sided, to a very close battle between two players that Koubek eventually won. However it happened, it is fair to say Koubek had secured one of the most improbable comebacks of all time. He eventually went on to reach the quarter finals, which suggests he just hadn't turned up for two and 3/4 sets of the first round before getting his act together.


Rory McIlroys Verdict:

Stefan Koubek v Augustin Calleri
Sopot 1st Round, 2007
Calleri leads 6-0, 4-0
Koubek wins 0-6, 7-6, 7-5


Stefan Koubek is clearly somebody that needs a shock to get him playing. He features twice as a comeback merchant in what was a very extensive search for tennis collapses. The venue for this comeback was a mere a 250 tournament held in Sopot, Poland. In what was a fairly competent field, Calleri was seeded 5th and must have thought victory was assured as he raced through the first ten games. Indeed, he actually led 5-1 in the second set before failing to serve out the match twice. He then goes on to lose the tiebreak and against all odds, the games goes into a third set.

What makes this even more impressive is that Calleri knuckled down after that shock and quickly established a 5-2 lead in the third set. At that stage a second round of choking began, 4 Match Points came and went and Koubek went through 7-5 in the third. Interestingly between this match and his previous match, Koubek lost 21 consecutive games. I think its safe to say he is the most inconsistent player ever on tour.

Rory McIlroys verdict:

Mario Ancic v Ivo Minar
Ostrava Challenger, Round 1 2010
Ancic Leads 6-4, 4-6, 5-0, 40-0
Minar wins 4-6, 6-4, 7-5


Mario Ancic was once one of the most promising young players in tennis, reaching the semi finals at Wimbledon in 2004 and the quarter finals at the French Open and Wimbledon in 2006. He lost to Roger Federer each time. In 2007 he suffered mono and fell from the top 10 to outside the top 100. He never really recovered and by 2010 was reduced to playing on the challenger circuit. This particular challenger was played on clay in the Czech Republic against a player who was just working his way back up the rankings after a doping suspension.

After a close first two sets, Ancic raced through the third and was 5-0, 40-0 up. Perhaps he was already dreaming of the second round and an increase on the €440 prize money he would receive for a first round exit. Perhaps he suddenly realised how far his career had fallen, through no fault of his own. Whatever it was, he lost the next 5 points and then a further 6 games in a row. Ancic would only play 15 more matches before retiring to become a lawyer.

Rory McIlroy verdict:

Paul Capdeville v Giovanni Lapentti
Guayaquil Challenger Quarter Final 2010
Lapentti leads 6-0, 4-0
Capdeville wins 0-6, 7-5, 6-4


Gio Lapentti is most famous in Britain for starting a decade of Davis Cup misery by defeating Arvind Parmar from two sets down in the World Group Play-off at 17. Despite the match being played in Britain and on a surface Lapentti had never played on before. Parmar was never seen of or heard of again.

Gio never went on to had the career that people predicted at that stage, and at 28 was playing a challenger event in his home country. Gio breezed into an almost unassailable lead, but as Calleri showed before you can not rest on your laurels. Capdeville got onto the scoresheet but it was still 5-1. Some MPs came and went before Capdeville got into the game, took the second and set and won a close third. Its interesting that in all these examples the final sets remain quite close, avoiding the common WTA scoreline of 0-6, 7-5, 6-0.

Rory McIlroy verdict:

Wimbledon Preview

It is that time of year where you can't pick up a paper without reading a preview to Wimbledon. Journalists who follow the game all year round speculate that the four best players in the world are the most likely to win the event. Then they suggest the players ranked slightly lower could cause an upset, a bold prediction what with them being among the top 10 most talented tennis players in the world. Then somebody says you can never rule out Andy Roddick, ignoring 2006, 2008 and 2010 where he was ruled out fairly early on.

So with that in mind, lets instead look beyond the usual suspects and see who else is featuring at Wimbledon.

Mikhail Kukushkin (Kazakhstan)
Age: 23
Current ATP Rank: 60
Highest ATP Rank: 58

                             My expression when I realised he was number 60 in the world

Mikhail Kukushkin is only the Kazakhstan Number 2, despite being number 60 in the world, and of the three Kazakhstan players you pass in the world rankings until finding the British Number 2. In the distance, you can just about hear somebody at the LTA cry in despair at that fact. However, like all Kazakhstan tennis players, Kukushkin is actually Russian and chooses to play for Kazakhstan for reasons that remain perfectly clear and financially rewarding.

Kukushkin won the St Petersburg Open in 2010, his first ATP Tour victory. He beat Tipsarevic, Tursunov and Youzhny en route. That remains his finest career moment, with 2011 not providing similar success. Highlights this year are reaching the second round of the Miami Masters and the second round of the French Open. Last week, he lost to the world number 200 at Queens. That was only his second match on grass in his career so far. Having only reached the second round of a Grand Slam once, and having never won on grass, Kukushkin faces an uphill battle to win at SW19.

VERDICT: Won't win Wimbledon

Pere Riba (Spain)

Age: 23

Current ATP Rank: 65

Highest ATP Rank: 65

At a lowly 65th in the world, Pere Riba is the Spanish number 12. He is one of 16 Spanish players you pass in the world rankings before reaching the British Number 2. The British Number 12, Josh Goodall, is currently 436 in the world. In the distance, you can just about hear somebody at the LTA cry in despair at that fact. Wikipedia notes he is the youngest Spanish player in the top 100 and he supports Real Zaragoza. There is very little about him on the internet, so I can only assume being a Spanish player and only being ranked 65th is a source of such eternal shame that the Spanish pretend he doesn't exist.

Riba has reached 22 finals at challenger and future level, with every single one on clay.  If Riba had a reputation in Spain, which he almost certainly doesn't, it would be one of a filthy bottler as he has lost 13 of these finals, often from a set up. 2011 has been a good year however, with Riba reaching the second round in the Australian Open, the French Open and two Masters Events. Riba made his debut on grass last week at Halle, losing 7-6 7-6 to Ivan Dodig. He'll have to improve on that if he wants to be featuring two weeks on Sunday on Centre Court.

VERDICT: Won't win Wimbledon

Carlos Berlocq (Argentina)

Age: 28

Current ATP Rank: 69

Highest ATP Rank: 65

                                                              

Carlos Berlocq is surprisingly the Argentinian number 5, at 69 in the world. He is one of the 10 Argentine players you pass before reaching the British Number 2. Somewhere in the distance, the LTA is being disbanded. At 28, Berlocq (nicknamed Charlie) is peaking late, after slogging around at future and challenger level for a long period of time. In 2006, Berloq played his first ever ATP tour match and won 6-0 6-0. Yet just as people predicted a Federer-esque era of dominance for the Argentine, he proceeded to lose in the second round 6-0 6-0. Unsurprisingly, he is the only player to win his first ATP match to love, then lose his second to the same score. He has twice reached the second round of the the French Open.

2011 has not been a hugely successful year for Berlocq, who plays a lot of doubles too. However, appearances at the third round in Miami Masters, and the second round in Rome and the French Open have kept him in the top 70. Such was his confidence coming into Wimbledon, Berlocq chose to play a clay challenger last week in which he lost in the first round. The statistics show Berlocq has won an ATP match on grass, and only needs to repeat that feat seven times to be lifting his first Grand Slam title.

Verdict: Won't win Wimbledon.


Cedrik-Marcel Stebe (Germany)
Age:  20
Current ATP Rank: 208
Highest ATP Rank: 204

At the time of writing Cedrik-Marcel Stebe is two sets to love up in the final qualifying round against Ryan Harrison and must be heavy favourite to qualify for the main event. The German number 18 at 204 in the world, he is one of 23 Germans you pass in the rankings before reaching the British number 3. I am not entirely sure why we even bother.

2011 has been a promising year for CMS, and he has risen nearly 200 places in the rankings. He has had decent results on the challenger tour, reaching the final in the Kyoto Challenger in March. CMS had his most impressive performance last week in Halle, winning through three qualifying rounds to reach the first round proper. In the first round, he took a set off Philip Kohlschreiber but was eventually defeated. His showing in the Wimbledon qualifiers suggest a decent grass court pedigree and he should be one to watch, barring a massive, womens tennis esque collapse tomorrow against Harrison.

Verdict: Won't win Wimbledon


So there we have it. My Wimbledon predictions are that Mikhail Kukushkin, Pere Riba, Carlos Berlocq and Cedrick-Marcel Stebe will not be lifting the Wimbledon trophy two weeks on Sunday. You heard it here first.

I hate Juan Martin Del Potro

One of the great things about tennis is that, Andy Murray matches aside, its very easy to watch without desperately wanting somebody to win or lose. This does mean you can enjoy the match without being too bothered by the result. While I am always quite satisfied if a certain T Berdych or Robin S lose early, it doesn't provide me with any great emotions of anger if they go on to win a tournament. However, there is one exception to this, and that exception is Juan Martin Del Potro.

                       I can only hope this was match point against and the ball hit the net

In every single tournament, I am quite happy for anybody to win except this man. The sooner he gets knocked out of a tournament, the better. However it is very clear that I am in the minority here. Many were delighted that he won the US Open in 2009 and were hoping for him to take over from Nadal and Federer and dominate. People often say what a real shame it was that he suffered such a serious wrist injury (which it was, to be fair, but I can't say I was too upset). So I thought I should look to see if there were any proper reasons to hate him.

1. Murray and Del Potro have an argument

This was an incident that occurred in Rome in 2008. To cut a long story short, Del Potro takes offence at Murray and decides to insult his mother. This certainly seems like a good starting point. Except that in the end the whole exchange is absolutely hilarious. Murray gets slightly aggressive and threatens with "you ever speak about my mum again", before realising exactly how big Del Potro is and deciding that he will just tell on him to the umpire.  The umpire then gets very headmaster like and tells Del Potro off, who just sits there staring directly at something the entire time. In conclusion, the whole thing is fairly amusing, the players since made up and its not a reason to hate him.

2. Del Potro challenges approximately seven years after the ball lands out


There will be more on the US Open later, but during the final Del Potro took a habit to challenging line calls later and later. Eventually Federer lost the plot. You will see that Del Potro hits the ball out approximately 16 seconds into that clip. Both players move to sit down. A full 11 seconds later, Del Potro decides to challenge the call. This causes Federer to launch into a hilarious rant, made even better by the strains of the "Theme to Taxi" appearing over the end of it. Federer does go onto win the set, but is rattled enough to lose the match overall. While the umpire should do better, its very poor form for Del Potro to challenge so late.

3. Del Potro imagines a cup falling from the stand


There is no video evidence of this but I definitely saw it happen. Again at the US Open Final, Federer serves an ace. Del Potro complains that a cup fell from behind where Federer was serving and if that hadn't happened, he would definitely have reached the serve and hit an unstoppable winner. TV footage did not really show there was a cup. So I choose to believe there wasn't a cup and Del Potro was resorting to any excuse to get back into the game.

4. The fact Del Potro won the 2009 US Open


To be fair to Del Potro, he played an excellent tournament in 2009. He dismantled the in form Cilic and destroyed Nadal in the semi finals. Then, in the final, he was awful. He was very quickly a set and 4-5 down. Federer was serving for the second set and was going to complete a dull straight sets victory. Except Federer decided to inexplicably bottle it, let Del Potro back in and proceed to fold under a string of late challenges, imaginary cups and suddenly competent tennis. Having never won a Master Series Event, Del Potro had just been handed his first Grand Slam title.

5. Del Potro and Federer combine to knock Murray out the World Tour Finals

                               Plotting how best to annoy Andy Murray

The 2009 World Tour Finals ended up being incredibly complicated towards the end. Three players were tied and it was going to come down to games won. At 2-6, 7-6, 3-4, Federer merely had to hold his serve and Murray would proceed. Del Potro then picks the absolute perfect time (for him) to break and Murray is knocked out by one game. That was pretty much the final straw.

So in conclusion, Del Potro is my least favourite tennis player on account of some late challenges, winning a Slam with a reasonable amount of luck and finding the most frustrating way possible to knock Andy Murray out of the World Tour Finals. A convincing argument I think you will agree. If not, here is a video of Del Potro  hitting a child.

Will we ever hear about James Ward again?

Every so often at the Queens Tournament or Wimbledon, a British player that isn't Andy Murray gets some headlines. In 2007, Alex Bogdanovic reached the third round at Queens, led Roddick by a set then uncharacteristically let the lead slide. In 2008, Chris Eaton won a round at Wimbledon.  This week, James Ward got the attention for reaching the semi-finals at Queens. Usually in these situations the player themselves start talking excitedly about the top 100, people start talking about a possible resurgence in British tennis, then we never hear of them again. Alex Bogdanovic stalled at 108 in the rankings, Chris Eaton at 317. So what will become of James Ward?

We should begin with the positives first of all. What James Ward achieved is considerably more impressive than the average headline grabber. He got into a winning position against Wawrinka, and rather than go on to lose but get praised for his plucky efforts, held his nerve to win. He got into a winning position against Querrey, and rather than go on to lose but get praised for his plucky efforts, held his nerve to win. He got into a winning position against Mannarino, almost completely bottled things, but eventually held his nerve to win. Only against Tsonga did he go on to lose but get praised for his plucky efforts. Victories against three players in the top 100 is impressive.

Secondly, this is not his first impressive run on grass. Last year at Eastbourne he beat both Lopez and Schuttler in a run to the quarter finals. He does appear to have some sort of pedigree on this surface, and a reasonable amount of bottle too. In his only appearance at Wimbledon in 2009, he achieved the usual British result of a comprehensive first round defeat, but this was against Verdasco.

On the downside, he is already 24. In fact, he is about three months older than Andy Murray. Not too many players make a breakthrough at that age and very few do it from 214 odd in the world. Secondly, holding a match point against Ryan Harrison in the French Open qualifiers aside, he has done very little this year. He appears to have lost to the world number 870 at one point. If he can only get results on grass, he won't really get too far.

                                                          Grass

Ward did look fairly impressive at times during Queens. His serve was reliable and his mentality was excellent, particularly after blowing 7 match points in the quarters. However, things won't be easy from here. He has been drawn against Janko Tipsarevic in Eastbourne, which will be a very tough match for him. He has a wildcard into Wimbledon which should provide an opportunity for further ranking points, before he returns to the grind of the challenger circuit. The issue will be whether he can find the suitable motivation to reach his stated aim of the top 100 when he is playing the world number 222 in a challenger in Kazakhstan.

Going by previous experience, we will never hear of James Ward again. Until a newspaper asks "Whatever happened to James Ward?" in 3 years, and we all learn he never quite kicked on. At which stage we'll all be getting excited over Oliver Golding going a set up against a top 20 player before losing but getting praised for his plucky efforts. I'll be happy to be proved wrong though.