novak djokovic and rafael nadal, after nadal's 6-4, 6-4, 6-1 victory. spain defeated serbia in the first round tie, 4-1.
dimitry tursunov, in one of the most unfortunate team shirts i've ever seen. here, i presume with team captain, shamil tarpischev.
tursunov fought back from two sets down to defeat victor hanescu, 4-6, 5-7, 6-3, 6-4, 6-2, and russia clinched the tie, 4-1.
march 8, 2009. in sibiu, romania. photo by mihai barbu via daviscup.com
gilles simon, with french team captian guy forget. simon lost his singles match to radek stepanek, 7-6,(2), 6-3, 7-6 (0), and france, the tie (3-2).
the czech team will face argentina in the quarterfinals.
march 8, 2009. ostrava, czech republic.
photographed by paul zimmer. via daviscup.com.
the ties have been broken.
i witnessed bits and pieces of one (us v. switzerland), was lullabied by another (spain v. serbia), read a bit about the others online. a few things from davis cup weekend raised my little eyebrow:
1) the french losing to the czech republic (maybe i shouldn't have been surprised, but i can't ever get a beat on berdych--every time i decide to put money on him--figuratively--he serves up a big letdown. i suppose the same can be said of gasquet. but the french had simon and tsonga playing singles. so i would have guessed the french would take it;
2) israel defeating sweden (will wilander throw in the towel? does my all-time favorite davis cup player give up coaching and captaining and do commentary, full-time? i would take him over justin gimelstob any day);
3) doubles. it's fun.
i watched most the bryan brothers v. the swiss duo of wawrinka/allegro, and i let out more than my share of audible wows, especially in the 3rd and 4th sets. i found myself rooting for the underdog swiss team and especially for yves allegro, who was unquestionably, the biggest underdog of that tie. i suppose it would be one thing if the swiss team got blown off the court in straight sets, but they made such a game of it, yet it remained apparent that allegro was the most vulnerable, most attackable...well, i just wanted them to win the doubles, so allegro could leave birmingham with a great story to tell.
if you have a soft spot for underdogs (or have been one yourself), take a minute to read peter bodo's post, the cruelty of doubles. i hated playing doubles (which was my fate for four years in high school) precisely because i dreaded those moments of letting my partner down. me and my weak-ass serve. it's exactly as he says:
". . . Can there be anything worse than conspicuously being the weakest of four players on a tennis court? You feel responsible for the waste of your teammate's best efforts, and when you look across the net you see a double-dose of a modulated, veiled, but very real predatory lust. In singles, you play lousy and at least you have your own space, a fairly large amount of it, on either side of the net. In doubles, the court must look awfully crowded, with your dispirited partner on one side and two opponents on the other...
There's nowhere to hide. And don't tell me that having a teammate in those terrible moments is an emotional crutch; it's an emotional burden, unlike any known by the singles player. And it's part of the secret glory of doubles, a game that rarely invokes the noun. Fun? Sure. Fast? Sure. Exciting? Sure. But how often do people describe doubles as "glorious"? So never forget that as comforting as it is to have a comrade, throwing in with one also implies a certain amount of responsibility. Great doubles players are the ones who consistently triumph over this demand, and even under the most trying circumstances find a way not to be emotionally and mentally obliterated by it when things aren't going so well."
i suppose it's like a basketball player whose misses game-tying free throws, a game-winning shot, or who calls for a time-out when there are none left...a closer who gives up the tying run...and then the winning run...a first baseman who can do nothing but watch as the ball rolls through his legs. i feel for those guys, even if i don't root for their teams, because i don't envy that feeling.
but then there is the camaraderie. in victory and defeat, there is that.
and i'm glad for these tennis players, that there are at least a few times during the year when they can compete and cheer and endure those moments together.
***
2009 Davis Cup First Round Results:
USA def. Switzerland, 4-1
Croatia def. Chile, 5-0
Argentina def. Netherlands, 5-0
Czech Republic def. France, 3-2
Israel def. Sweden, 3-2
Russia def. Romania, 4-1
Germany def. Austria, 3-2
Spain def. Serbia, 4-1
***
check out jason's report from sunday here.
***
and finally, two random tennis bits from this weekend:
american tennis from the 70s and 80s really does resonate: british artist and filmmaker, steve mcqueen, whose film, hunger, won the camera d’or at the cannes film festival, likened the film's pivotal scene between bobby sands (michael fassbender) and a priest (liam cunningham) to “connors versus mcenroe at the wimbledon final, two people wanting the same thing but wanting it differently.”
i googled to see which connors/mcenroe final he might have been referring to ('82?), and found out that the british don't need nielsen ratings. they use their electricity grid to estimate their audience:
"tennis fans caused a massive surge in electricity demand after nadal took the wimbledon title because they were glued to their seats during the epic match. a 1,400 megawatt spike - equivalent to 550,000 kettles being boiled - was recorded at around 9.20pm, as the spaniard lifted the trophy. the surge shows millions watched the match."
so bizarre and old school. i like it.
