Astrolotennis

October 6th may go unnoticed to millions of people around the world, but I'm quite sure it is a meaningful date for a large amount of those who's birthday is celebrated on this date -including me-. For tennis pundits, it also marks the birth anniversary of one of the greatest female tennis players of all time, which got me thinking of the subject I write in today's entry.

Whether if you believe in astrology or not, I think it always makes up for an interesting conversation topic; that is, to talk about similarities and coincidences certain people have in common due to the period they were born. It gets even more interesting when we relate it to a sport we love as much as tennis. Anyway, enough prelude... let's get down to business!

Helen Wills Moody was born on October 6th 1905 and she rose to tennis stardom in the mid 20s and 30s, dominating the tour for over ten years and tearing apart any rival that came across the net. Some current tennis fans may not remember her because history has been unfair to legends of the past -both male and female- such as Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzales, Suzanne Leglen and of course Helen Wills. Wills' resume of course is by no means anything to be forgotten: she won 7 US Open, 8 Wimbledon and 4 French Open tournaments, and she also won an Olympic Gold Medal. Born in California, Wills has been labeled as the first female American athlete to gain fame and recognition over the world. Her calm demeanor in the court earned her the nickname "Little Miss Poker Face", kind of alluding to the fact that it was impossible to get a reaction or any emotion at all from her while on court -winning or not-. One thing for sure was, when she was on, she meant business. In a nutshell, one could say she was a proud holder of the sign of Libra. But what does that have to do with tennis?

While reminiscing Helen Wills, her greatness and her legacy, I asked myself: "What makes a Champion great? Is there something in common Champions have?" Well, here's the thing. Have you ever asked yourself who are the greatest male tennis players of all time? If I go out and survey 1,000 people -mostly tennis geeks- I'm quite sure three names will appear regularly as answers:

Rod Laver
Pete Sampras
Roger Federer

Rod "The Rocket" was born on August 9th, making him a Leo. "Pistol" Pete was born on August 12th, also making him Leo. "The Swiss Maestro" Roger was born on August 8th, making him... guess what? Leo. I find this quite amazing... the fact that three of the greatest tennis players are Leo and interestingly enough, born within four days apart. In fact, Roger (born in 1981) is almost 10 years younger than Pete to date (born in 1971). If you take a look at both careers, you'll see they even look quite similar:

Take out Pete's 1990 US Open, Roger and Pete began winning slams regularly in a year ending in 3 (93 and 03), both coincidentally at Wimbledon.

Both went on to win at least a slam every year except for the year ending in 1(2001 and 2011), and both came back to claim another slam in the year ending on 2 (Pete 2002 US Open and Roger 2012 Wimbledon).

Both struggled at France (alright, Roger ended up winning it).

Both failed to win an olympic gold medal.

Now let's assume the people from the poll are a little bit more spread on opinion and threw in a few more names other than Rod, Pete and Roger. I'm quite sure the other group would consist of either:

Bjorn Borg
Rafael Nadal

and maybe even

Novak Djokovic

The "Iceborg" was born on June 6th; "Vamos Rafa" was born on June 3rd, and the "Djoker" was born on May 22nd. All three are powerful baseliners, all three had relentless speed and oncourt energy and all three were...yes... Gemini.

So going back to the women's side, things get even spicier when we look at the legacy left by Libra Helen Wills. Of course, you have to be a bit permissive: What names would you include in a list of best female tennis players of all time? Apart from Helen Wills, I would go with:

Martina Navratilova: even if you label her as best or not, you have to name her best serve and volley female player of all time. Hello? Nine Wimbledons? Too much. Her birthdate is October 18th, making her Libra.

Serena Williams: there is never enough room to praise the talent and conviction Serena has brought to female tennis. Perhaps her being born on September 26th hepled a bit. Libra? Yes.

Martina Hingis: I may be jumping the line a little bit here by including her in such an exclusive list, but in order to defend myself I have to say that I have never seen such beautiful strokes on court, combined with such amazing tactical and strategic approach to the game. She was smart if not the smartest on court I've ever seen. And, she is Libra.

I know what you're thining... where is Steffi Graff? Don't worry... she's there...but oh ....she was born on June 14th: Gemini. mmmm right there with Rafa, Novak and Bjorn.

I guess that if you have a boy kid who is Leo or Gemini, you should give him a racket on his next birthday... and do the same if it's a Libra girl.







.

Murray's victory transitions a new tennis era

By this time you are probably aware that Scotish born, British by heart Andy Murray finally won his first Grand Slam final. Many are talking about the end of the 76 year dry spell of Brits without a Slam, but I think we should be talking about the beginning of a new era in tennis.

About ten years ago, we lived a very similar scenario: the likes of Sampras, Agassi, Rafter and Becker had been dominating Grand Slams and #1 spots in the world. Then Sampras and Agassi turned 30, Becker retired, Rafter was dwelled with back and shoulder injuries... and all of this results in new names being written in the most prestigous trophies of our sport. Players who hadn't been able or weren't capable of translating their talent into victories, due to the dominance of Pete, Andre, Pat and Boris, all of a sudden began materializing their chances and winning the big titles. Goran Ivanisevic must have lost like 10 matches at later stages (semi finals, finals); Juan Carlos Ferrero was prevented a Roland Garros twice by the master Guga Kuerten and once by his teacher Albert Costa. Then you also have to add the newcomers, the new school from the new generation: fresher legs, fiercy eyes and a very very hungry stomach. Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, all of them capitalizing their chances. Then came Roger Federer and put an end to it, followed by Rafael Nadal: between the two of them, 28 Grand Slams were monopolized. Novak Djokovic became the third musketeer in the group and added 6 more. Only the loner Marat Safin (Australia 2005) and Juan Martin del Potro (US Open 2009) were able to make a brief appearance as Grand Slam champions. Interestingly enough, both of them had to face and beat Federer in five sets to do so.

So here we are, at the end of 2012. Novak began the year as #1 player and he won the Australian Open; Nadal reached Roland Garros as #2 and he won Roland Garros. Federer ranked #3 in the world conquered Wimbledon and yesterday the fourth player in the world Andy Murray grabbed his first US Open crown. Each one of the top four players won a Slam. The question now is: Which player dominated 2012?

Let's see if we can answer:

Novak: Began 2012 as he ended 2011 -meaning, looking unbeatable-. He downed Nadal in one of the best matches of all time. But as the season went on, he began to deflate. Perhaps the pressure of defending that godlike 2011 got the best out of him. He managed to make Roland Garros finals, but couldn't handle Nadal. He lost in the Wimbledon semis to eventual champion Federer and yesterday he fell short in the finals. On a normal standard, one could say 2012 was a good year for Djoker. Compared to 2011, it wasn't.

Rafael: Began 2012 as he ended 2011 -meaning, trying to find a way how to beat Novak-. He lost the Australian, but came on top at Roland Garros, also mastering another successful clay-court season. After surrendering a second round loss to an unkown qualifier, he pulled out the rest of the season citing a recurring knee injury. On a normal standard, one could say 2012 was a good year for Nadal. Unfortunately we didn't get the chance to see what would he have accomplished, had he played the rest of the season.

Roger: Began 2012 looking like Pete Sampras ten years ago in 2002 -meaning, looking as if he was ready to retire, but maybe struggling to win one more slam-. He kept losing to Nadal and Djokovic in straight sets, including an astounding pound 6-3/6-1 in Miami against Nadal and a 3-0 Djokoic rollover in Roland Garros. Many doubted he would win another slam, yet alone get back to the #1 spot. With Wimbledon's victory he did both. After losing in the finals of the Olympics to Murray ,he moved on to a quite successful summer season, until he ran into one of the underdogs who believe can beat him Tomas Berdych. On a normal standard, 2012 looks like a good year for Roger. On Roger's standards, well... it's not

Andy: Began 2012 pretty much the same way he began past seasons -meaning living under the shadow of the top #3-. Once again he cried after losing his fourth Grand Slam final in Wimbledon. Then everything finally came together for him at the Olympics. And at the US Open. By ANY standards, 2012 has been a great year for Andy. But has he been a dominant player this season? The answer is no.

The way I see it, 2012 has earned to be called a transition year, pretty much like 2001, 2002. Perhaps to a lesser degree because both Novak and Rafa were able to defend their 2011 titles in Australia and Paris. However here we are, ready to enter October and unsure of a clear dominant player -even with Rafa out for the rest of the year-.

There are three master 1000 tournaments left, including the End year World Championship, all of them played in a surface that favors Roger. The thing is that aged 31, Roger is looking a bit slower with every passing match and there is no denying that thils will continue. He still has the game to beat anyone outside the top 10, but when it comes to Novak, Andy, Tomas, Juan Martin, the advantage is reduced.

Then we have Rafa, who at 26 is looking less healthier than Roger at 31. This is the second time in three years that Nadal has to pull out for the rest of the season. Will he be back? Of course he will, but like Roger, there is no denying that his pace must be tuned down unless he is aiming to retire from the sport in 2014.

If 2012 did anything to Novak is that it proved him as unable to handle the pressure of being #1. Like it or not, he wasn't able to repeat his 2011 success. Yesterday's was a strategic match more than a tennis match, yet he wasn't able to capitalize on having the conditions turn to his favor. To me, Novak's 2012 looks quite similar to Connors' 1975 and Wilander's 1989 (both years following 3 Grand Slam trophy seasons). So for Novak one has to think: Is he tired? Or is he happy with winning one slam a year and making it to the semis/finals of the others?

Finally we have the new generation, pioneered by Andy, today a US Open champion and Gold medal holder. Will he fill the hole of an aging Roger, an injured Rafa and a questionable Novak in the years to come? Only time will tell... but a big warning for the rest of the players is the fact that Ivan Lendl is behind him, who went on to dominate the second half of the 80s after Borg, McEnroe and Connors faded away. Also there is Berdych and Del Potro, my two other favorite new-gen players who have been deprived of Grand Slam victories over and over again. In the horizon, no one else appears to look like a worthy Grand Slam Champion.

A new tennis era has begun yeterday and Andy Murray's victory unveiled it. Who will be the next McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Nadal? Is he already out there or is he still playing 14 and under tournaments? Time will tell. One thing is for sure: it doesn't look like it's in the US or in Sweden, as Americans couldn't make it past the quarterfinals, and in an ashtoning fact, there were no swedes in the men's singles main draw of the open.

Winds of change are coming in tennis.

Monster Serena crushes Sharapova

Then again, not even a hybrid of Steffi Graff and Monica Seles would have been able to put up a fight.

Serena Williams gave another tennis clinic to one of her toughest rivals -if you want to call it that way- Maria Sharapova in a 63 minute dismantling 6-0/6-1 victory, winning the Gold medal in the London 2012 Olympics and becoming only the second woman in achieving a career Golden Slam, meaning she has won the big four majors plus now a Gold medal in the olympics. The only other female tennis player to achieve so, Steffi Graff.

While not entirely flawless or perfect, one could say Serena's performance was very close to be regarded as both flawless and perfect. We can analyze it by comparing another pounding Serena gave to Maria when back in 2007 she ran over her 6-1 / 6-2 her at the Australian Open finals, being unseeded and Maria ranked at the #1 spot. Yesterday in London:

• Her first serve was impecabble at 67% including 10 aces, quite close to 07s 67% with 7 aces. She hit two double faults on both matches.
• Serena hit 24 winners and had 7 unforced errors. In 07 she had 28 and 11. 
• She converted 5 out of 7 break points and faced only 2 break points which she saved. In 07 She had 4 of 6 and also saved the only 2 break points Maria had.
• Maria on the other hand, had only 6 winners (none came from her forehand) and 10 unforced errors. She only had one ace and double faulted 5 times on a 62% of first serve. Overall, a worse performance than the 07 match when she had 3 aces, 6 double faults, but at least coined 12 winners against 13 unforced errors.

So basically, it all comes to Maria playing as good as she could and Serena playing in Godess mode, or what I like to call... REACH MODE ON.

Reach Mode On is the state in which Serena plays and is able to defeat any woman who can hold a racket, alive, dead, left handed, right handed, anything. Serena is no doubt the most interesting female player of all time, as her constant up and down swings, frequent injuries and withdrawls of tournaments, has made everybody wonder what could she be able to do if her focus could be at 100% each time she'd need it, like for instace the 2011 US Open Final when she was out of herself and lost unexpectedly and surprisingly.

I remember reading one time an interview a few years ago, and Serena was asked to point the one match in her career she felt she had played her best and at her absolute peak of her powers. The answer took the interviewer by surprise, as I'm quite sure it took a lot of people as well: "I haven't played such match yet" she replied.

In an era when the female tennis cirquit is so open, it's very rewarding to see Serena as a commanding authority to rise her game and show that there is a gap between her and the rest... and that the gap is way bigger than what everyone thinks. It makes me wonder what do all those tennis players who have beaten Serena before think about telling their children one day:

-"Mommy, did you ever beat Serena Williams when you played against her?"

-"Oh no my darling. I did played Serena Williams yes, and the scored showed me as a winner, but what really happened is that she let me win."





Brought to you by www.vidacaracas.com

Hard Records I: Calendar Grand Slam

There are many things that attract us to watch sports: excitement of a match point in tennis, penalties in football, touchdowns in american football, home runs in baseball, and so on... but... if there is something that excites people more than anything is when a record is going to be broken, or in some cases, a very hard achievement.

I want to start a series of blogs discussing some of the toughest and hardest records I am aware of in sports, and it is likely I may overlook some, so feel free to contribute to any in the comments section. Today I begin by writing about how hard it is to win a Calendar Grand Slam in Tennis.

By now you must know that the greats of Roger Federer, Pete Sampras, Rafael Nadal, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, all of them haven't or weren't able to win a career grand slam. Some of then got (or have been) closer than others. The only man: Rod Laver, who did it in 1969; so what I'm going to do is briefly summarize each year of the open era from the beginning, starting with the tennis player who won the first Grand Slam -hence the one who could have potentially won the calendar Grand Slam (note that until 1985, the first GS of the year was Roland Garros. Australia was the last, then it became the first).

1968: Ken Rosewall won RG defeating Rod Laver in the Finals. He was eliminated in the semi finals of Wimbledon and failed to win another Slam for the year.

1969: Rod Laver wins all four GS Tournaments. The only man in the open era to do so.

1970: Jan Kodes wins RG. A clay court specialist, he was clobberd in Wimbledon. He would repeat his French triumph in 1971, with the same fate in Wimbledon.

1972: Andres Gimeno, another clay court specialist wins RG. Once again he would exit early in Wimbledon.

1973: Illie Nastase was in his best years, winning his second GS in Paris. But he would be eliminated in the 4th round of Wimbledon.

1974: Bjorn Borg wins his first Grand Slam at RG and overall. Still immature for grass, he would be eliminated in the third round. Interestingly, in this year Jimmy Connors would go on to win the remaining three Grand Slams and what's ironic about the whole thing  is that he didn't play at RG. Had he played, would he won it? We'll never know. Borg wins RG again in 1975 and in Wimbledon he loses to eventual champion Arthur Ashe in the quarterfinals.

1976: Adriano Panatta wins RG and as it happens before with clay court specialists, he exits early in Wimbledon.

1977: Guillermo Vilas faces the same fate Panatta did the previous year.

1978-1981: Bjorn Borg wins RG each year and goes on to win Wimbledon as well, putting him in good position to win the other two slams. He becomes the only player since Rod Laver to achieve this. He would hit a brick wall however at the US Open, losing in the 1978 finals to Jimmy Connors, the 1979 quarters to Roscoe Tanner and the 1980 finals to John McEnroe. During all this time Bjorn did not make the trip to play in Australia, and his reasoning was simple: It wasn't worth it, due to not having conquered the third GS of the year in New York. Finally in 1981, Bjorn's reign ends at Wimbledon losing the finals to McEnroe.

1982: Mats Wilander wins RG, and again as a clay court specialist, exits early at Wimbledon.

1983: Same as above for Yannick Noah.

1984: Same as above for Ivan Lendl. Interestingly, finalst John McEnroe had the match in the bag, up 2 sets to none against Lendl. Amazingly, Ivan built the comeback and ended up winning the title.

1985: Mats Wilander wins RG a second time and exits early at Wimbledon a second time as well.

1986: Ivan Lendl wins at RG, but loses at the Wimbledon finals. He wins at the US Open though.

1987: Australian Open becomes the first Grand Slam of the year. It also changes surface from grass to hard courts. Stefan Edberg wins it but exits early at RG.

1988: Mats Wilander wins in Australia and at Roland Garros. He becomes only the third man after Laver and Borg to win the first two GS of the year. He loses at Wimbledon though in the quarterfinals to Miloslav Mecir. Wilander would go on and win the 1988 US Open, collecting three of the four Slams. Only Connors and Laver before him achieved the same.

1989: Ivan Lendl wins at Australia and in one of the greatest upsets in the history of the sport, loses to 17 year old -underarm serving- Michael Chang in RG quarters. Lendl repeats his Aussie win in 1990, but did not play the 1990 RG.

1991: Boris Becker wins at Australia. Up to that point Boris had never won a clay tournament in his career and RG did not change his luck.

1992: Jim Courier joins the likes of Laver, Borg and Wilander, becoming the fourth player to win the first two slams of the year. He would lose in the third round of Wimbledon. He wins in Australia in 1993 again, but loses in the finals of Roland Garros (to Sergi Bruguera), and Wimbledon (to Pete Sampras). Courier becomes the first man since the 1980 Borg to reach the finals of the first three Grand Slams tournaments.

1994: Sampras wins at Australia and loses in the quarterfinal round of RG.

1995: Agassi wins at Australia and also loses in the quarters of RG.

1996: Becker wins at Australia and you know the rest of the story...

1997: Sampras wins at Australia and exits in the 3rd round of RG.

1998: Petr Korda wins at Australia and hits the nail in the head exiting in RG's first round. Way to go!

1999: Yevgeny Kafelnikov conquers the Down Under, but loses in the second round of RG -almost as good as last years's Korda-

2000-01: Agassi wins in Australia but he never gets a second chance at RG. Ironically, he had came from winning it in 1999, which became the first slam of his resurgence into tennis-.

2002: Thomas Johansson upsets clear favorite Marat Safin to win his only Grand Slam ever. He was never seen again at a final round of any Slam after that.

2003: Agassi conquers his third Aussie slam, and again misses RG.

2004-07: Federer begins his domination of the tennis scene winnig in Australia, but fails to pass the quarters at RG. He loses to Safin in the 2005 Aussie semifinals, and Marat goes on to crown one of his finest performances in his career winning in Australia but loses early in RG. He would never be seen at a late round in a Slam again. As Federer continues to dominate, Nadal begin his domination over Federer. From 2005 and on, Nadal would defeat Federer everytime they met at RG. In 04, 06 and 07, Federer would go on and win Wimbledon and the US Open, which raises the question: Had Nadal not been around, he probably would have won the career Grand Slam in 2006 and 2007!?!?!?!?!

2008: New tennis promise Novak Djokovic wins his first Slam. He is downed by Nadal in the semifinals of RG.

2009: Nadal wins his first Australian open. He unexpectedly loses in the quarters to Robin Soderling, in what has been so far his only loss in Paris. Federer is finally able to win RG, completing his career Grand Slam.

2010: Federer wins in Australia and loses in Paris.

2011: Djokovic wins in Australia but loses to Federer in the semis of RG. Some believe had he won that match, he probably would have defeated Rafa in the finals, as up to that point he had a 6-0 head 2 head in finals that year. Interestingly, Novak would win at Wimbledon and at the US Open... both times against Nadal.

2012: Djokovic wins an amazing 6 hour final in Australia, but Nadal regains his crown at RG.

So as you can see, winning a calendar slam is no easy thing. Lots of players never even had the chance or were close to it. In a nutshell here are the players I consider have been closer to winning the calendar Grand Slam in a year, both of them swedes, and both of them are the only players who were able to win the first two Grand Slams in a calendar year (no tennis player so far has been able to win the first three Slams), other than Rod Laver:

Bjorn Borg in 1978: He wins at Roland Garros and at Wimbledon, but he loses at the US Open finals. Had he won, I really think he would have won in Australia.

Bjorn Borg in 1980: Exactly the same story than in 1978. He wins at Roland Garros and at Wimbledon, but he loses at the US Open finals. Had he won, I really think he would have won in Australia.

Mats Wilander in 1988: He wins at Australia and at RG. He missed his chance at Wimbledon and he went on to win the US Open.

Special mentions to:

Jimmy Connors in 1974, who won all three slams in 1974 without having participated at RG.


Jim Courier in 1993: He wins at Australia and loses a five setter final at RG. Had he won, I think he would have been a different animal against Pete Sampras in Wimbledon.

Roger Federer in 2006 and 2007: He wins Australia both years, and he meets a brick wall called Rafael Nadal at RG's finals both years. He went on to win the other Slams.

Novak Djokovic in 2011: He wins at Australia and had all the odds in his favor to beat Nadal in the finals, had he made it past the semis. He went on and won Wimbledon and the US Open.

Kaka: His past, present and future

Once upon a time a tall whitish player that came by the name of Ricardo Izecson Dos Santos Leite made his debut on Brazil's national squad, who were facing Costa Rica in the round group of the 2002 World Cup. He was called to be the next Brazilian jewel to reign across the football universe. And so he did.

Better known by his nickname "Kaka", he played for Sao Paulo from 2001, until he was signed by AC Milan in the summer of 2003. Creation midfielder Rui Costa was in his final years and the rossoneri were looking for someone to fill in the position. While they may have had hints, I personally doubt they how sure they were that this new kid was going to take over Rui Costa's role as quick as he did. The most amazing part of it, was that Kaka's transfer only cost 8 million Euros. The payoff was immediate: Milan one the scudetto and the UEFA Supercup.

The following season, AC Milan cruised to reach the UEFA Champions League Finals facing Liverpool, and went on to build a sold 3-0 lead in the first half. In one of those unexplained circumstances, the British club came back to even the score at 3 goals and eventually won the title in penalties. However Kaka was still regarded as the best midfielder of the tournament. In 2005-06, Milan would fall in the semifinals against the inspired talent of another Brazilian jewel, Ronaldinho Gaucho, who would go on and win the tournament.

Glory came for Kaka in the 2006-07 season, when AC Milan won the Champions League title, backed up by Kaka's ten goals scored during the competition. His performance against Manchester United was definite in sending the message that AC Milan was the best team of that year.

Then came the fall...

After winning the Champions League and Ballon d'or -a perfect touch to culminate a perfect season-, much speculation grew around Kaka moving away from Milan. Particularly Chelsea, Manchester City and Real Madrid were the clubs involved in bidding on him. Loyal to his fans, Kaka decided to stay in Italy and dismiss any rumours of transfers, but by the end of the 2008-09 season, pressure was too much and Silvio Berlusconi agreed on selling Kaka to Real Madrid on an $96 million transfer, claiming economic health of the club. Weeks later, Real Madrid bought Cristiano Ronaldo for $120 million, establishing what in paper seemed to be the most fearful midfield in football. Pity is, as today we have yet to fear it.

Ever since Kaka set foot in Real Madrid, fans have claimed -rightfully in my opinion- Kaka has not performed at the skill level the world had seen displayed by him in Milan. Recurring injuries and constant line-up changes are the initial causes of his mixed results. In my opinion, he hasn't had the need, hunger, desire or ambition he had in Milan, where he was the focus of the team. Alas, not the star of the team, but the focus of the team, meaning the spark plug, the engine, the termometer, the barometer, the battery, everything. Every offensive ball played by Milan, passed through the boots of Kaka. Also, the type of game played by Milan suited Kaka's perfectly: an aggressive, bottom-liner, to the point, football, with no flashy things or flamboyant strategies. Get the job done playing openly and convincingly. Give Kaka space to play and play he will.

In Madrid, Kaka became one more piece in a set of pieces, each one claiming their star on the squad and each one needing a huge amount of space on the pitch. Kaka NEEDS space to play; if you take space away from him, you are taking away his game. The so-called godlike conection between Cristiano and Kaka has never happened, and Kaka has never been able to syncronize the same way he did with Clarence Seedorf in Milan. Then you have his salary: I would really like to dig into Real Madrid financial numers and see how profitable Kaka's transfer has been. Today after another below average season in Madrid, his future is unknown; a sell to another club is likely will happen, and since he has been out of form, injured and has barely played consistently in the past years, it is also likely that we may never see him play like he did in the Milan years.


I've always wondered how club president and coaches think, and Kaka's transfer to Madrid is one of the examples that end up being pondered by my mind. He didn't need to go to Madrid, at all and the club would have still been strong without him being brought. I wonder what were the Madrid directive thinking when they came across the idea of signing Kaka. I wonder what they think today of it.

Either way, I think that the best we can do is to say that we lived in the generation of people that got the honor to watch Kaka play at his best. I close today's entry with my personal favorite Kaka goal:

 .

The Seven titles of Federer, Nadal and Sampras

Does winning seven Wimbledon titles prove Pete Sampras' dominance at Wimbledon? Check yes.

Rafa Nadal winning seven Roland Garros prove dominance ? Check yes.

Is Roger Federer's seventh Wimbledon title a proof of his dominance at Wimbledon? Check yes.

Now comes the better question: Which one has more merit? 

From 1993 to 2000 Pete Sampras amassed a 53-1 record. His only lost came to Richard Krajicek in 1996 Quarterfinal match, but let's talk about his victories:

-In 1993 Sampras defeated Agassi -defending champ-, Becker -3 time champ- and Courier -#2 of the world- en route to the title. 

-In 1994 Sampras had an "easier" time, defeating Chang, Martin but had to face Ivanisevic at the finals.

-In 1995 he had Henman, Rusedski, a 5 setter semi-final against Ivo again, and Becker in the finals.

-1997 was perhaps the easiest run: only southpaw Korda in the round of 16 and Becker in the quarter finals were threats. Pioline in the finals wasn't.

-1998 had Enqvist, Philippoussis, Henman and Ivo again in a 5-setter final.

-1999 had a complex draw repeating Henman in the semis and Agassi in the final.

-2000 wasn't a tough draw but Sampras was injured all through the tournament, until he faced Rafter in the finals.

So all through the 7 title run, Sampras had to cope up with past champions, ex and future #1s, baseliners, serve and volleyers, right handed, left handed and even a recurrent injury. The one thing that we have to keep in mind is that Sampras was expected to win every match, every time. To picture Sampras losing was as good as picturing the North Pole melting. From 1992 and 2001 Sampras three losses came from Ivanisevic, Krajicek, and Federer. All three of them ended up winning the title at some point. Sampras not only killed the competition, he prevented everyone and anyone from winning at Wimbledon.

Now let's do Nadal.

In 2005 Nadal debuted in his first Roland Garros to begin a sick winning streak that has only been interrupted by Robin Soderling, pretty much the same way Krajicek interrumpted Sampras'. Let's take a  look at Nadal's opposition:

-From 2005 to 2012, Nadal has blanked anyone that holds a racket. His only constant regular opponent has been Roger Federer, whom he has defeated not one, or two...but FIVE times.  

There is one thing we have to consider when we analyze Nadal's dominance: Nadal has been dominant at Paris, but he has also been dominant at every other clay tournament. He has won Montecarlo eight times, Rome five times, Madrid four times, Barcelona six times. With the exception of Novak Djokovic's back to back wins at Rome and Madrid last year, Nadal has KILLED anyone, everyone and anything and everything that stands in his way. Let me put it this way: to picture Nadal losing on clay, is like picturing both the North and South pole melting, and having the resulting water evaporate five seconds later. 

Unlike Sampras, Nadal hasn't faced any past champions, ex #1s, killer clay court players or native specialists, because he smashes all rivals the same. Think about it this way, if Nadal wasn't around, Federer, Ferrer, Djokovic, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Almagro, all of them would have more titles. 

Now let's do Roger.

From 2003 to 2012 Federer faced two constant rivals: Andy Roddick and Rafael Nadal, meeting both of them in three finals each, winning five and losing one. If we are honest, we will admit that like it or not, Roddick is not a player of the same caliber of Roger (evidently shown by Roger's 20-3 record against him). Nadal on the other hand, lost to Roger in the 2006 and 2007 finals, the first time being quite one sided, and the second time quite quite close. It was so close that Nadal made the necessary adjustments and defeated Roger the following year. 

Other than Roddick and Nadal, Roger faced a bunch of baseliners, retrievers and bulldogs. He had his fare amount of scares here and there, but at the end of the day, he was always expected to win -pretty much like Sampras-. Also like Nadal, Roger never faced former champions, ex #1s or grass specialists, but this is also part because Pete Sampras' dominance period came right before his, so technically Pete would have been the only ex #1, past champion Roger could have faced. 

So let's summarize and conclude:

As today Roger, Pete and Rafa are tied at seven titles in one Grand Slam. Regardless of how you look at it, this is a once in a lifetime achievement and it will be a long time before we get to see another player do it. 

Therefore, when it comes to compare the three champions, I would say Sampras has more merit because he faced a tougher competition, but it is Nadal hands down the one who clearly stands above the rest of his peers as a true dominant player, and then comes Federer as the champion who separated himself apart from his peers, at least until the true challengers came up. 

It will always be interesting to debate and discuss the success of the three legends and that is why I wanted to write today's entry, as a tribute to them and to the legacy that they have left in our lives.

Unfortunately the only Sampras vs Federer match

Eleven years ago we unfortunately witnessed the only meeting between the two greatest tennis players of all time. A round of 16 match-up at Wimbledon between the young Swiss promise Roger Federer and defending Champion 7 time winner Pete Sampras. The only reason to rate the match a "Five Star" is because of idealism and pity for what would have been a great rivalry. Reality is, in this match: Federer played well -but not great-, and Sampras did not play good -but not bad-.

Back in 2001, the name of Roger Federer was already among those called to be the next generation of Champions, along with some that lived up to their expectations like Andy Roddick, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Marat Safin and some other guys who didn't get to shine as expected, such as Andreas Vinciguerra and Tommy Haas. There were already comparisons of Federer and Sampras, stating how the Swiss had a great serve and a huge forehand, with an "ok" backhand. Sampras on the other hand was -for lack of a better way to put it-, on his way out. People seem to forget that Sampras struggled for 5 sets in the second round to beat a guy ranked in the #100s-#200s called Barry Cowan -who by the way, nobody ever heard of ever again-. Prior the Federer match, Sampras also had a weird straight-sets victory against Sarjis Sargassian (spelling?), where he kept falling in the court and miss hitting shots everywhere. To me back then, it was clear that the 2001 Wimbledon Champion wasn't going to be Pete Sampras. To get an even better picture: after this loss, Pete also lost in five sets on grass... to Alex Corretja, in a Davis Cup tie. The tennis world had to realize that Pete's dominance at Wimbledon ended in 2000.

Had Sampras won this match against Federer, he probably would have been outsted by Tim Henman in the next round, who was playing great that year. Had he won that match, it would have been Goran Ivanisevic waiting for him in the semis, and had he made it to the finals, it would have been Pat Rafter his executioner. I know this is all speculation and that we will never know, but I'm quite sure any of Tim, Goran or Pat would have defeated Pete at the 2001 Wimbledon.

The first set of the match is kind of a "study my rival" set. At first Sampras plays just like any other day against any other unknown/unheralded rival, but somewhere around the 3-3 score where he saves a triple break point, he realizes that this kid is playing with nothing to lose and this confuses Pete. It seems that from that moment and on, Sampras doesn't know what to do to deal with Roger. Let me put it this way: if Sampras was a 6-speed engine, it looks like Pete is happy playing at 4th gear, meaning that he does the bare minimum to hold serve, but he doesn't do any effort to get a break or put Federer out of his "nothing to lose" mindset. So Sampras appeals to the strategy that had been so successful for him in the past: get to the tie-break, where the rival will likely choke. However Federer doesn't choke at all, as he goes toe to toe with Pete. The tie-break shows proof of the tension and nerves between both players: only 2 passing Winners by Sampras, against 1 by Federer; it also shows Pete arguing a call about a long serve. Overall, the tie-break is well played by both players and after a good display of his future trademark shots, Federer emerges as winner of the first set, when Sampras misses a down the line backhand passing shot. You can see Pete almost getting ready to toss his racket onto the ground, but he manages to contain himself, keeping the posture, elegance and quality of a gentlemen that characterized him. You can't defeat Roger Federer winning 6 out of 18 points at the net... even if he's 19 years old.

From that moment, the fall of Pete Sampras at Wimbledon begins.

Like I said before, he never shifts to 5th gear and is satisfied playing a passive/percentage game, which somehow allows him to win two sets and take the match to a decisive fifth. All through the rest of the match, Federer never gives up, eases down or shows any sign of having a breakdown... at ALL. That's truly remarkable, considering how unexperienced he was back then, the stage where he was and who he was up against. After each loss of a set, Roger regroups himself and starts all over again, as if the match was starting from scratch. The only chance Pete had to win the match came on the fifth set, when on a crucial break point that if converted would have let him serving for the match, he unexplainably backhand-sliced an easy Federer serve (prolly around the 80 mph mark). The ball floated very slowly and fell short right into Federer's forehand, who cold-blooded whipped the crap out of the ball to save the quasi-match point that would have sent him home back to Switzerland.

The quality of the match is mediocre at best. Forget about seeing displays of the 1999 Pete or the 2007 Federer. There are no fantastic or spectacular points through the match. Not one -at least in my opinion-. There are some "yay" or "ooooh" points, but nothing else. You can see some glances of what would come to be Federer's whipping forehand and some flashbacks of Pete's magic shots, but that's about it. At one point the commentator states "Pete must be thinking: I can do this for five sets, let's see if he can". That sentence summarizes the entire match. Pete placed a bet and he lost.

The real sad aspect about the whole thing is that just like my review title says, this was the only match we got to see between Roger and Pete. Honestly, I would have preferred them not meeting at all in their entire careers. This match doesn't do any justice to either of them. It shows an aging Sampras against an underdeveloped Federer.

20 years of The Dream Team

The 2012 London Olympics are about to start and there's a lot of excitement about it in the past days. There is one topic that has been particularly popular and it's the 20 year anniversary of ... yes ... you guessed it: The Dream Team. I for one can summarize it on one sentence:

The Best F@#$ing Team of All Time, in ANY sport.

As a 9 year old teenager, I had seen the USA the lose the Gold Medal in Seoul 1988 and I have to say, it pissed me off. Before the 1988 Summer Olympics, I had watched all these historical documentaries of the Olympics and I had seen that of 1972 when the US lost to Russia in the finals, so I had really high hopes for the Korea event. Sadly, we lost, so as you can see I was very a resentful fan.

In 1992 I was studying abroad the US in Venezuela and my classmates kept making fun of me as the supposed "best basketball country" had to settle with the Bronze medal in 88. My defense was strong, always stating how unfair it was that the US Pro players from the NBA weren't allowed to play. I vowed and I promised to my friends that if the US would ensemble a team with NBA players, we would kick so much ass so badly that the Earth's core would feel it.

I don't remember the exact day, but man, the day CAME. I don't remember how or when it was announced, but I do remember the beautiful sentence "US Professional Players from the NBA will be playing in the Olympics". Man... I was a virgin back then and I felt like it was like losing my virginity. I made bets all over the school giving ridiculous odds to my buddies. I honestly don't know how they took the bets, but I was certain to cash a lot of money.

The line-up, everyone should know by now: Bird, Drexler, Pippen, Ewing, Malone, Stockton, Barkley, Robinson, Mullin, Magic Johnson, Chris Laettner (perhaps the luckiest guy on Earth in 1992), and of course God himself... I mean, Michael Jordan -which is basically the same right?-. This was -with the exception of Isaiah Thomas, absent due to his poor relationships with the players, and Hakeem Olajuwon, absent because he wasn't an American citizen, - the BEST team that could have been together of NBA players.

There was no weak point, no aquilles tendon, no nothing nowhere. Yes Bird had back problems and Laettner was just there for being in college, but those were tiny, minimal objections in what was a flawless squad. Literally, the best guy on his best position was there, and arguably, the best guy in his best position of all time.

What I liked about the Dream Team is that they crushed their opponents, but still had the courtesy of crushing them with class. What does this mean? It means that I believe they still could have defeated their foes by larger margins and more definite and outstanding performances, yet they didn't. I don't remember a player having more than 4 fouls in a game, let alone sent off. They played clean and efficiently. They pounded everyone, but it was beautiful. You can conclude this by just picking up the little details:

While everyone was expecting Jordan or Johnson to be the top scorers, for some strange situation, Charles Barkley ended up being the top scorer of the team. He averaged 18 points per game. Barkley also had the highest Field Goal % with .711, and no one else coming even close to that amount.

Even weirder was that Laettner ended up with the highest Free Throw %, with .900.

Chris Mullin, who was known as the best 3 point shooter in the NBA at the time, ended with the highest amount of 3 point shots converted: 14 out of 26. That was to be expected. But in the 3 point % though he was second, after Barkley! who scored 7 out of 8.

Michael Jordan's performance cannot be criticized by any means, but objectively speaking, you can tell he was more focused on playing golf with Chuck Daly, and that he played more cooperatively than what he was used to in the Bulls. His Field Goal % was .451 -which was the lowest he had in his "sabatical year" in 1995.

Michael also scored 14.9 PPG. His 3 pointer average was .211. Also tied with his all time career lowest.

The bottom line was... who the f&#k cared? In a team where John Stockton and Chris Mullin were in the bench, you didn't need to rise your game up. And anyway, this was a TEAM. Everony contributed.

The Dream Team reconquered the gold medal and left a legacy that never EVER will be matched. Yes, you couldn't have Kareem Abdul Jabbar or Wilt Chamberlain, or Dr. J, but you can't just have everything in life.

However, in 1992 everyone in the world had the everything they wanted. The best team of all time assembled in any sport.








 -----------------------

Coming to Caracas, Venezuela? Remember to visit vidacaracas.com

Messi 50 goals is too much but not enough

Messi 50 goals is too much but was not enough to keep Pep

Saturday journey in the football scene saw two quite unusual events: one, the establishment of a record that may last decades; the other, the farewell of one of the best coaches seen in the sport.

A goodbye hug

Lionel Messi scored another poker of goals to consolidate his position as top scorer, not only in Spain's La Liga but in the entire world, distancing himself from Cristiano Ronaldo and setting an astounding record of 50 goals scored in a domestic season, for a total of 75 in the entire season combining european league competition and domestic cups. This is something that has to be interpreted carefully and wisefully, because it's not too often that we are able to witness an event of this magnitude. Let's put things in perspective.

Just in Spain, Barcelona plays a campaign that includes 38 matches. If any player scores over that number of games, it basically means they scored one or more goals in average per game. Currently at 50 and with one more match to go, Messi stands at 1.1 goals per match. Considering all the legendary forwards and strikers that have played in La Liga, Messi's achievement outclasses huge names: Ronaldo -the original-, Hugo Sanchez, Eto'o, Cristiano Ronaldo, Makaay, Romario, all of them top scorers in La Liga who earned that award scoring in ranges of 25 to 35 goals, which is something "do-able" in La Liga (or for that matter in any other Football league).

Cristiano also hammer goal after goal, but at least he won La Liga!

The irony of the record is that Barcelona -who have been known for the past years as the essence of a collective team- failed to clinch the title. More over, Barca couldn't capitalize the only chance they had to win when they lost to arch-rivals and eventual champions Real Madrid in their own home and with Messi being unable to score. There is no doubt in my mind that Messi would trade the record and even all of those goals, with having scored against Madrid and have Barca win La Liga. That is the beauty and the irony of football and the duality that most cooperative sports face: the fact that you may have the best player, doesn't mean that you'll have the winning team. It kind of reminded me of Ernie Banks, the powerful shortstop of Chicago Cubs who hit over 500 Home Runs and never got the chance to play in a World Series, which brings me to the next point: Is Barcelona up to be dismantled?

Ernie Banks. A superb player back in the day who couldn't win many titles for his team.

Messi choking a penalty against Chelsea FC in the semifinals of the Champions and not playing up to his game against Real Madrid probably cost Barcelona the two most important trophies of the season. This resulted in Pep Guardiola's almost immediate resignation, drained by the pressure of living up to win everything as he had been doing in the previous three seasons. On Saturday, Guardiola was given a very emotive goodbye ceremony at Camp Nou -one that will be remembered for many years-.

The Barcelona Farewell to Guardiola, It was... awkward...

So the end of an era has been unveiled for Barcelona and the huge question marks will now rise: Will the team hold together without Pep? Will the players remain with the club? Will Barcelona keep playing the same way? More importantly, will they win titles again? In my mind, any answer that is thrown out right now is mere speculation. Let's just allow time to make its course and see how the players confront the new season that begins next September.

The bottom line is that lots of players and teams will be seeking revenge.

Happy Birthday Luis Aparicio

Today April 29th is little Luis Aparicio's birthday. My guess is that a brief tribute to one of the best shortstops in the history of Major League Baseball is in the order of the day.

To be completely honest and objective, Luis Aparicio is far from being THE greatest shortstop of the MLB, living behind the vast and monumental careers of such legends like Honus Wagner, Ernie Banks and more recently, Cal Ripken Jr; yet he truthfully deserves to have his name right next to them. Elected to Baseball's Hall of Fame in 1984, he is the only Venezuelan so far to have a plaque in Cooperstown. So let's explore a little bit about Luis Aparicio.

From the beginning of professional baseball in the early 1900s, through the dead ball - live ball transition, up to the 1940s, the game of baseball was conducted by an orchestra of talented hitters who gave power hitting wonderful spectacles like Home Runs, Doubles, Triples, anything that could bring runners to score that captivated audiences day to day season in and season out. Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe Di Maggio, Ted Williams, Jimmy Fox and others, created this perception of baseball as a power game thanks to their combination of massive talent and natural ability to consistently produce for their teams. Even Honus Wagner "The flying dutchman", shortstop for the Pittsburgh Pirates, was one of these legends. Only a few handful players, whose greatest example can be traced to Ty Cobb were able to visualize the game as an aggressive "hit-and-run" approach. It wasn't by chance that it was Cobb who had held the all time stolen bases record of 893 for over 30 years; Cobb -who also held the most hits record with 4,191- knew and understood that getting to a base didn't mean that the your teammate -the next hitter on plate- had to "drive you in home": you could also help your team with the concept of speed, playing aggressively to steal bases. However this strategy had faded by the end of the 1940s because of the new approach the power hitters brought.

Luis Aparicio changed that.

Considered "too short" to play in the Major League, he earned his way to receive an offer from the Chicago White Sox, following the steps of Chico Carrasquel, another Venezuelan shortstop with a decent experience in the game. Aparicio wasted no time on the opportunity he was given and quickly gained fame for two particular aspects of the game that had been neglected up to that point: his defensive skills as shortstop and his ability to steal bases and get himself into scoring position without depending on your teammate.

Aparacio then set the base to bring back these two elements of baseball and not only he would establish himself as regular baseball player who would practice them, he would become a leader and an example for the newcomers to follow. He led the league in stolen bases nine times in his career, and set defensive records on fielding and games without errors that at the time were unparalleled.

What happened next was that in the years that followed, the baseball player had a new way to carve himself in the game and a new way to contribute to the success of your team. Lou Brock became the next sensation when it came to the thrill and suspense of stealing bases and many others would follow through, reaching the eventual base steal king the great Rickey Henderson. Defensively, Aparicio created a school of educated shortstops who valued and were valued due to their ability to become disciplined on this underrated task. In this particular case, Aparicio's greatest influence can be seen in the heart of his home country Venezuela, where more and more talented shortstops began appearing, scouted and recruited into the Major League; names like David Concepcion, Jesus Trillo, Ozzie Guillen and Omar Vizquel are all students of the Aparicio school.

Aparicio was also a constant presence in the all star game and with thirteen appearances, he belongs to a very exclusive group of players that were frequently called to show up at this event. Additionally he conquered nine golden gloves -a record now broken by Vizquel-, and at the time of his retirement he led stats by a shortstop for most games played, assists and double plays.

That is why today on his 78th birthday, Luis Aparicio is remembered as one of the greatest contributors of shaping the game of baseball as we know today and for becoming a role model of discipline, dedication and hard work for all shortstops.

The greatest tennis player of all time - Part V

In preparation for this week's Miami Master Series, the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are playing at full steam once again to pave the route for what may be another tense year of rivalries and breath taking confrontations between the three major dominant players in the tour. This brings me to today's entry: How close are other players of being as dominant as the likes of Sampras, Laver, Gonzales and of course Federer and Nadal themselves?

At this point we have talked about the different accomplishments and feats all these legends have achieved through the course of their career, and how unique each of these records are, distinct and different from each other, increasing the degree of unfairness of picking one tennis legend over another. Bjorn Borg is a no-brainer example of this, as the swede retired from tennis at the young age of 25 years old, having conquered eleven grand slam titles: five straight Wimbledon titles and six Roland Garros crowns. The real fascinating statement of Borg's greatness comes when you compare what he did against the other tennis players I have nominated in my GOTA blogs.

Let's see how many slams did other tennis players had at age 25:

Roger Federer had seven
Pete Sampras had eight
Rod Laver had six
Pancho Gonzales had three
John McEnroe had seven
Ivan Lendl had two
Roy Emerson had four
Only Rafa Nadal comes close with ten titles before the quarter of a century.

Keep in mind Borg had won 11 slams without competing in Australia, so while all the others had played around 28-35 Grand Slam events before the age of 25, Borg had only played in 20.

Another example I like to bring to the GOTA discussion is one of my favorite players, John McEnroe. The guy looked like anything like a tennis player. He didn't even have nice, elegant strokes. He didn't even train regularly like his peers. Instead, he relied on playing doubles to train his singles performance. Well, let's not say "relied on playing doubles"; let's go with becoming the greatest doubles tennis player of all time. No other tennis player has come close to matching John's 77 titles in singles, plus another 70 in doubles.

John also helped the US to win five Davis Cup trophies, and he amassed one of the greatest tennis seasons of all time with a whooping 82-3 record. Ironically, like his nemesis Borg, John also went a little away from tennis too early at 26 and started to lose his winning way at a young age. In my mind, if there is a guy who dominated the tennis scene as a whole (Singles AND Doubles), the pick is a no-brainier obvious choice and it's John McEnroe.

So let's kind of create a summary of what we have so far and see if we can come up with a reasonable answer in the next entries. My candidates include:

The greatest tennis player of all time - Part IV

Remember the guy in the black and white picture at the end of my part II blog? It's his turn now to be addressed as one of the candidates for the title of GOTA.

Pancho Gonzales is a name that is rarely mentioned nowadays within the same level of the likes of Federer, Sampras, Borg or Laver when the discussion of tennis legends open up. To know the name means that you are more than a tennis fan; it means that you are truly passionate about our sport and that you admire and pursue greatness, and you honor the fact that historic figures deserve a place right where current trends currently sit.

I first heard the name of Pancho Gonzales when I was six years old, back when I was picking up a tennis racket for the first time and my dad -who was a remarkable tennis player- felt it was his dream come true. As he started to teach me the first lessons, he made me watch this movie called "Players", who starred some guy I don't remember, along with Ali McGraw and, precisely Pancho Gonzales. The actor guy is a young ambitious tennis player who is looking for a professional coach to take his tennis to the next level. He finds that man in Pancho, who despite initial reluctance, eventually picks the kid up. There are also some cameos of John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Illie Nastase, John Lloyd and Guillermo Vilas. All through the movie Pancho looks like an outcast, a loner, a guy who just wants to be alone in his own world. Apparently, this was no act: this was the way he was in his real life.

After winning two US Opens in the late 40s, young Pancho Gonzales turned pro in 1949 at the age of 21, meeting high standard rivals like Jack Kramer, Frank Palmer and Don Budge, who beat him regularly up to the point of demoralizing him and turning him into an un happy person that started to grow great desire of becoming the best player of all time, at any cost required. Nobody knows for sure what happened or what triggered the reaction that was to come, but by the end of 1952/start of 1953 Gonzales had begun to establish his dominance, beating Sedgeman, Tony Trabert, Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad, Pancho Segura and basically anyone and anybody that would stand in his way. Gonzales' serve and volley game impossible to defeat, to the point that the professional tennis cirquit had to modify the rules of actually coming to the net after the ball had been served, requiring for it to bounce first before being hit, yet still Gonzales' found ways to win.

There are only a few surving sources about Pancho's career, however the majority of them agree that had there been an official ATP Ranking as there is today, he would have been ranked #1 player of the world from either 1952 or 1953, until 1960. Some quotes from tennis players and editors include:

• Bud Collins: "If I had to choose someone to play for my life, it would be Pancho Gonzales". He said this in 2006, having seen Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer and other greats.
• Jack Kramer: "Gonzales was better than either Laver or Sampras"
• Andre Agassi: "I wouldn't have enjoyed playing against him"
• Gene Scott: "The most formidable serve in the history of the game
• Howard Cossell: "Pancho has a special place in my heart. He is the most competitive athlete I have known"

Pancho kept playing competitive tennis until the early 1970s. His results were mixed during the 60s, and while he was still a threat to most top players, he wasn't as dominating as before against new comers like Rod Laver, Arthur Ashe and Roy Emerson, who were able to beat him more often than him beating them. But hey! All of them were 10 years younger! That's quite remarkable...

Since his retirement, Gonzales kind of faded out once again into loniness and made rare appearances on TV and special events. He married Agassi's sister Rita in the 90s and he passed away in 1995, shortly after hailing Sampras as one of the greatest tennis players of all time. His legacy still lives and hopefully one day there will be a proper homenage to the man who could be trusted on playing on behalf of the survival of all Earth habitants.

Is Messi the greatest ever after scoring 5 goals?

It's hard to write a summary about what happened this week in the European Championship leagues without overlooking the out of this world achievement of Lionel Messi's raw power display last night.

This... times five = WOW!

By this time you are probably aware that the 24 year old Barcelona forward became the only player in scoring 5 goals in a single UCL match since it's new format implemented in the early 90s, and even if we go back 100 years, there aren't many players who achieved the same fact. The real fuzz is the online debate of Messi being the greatest of all time, against the likes of Pele, Maradona, Di Stefano, Cruyff and others. So I'm going to give my position on the whole matter and throw my two cents in.

Some of the greatest of all time

When I was watching last night's game, the one thing that amazed me was Lionel's hunger for playing football. You have to keep in mind that he missed Barcelona's last match, and yesterday against Leverkusen, he appeared to play as if he hadn't played the game he loves so much in a month. Messi reminds me of that kid in the playground, the one who always asks for the ball "me-me-me-me-me-me!" .... "I'm open-open-open-open".... "me-me-me-me-me!"... and once he gets it, the goal keeper better start saying some prayers, because he knows what to do and he does it without any doubt or hesitation. He has an inner force that drives him to both keep playing the game (the entire 90 minutes) and to enjoy it to the maximum of its extent. That's where I think he excels, and it is in that department where I think he's the greatest better. I haven't seen a player who has had so much desire to play the game from minute 1 to minute 90, never giving up on a ball, always wanting to score, and just having so much fun as if it was a video game.

I have watched a lot of good players, live during their eras: I started watching football around 1984, so I watched Platini, Maradona, Socrates, Van Basten, Romario, Ronaldo, Zidane, Ronaldinho, all of them great players. But at one point or another during the matches they player, they kind of "slowed down" their pace in the field. It wasn't like they were doing anything wrong, they were just easing up and taking things a little more lightly. Messi doesn't. To Messi, scoring means everything... and it's not like he wants to humilliate the rival because I hardly think that is the case. To him, it's just a game; plain and simple... a game. It's the exact same way those hardcore video gamers feel, with the thrill of always, ALWAYS wanting more.

This kind of passion, is what Messi feels in the pitch

I have to be honest while writing this blog. My preferred player and the one player I think is the greatest of all time is Ronaldinho Gaucho. While not as hungry and desperate to score as if there was no tomorrow as Messi, Ronaldinho brought color and joy to the game of football. I just haven't seen anyone who would wreck defenders as easily as Ronaldinho did. It's a bit sad he lost interest in the game after winning the Champions, because had he kept the insane rhythm that got him to the level where he was, there wouldn't have been any stop to Barcelona's success ever since that tournament up till today.

The other two aspects about Messi being the best ever or not, is the difference he makes in a team. It is undeniable that Barcelona is a machine right now, who could even take national squads apart with ease. That's the luxury of having Iniesta, Xavi and Fabregas playing behind you, and Pedro and Tello by your side. That's why I think both Maradona and Ronaldinho have a bit more merit than Messi: it's not like they were the only stars in a poor team, but they were the driving force playing in teams that had pretty much decent players... maybe above than average, but that's it.

A new edition of this picture is coming this year

Finally the most objective factor about this discussion that everyone keeps ignoring: the position of the player. Messi is a forward who happens to be a striker. A player like Zidane, was a midfielder. It would have been very unlikely to witness Zidane score 5 goals in any matches, because that wasn't his primary role. In France he had Henry and Trezeguet in front of him, and in Madrid he had Raul, Morientes and Ronaldo to feed balls. Ronaldinho, was kind of an offensive midfielder, close to being a forward. But Ronaldinho's main task was to feed Samuel Eto'o of as many balls as he could in whichever way possible (and so he did), just like he had to feed Ronaldo, Rivaldo and Adriano in the Brazilian squad. The same applies to Maradona in Napoli and in Argentina. They were all different players, playing in different positions.

Of course, the main point is Messi's natural and incredible talent to score from any position at anytime, and the cold blood that he has to score without any question on where and how to shoot the ball. The other element, is Messi's ability to visualize himself in the field and get unmarked so that Barca's midfielders can send him such elegant and perfect passes. All of this combined with his love for the game, results in him scoring 5 goals in an UCL match.

When I saw this goal live, I thought I had also seen a spaceship land in my backyard.

It's very easy to speculate and to day dream, but players like the ones I mentioned, Zizuo, Michel, Diego, Ronaldinho and Ronaldo... I'm quite sure all of them had the same ability to define and score 5 goals the way Messi did yesterday. Don't get me wrong: I'm neither downgrading Messi or upgrading the named players. Maradona scored the best goal in the history of football. Zidane, scored the best goal of the Champions League; Ronaldinho received a standing ovation after scoring two amazing goals (practically by himself) at the stadium of the arch-rival team of Barcelona, Real Madrid. They also excelled playing for their national squads and they all won world cups and continental cups, none of which Messi has yet; but it's too early to judge, because he has at least eight more years of good play in the game. The big factor here, like I said in the beginning... is Messi's passion. That's where he stands alone.

Energizer should get rid of the bunny and use Messi instead

To summarize all the blog in a sentence, Messi is the energizer bunny: he keeps going, and going, and going... and going.... and going...and the only thing that stops him from goind is when the final whistle is blown, otherwise he would STILL keep going...

The greatest tennis player of all time - Part III

The Rocket

Back in the 60s -well actually before 1968- professional tennis players couldn't compete in Grand Slam events. Professional tennis players would engage in a tour with several other tournaments without having the privilege of playing in the really big ones. However this little setback didn't prevent Rod Laver, a sharp and quick Australian known as "The Rocket", winning a total of eleven Grand Slams, eight of those hold a special distinction.

In 1962, when Rod Laver was still an amateur tennis player, he had nothing better to do in his agenda than to win all four Grand Slams. When he became a pro he couldn't compete again, so a lot of sources agree on the fact that he probably missed winning at least four or five more slams. Fortunately for him and like I mentioned before, the pro ban was lifted in 1968, so the following year -1969- Laver decided enough was enough and he once again repeated his achievement of winning all four slams during the same year.

Let's put this into perspective: out of Laver's 11 Slams, eight were won twice during the same year. Also, since turning pro, Laver also missed competing in about sixteen of those events. He became a dominant professional player around 1965 and held on to that spot for about four or five more years, so I think it is not a bold assumption to speculate that he may have won four more slams, maybe five or six, which would have brought his total to equal Federer's 16. However there is another consideration we have to make that some people miss. What if Grand Slam tournments would have allowed pros to play from the beginning: would have Laver still won those four titles in 1962 competing against pros? That would bring down the total from 16 to 12 or back to 11 again. Then we have to throw in the extra ingredient: back in the day, all Grand Slams except for Paris were played in grass, Laver's favorite surface. Would he have faced the same fate under today's condition? Well, I think that after winning Paris twice, he wouldn't have had a problem. We can spend all day dreaming about this scenario, but the reality is that none of them  happen.

The only other tennis player who has won all four Grand Slams in the same year

What we have is the fact that Laver won eleven grand slams, four of them in the same calendar year 1962, and he repeated that in 1969. Do you know how many tennis players have been able to achieve that? None. Don Budge is the only other tennis player who won four grand slams in the same year in 1938, but that's it, he didn't do it twice. Nobody else has done it... once or twice. Jimmy Connors came close but couldn't, Roger Federer came close but couldn't, Mats Wilander couldn't, and more recently Rafael Nadal in 2010 and Novak Djokovic last year couldn't. All of those men won three grand slams the same year in the open era.

Novak Djokovic wants to win Roland Garros in 2012. Will he also want to win the other two slams?

Moreover, there hasn't been a tennis player who has actually held all four grand slam titles at the same time -meaning say, he won the last two of a year and the first two of next year-. Rafa Nadal came close of doing so but couldn't when he lost at Australia, missing the chance of the "Rafa-Slam." Novak will have the chance of becoming the first in completing a "Novak-slam" if he wins this year's Roland Garros; still he would have to win Wimbledon and the US Open to equal Laver's achievement of winning all four the same year.

So let's talk about what Laver did against what he couldn't do. How can one balance which achievement is better or harder. Laver's four Grand Slams in the same year... twice? against Roger's total of sixteen Slams, against Pete ending as #1 player for six years in a row. The way I see it, it's impossible to come up with an answer. Think about it this way: it's hard already to win a Grand Slam, yet two, what about three? or.. anything above ten?  What about becoming #1 player in the world? Out of the tens of thousands of tennis players that have graced the ATP Tour, how many were ranked in the top spot? Less than twenty?

And yet we haven't discussed about the guy in the picture from my previous blog who is also worth mentioning in this conversation.

The man many referred as "God patrolling his personal heaven"

The greatest tennis player of all time - Part II

Two of my nominated GOTA

In my previous blog on the never ending subject of tennis' GOTA, I left what I think is an interesting balance of two very hard accomplishments made by Roger Federer and Pete Sampras: while Roger has 16 grand slam titles, Pete ended as #1 player of the world for six straight years; if we switch roles, Roger has been #1 player for five years (for of them straight), and Pete won 14 grand slams (but not the French Open).


So what's next? or should I say... who's next? Today I want to talk about one of the aspects I mentioned about changes in the game: the surface.

Argentina's greatest player
Guillermo Vilas won the 1977
US Open... on CLAY?? Yup!

As you may know today each Grand Slam has a different surface. Australia is played in a surface some players describe as a slow playing hard court. Paris and Wimbledon have always been loyal to their clay and grass respectively, and the US Open is played in a hard court that's a bit faster than Australia's. But things weren't like this. Australia was played on grass up until 1987 and the US Open was also played on grass until 1974, when it switched to clay/hard-tru until 1977 when it set to the current hard surface. Interestingly, Pete Sampras wrote in his book "A Champion's mind" that the Aussie surface was perhaps the toughest he ever played, because it seemed that every year it was different.

So what does this all mean?


All though tennis' history there have been players with a complete all around game that doesn't really change or have an extra intangible when you change the surface. Players like Jimmy Connors, Novak Djokovic, Mats Wilander and Roger Federer fall under this category. I think that all of them would win and have (or had in their time) the potential of beating anyone anywhere in any surface. However there are tennis players who have something more when it comes to one particular surface. These are the players that you can't imagine losing on their surface. Let me explain:

It is easier for a camel to go through
the eye of a needle than to Nadal to
lose at Roland Garros

If you take Rafa Nadal, what is the first thing that comes in your mind about him and a tennis surface? Clay. Nadal is no doubt a player who in clay has a plus. What happened with Nadal is that he grew and evolved enough to adapt his game to suit the other surfaces, grass, and slow and fast hard courts.Think about it this way: you can see Nadal losing in hard or grass; it would be an upset yes, but it can happen. But Nadal losing in clay? That's like the world coming to an end. Yes, he lost to Djokovic twice last year but kudos to Novak who was really in the zone and just impossible to beat. It was like Richard Krajicek when he took out Sampras in Wimbledon in 1996. Nobody could beat them that particular day. Rafa also lost to underdog Robin Soderling in Paris in 2009 in what most tennis pundits label as the upset of the century, and why not refer to it as that? Who would bet on Nadal losing to some unknown guy back then in Roland Garros? Regardless of those deafeats, it is a minor flaw in an impeccable resume of Nadal's dominance on clay.

Multiply that by seven...

Pete Sampras in Wimbledon is my second preferred example of a player who dominates the rest in a surface. After losing in early rounds the first couple of years, Pete became impossible to beat in Wimbledon: he won seven times. Not only he won, he erradicated and destroyed any player who happened to be considered a "grass court specialist" or a "potential Wimbledon winner", over and over again. He beat Boris Becker three times, he beat Goran Ivanisevic three times (twice in the finals), he beat Andre Agassi twice, Tim Henman twice, he beat Patrick Rafter, he took on everyone.

Meet Richard Krajicek:
The player who deafeated
Sampras in 1996.
He truly deserves that trophy.

It would take Richard Krajicek's inspiring/in the zone performance to beat Sampras in the quarterfinals of 1996, with Richard going on to win the tournament (which makes sense, because if you beat Sampras you can pretty much beat everyone else), and I'm quite sure that hadn't Pete lost that match, he probably would have won that tournament making it a total of eight Wimbledon titles, all of them straight from 1993 till 2000.

Soderling became the equivalent
of Krajicek in 2009's Roland Garros.
Unfortunately he couldn't pull
the whole thing as he lost in the
finals to Roger Federer

Eventually champions have to lose and in 2001, Roger Federer was the one to send Pete packing home after five close sets in their fourth round match. Back then, it wasn't as shocking as when Sampras lost to Krajicek in 1996. It was an upset, but it wasn't completely unexpected: Sampras had been struggling with his game early in the tournament and came close to being outsted in the second round by an unknown player called Barry Cowan (who would probably even be more unknown hadn't he gone five sets with Sampras that year). Something similar is happening to Federer recently, losing to Tsonga last year, and to Berdych the year before... meaning losing to players he probably wouldn't have lost in his prime. It will also happen to Nadal one year in Roland Garros, because you can't win forever. Anyway, let's move on to my point.

How would you say things would have turned if (and yes, that it is a huge IF), the Australian and the US Open were still played on grass? I'll tell you my opinion:

Pete Sampras probably would have won close to twenty Grand Slams (in an injury free scenario). I would stick to Sampras' seven Wimbledon titles and toss in seven more US Open, and thinking worse case scenario, four or five Austrailan titles. I just can't imagine Pete Sampras losing at the US Open on grass, and it's tough to picture him losing in Australia too. Who knows... with so many Slams under his belt, maybe he would have had the time to train more on clay and get a better shot at Roland Garros.

Bjorn Borg, who retired at 25 with
11 Grand Slams and who only
played the AUS Open once in his career.

Now let's look at another one: what woud have happen if the US Open stayed with clay as choice for surface? Well for starters, I think Bjorn Borg would have eventually won it, and had Borg won the US Open, he would have made the trip to play the Australian Open (back then the Aus Open was the last Slam of the year). For those of you who do not know, Bjorn Borg didn't play the Australian Open because he felt there was no purpose since he had lost at the US Open. If he would have won there, he would have been only the third tennis player in history to conquer all four Grand Slam titles the same year. I also think that Borg would have won the US Open on clay at least two or three times, adding his total of Slams somewhere around 13 or 14, and had he won in Australia he probably would have won 15 Grand Slams. That's for starters, but what about Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten and Nadal?

Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander dominated most of the clay court tennis in the 80s

Well, if the US Open would have stick to clay, clay court players would have killed their rivals no question. Nadal could already be up somewhere around 14 Grand Slams. Of course that would imply that Federer would be three or four Grand Slams subtracted form his count. Crazy right? And the same reasoning would have applied to Pete too.

The bottom line I want to bring across is that by having this discussion, we find ourselves in a middle of a dilemma of neverending hypothetical scenarios. This means that it is futile to compare players that belong to different eras, because the conditions that took place were very different. Sampras played and won his titles during his time under a paritcular environment. Borg played and won under a different environment.

"AAAAAAAARRGGGG!!"
For about seven years it's been these guys doing the victory yelling

Today, it is Roger, Rafa and now Novak competing on a different environment... all of this when we talk about conditions of the court and time of the year of the event being played. But what happens if you weren't even allowed to play in a tournament because you were a professional tennis player?

Do you know this guy? Is he the GOTA? Check out my next blog and you'll see...

Tune in form my next blog to find more about what I think of the GOTA discussion and to come close to my final decision of who really is tennis' GOTA.