DAVI(D')S CUP...ACCORDING TO BODO

Peter Bodo has been covering tennis for about 30 years, and for this I commend him…but as far as this post is concerned, that’s about the last good thing I have to say about him. I was absolutely gobsmacked by the following post at ESPN.com and here on Tennis World in which Bodo places the entire blame for Argentina’s loss in the Davis Cup final to Spain, on the shoulders of one person. 

That one person isn't Juan Martin del Potro who came into the tie with no energy, no plan B, and went out with barely a hint of struggle. It isn’t Chucho Acasuso, who again was unable to come up with the goods to win a "must win" match. It wasn’t any one of a number of Argentine professionals (Canas, Chela, Monaco, Calleri, etc.) that have been so weak as individuals that none of them was preferred to a half-injured or half-hearted options. And it wasn't Alberto Mancini, who did little more than hand out towels and nervy energy for 3 days. No the person he chose to condemn was David Nalbandian.

What?

The same David Nalbandian who has won 17 singles rubbers and 10 doubles rubbers for his country. The same David Nalbandian who has enthusiastically played for his country without hesitation for 6 years straight. And the same David Nalbandian that gave Argentina the perfect start to what should have been their coronation, by winning his opening singles rubber in straight sets against David Ferrer.

What?

Here we have a player who has never shied away from representing his country – who genuinely believes there is honor in the competition, and hopes to be appreciated for it. What a rare trait! Federer and Nadal have both flipped the bird to Davis Cup over the years, and we fall all over ourselves to congratulate them when they take the time out of their busy exhibition calendars and play for honor. But when Nalbandian gives his heart and soul to the cause, he’s accused of somehow turning a team competition into an exercise in personal vainglory. Somehow, now, it’s a bad thing that Nalbandian wants to win a Davis Cup?

What?

I also find it shockingly, and patently transparent, that Bodo has gone out of his way to heap accolades on Roddick for being a “team leader”, which is nothing more than an attempt to give him praise for something…anything…in the absence of winning a major for the last 5 years. I don’t criticize Roddick – he deserves his praise – but the insinuation that somehow Roddick’s commitment to the USA, trumps Nalbandian’s to Argentina is, as the English say, just bollocks. 

What exactly is this "team leader" non-sense anyway? An invented crown full of costume jewelry, worn only by Roddick because, try as we may, there’s really nothing much else we can say about his game that’s been exceptional over the last 5 years. He was supposed to be the savior of American tennis and he’s failed miserably, and rather than accepting this like other countries do for their underachieving players, we concoct new and exciting ways of putting him right up there with the greats of the game that have...dare I say it...actually won majors. 

But this is absolute non-sense. 

Roddick has nothing to do with Blake or the Bryan's winning or losing their matches. Try as we may to relate the two, Blake is as inconsistent in Davis Cup as he is in everything else. And the Bryan's win all the time, not just when Roddick is cheering them on from the bench.

Speaking of whom, if anyone has turned Davis Cup into his own personal glorification, it’s Roddick.  But Bodo has nothing but kind words for him. I’m not suggesting Roddick should be criticized – I happen to admire his commitment to Davis Cup – but why then has Bodo chosen to criticize Nalbandian for the same virtue? Apparently he admits he has an axe to grind when it comes to Argentine players, but fails to mitigate this and proceeds to lambaste Nalbandian. The strange thing is Bodo should know better – he should know that all this talk of team spirit, and togetherness is bull – tennis, even when played in a team context, is still about one man trying to destroy the other. 

And at the end of the day, one man, and only that man can either will his way to win, or find a way to lose. That’s why it’s so important, in Davis Cup, that you have a team of real men who are fit enough, good enough and courageous enough to do like the Raiders and “just win, baby”. Spain did and Argentina didn't – how is this Nalbandian’s fault again?

Davis Cup is what it is:  an imperfect test of the best tennis playing nation in the world. It’s a team competition and the team is the tennis playing nation, not 2 or 3 players, as the American's success in 2007 would have you believe. Frankly, I think the Americans were damn lucky they didn't have a similar situation – had Roddick come up lame before any of his Davis Cup matches, we’d all be lamenting that there were no others to hold aloft the mantle of “team leader”. But that didn't seem to bother the Spaniards, did it?

Here we have everyone and his brother bemoaning the misfortune of the Argentinians that their flavor of the month, del Potro, was injured and couldn't do the job on Friday. Excuse me, but has anyone ever heard of a player who was completely absent from the Spanish squad named Rafael Nadal? He was probably on a boat somewhere not contributing one iota, and if Spain had lost, we’d all be asking how different it would have been had he played. In fact they were without Nico Almagro and Tommy Robredo, two players ranked higher than Verdasco, but they still found a way to win. Instead, in hindsight, we've all got 20/20 vision, and now, going to Argentina without the best player in the world was somehow an advantage to Spain?

Oh, it gets stupider…

Then, there is this business of Nalbandian criticizing his teammates – dare I ask, so what if he did? After all, they deserved it – and if Acasuso had won on Sunday, you can bet someone, somewhere, would be giving the credit to Nalbandian for "motivating" his teammates.  And as if the soap opera weren't pathetic enough, he throws in this unconfirmed story of Nalbandian trying to "finagle" the location of the final to be somewhere close to Cordoba – which is apparently his home town.  But I ask you this:

What in the hell difference does it make where they play if you can’t keep the ball in between the lines? 

Did Nalbandian make Chucho aim for the fences (and often hit them) time and time again, giving away countless points to Verdasco, who gladly just kept the ball in play waiting for him to self-destruct?  Did Nalbandian make Lopez play the match of his life? And if del Potro was not motivated, this is Nalbandian's fault? What's the source of Nalbandian's motivation? According to Bodo, he wants to make up for all his personal underachieving by making the Davis Cup "David's Cup". But this assumes he feels somehow he should be ashamed of his career. Maybe Bodo feels he's underachieved, but that has nothing to do with Nalbandian's self-perception, and thus, his cynical assumptions about Nalbandian's motivation (while ignoring the absence of del Potro's) is beyond absurd – it is in fact sinister. 

The fact of the matter is Argentina lost because they lacked depth – full stop. The Spaniards have a lot of options, even when the best player in the world is on vacation. The same could not be said for Argentina. Their best hope was to win 3 singles matches, even though they put in a hell of an effort in doubles, but fell short. Nalbandian did his part, but when he looked over his shoulder to see who else was going again into the breach, he saw a 19 year old kid with no plan B, and a guy who 2 years ago, looked like he was on the verge of depression after losing another deciding rubber – this one in Moscow.  Next to that, they had about 6 other players so out of form or shape, they didn't even bother to suit up.

And it is this lone warrior, who gave everything to the cause, that Bodo chooses to isolate for blame. 

Shame on you Peter Bodo – after all these years you really should know better.

NICO ALMAGRO - THE BEST PLAYER YOU'VE NEVER SEEN

The attention of the tennis world will certainly be on Dubai this week. With so many top 10 players in this tournament, Andy Murray (ranked 11th) couldn’t get so much as a seed, and as such had to win his first match against none other than world champion Roger Federer. But I have to say I watched a wonderful little event in Acapulco, Mexico on ESPN Deportes this week and discovered a player who has really impressed me with his game.

You may have heard of Nicolas Almagro, one of many Spanish players playing second fiddle to Rafael Nadal, but if you haven’t seen him play (and it's likely that you haven't), and you get a chance, particularly during the clay-court season, I would recommend you tune in.

Almagro is a swashbuckler – no doubt about it. That racquet looks more like a sword in his hand, and even on clay he’s not afraid to unload off of both sides – and boy can he ever unload. Add to this a curiosity amongst Spanish players – a killer serve – and suddenly you’ve got a player who, if he can perform consistently, clearly has the game to do well on larger stages.

In his titanic semi-final encounter with Chu-Cho Acasuso of Argentina, Almagro so entertained the Mexican crowd that they honored him with one of the rarest displays of collective public affection in sports. As he stood in the center of the court, sending kisses to his contingent of supporters, Almagro was showered with seat cushions thrown onto the court. It's an interesting cross between honoring an undersized winner in sumo wrestling, and exalting a matador in bullfighting. I suppose there's a little bit of both in Almagro.

I’m sure his opponents are not impressed with some of his histrionics – two years ago, in a match he won against Marat Safin in Valencia, although Safin had spent many of his formative years in that very region of Spain, it was the man from Murcia who garnered the crowd’s affection with a dazzling display of shot-making, defense, and pure guile. In response, Safin walked off the court and actively refused to shake hands with the victor who had spent more than a generous amount of time after match point gesticulating while laying supine on the rust colored surface.

One of the most appealing aspects of his game is his backhand. For an average sized player technique is his savior, and the consistency and power he generates off his single-handed reverse is impressive. Typically he runs around it to finish off points, and his forehand is definitely his better side - but if it's a weakness, we should all be so lucky to have one like his. There will be more than one opponent who will wonder just how he managed to smoke so many shots up the line, while also finding magically acute angles on his cross court offerings on the same side.

Ultimately, in the final against Nalbandian, the telling factor was his serve. It got him out of trouble on more than one occasion, and in the first set put so much pressure on Nalbandian to produce on the second serve return, that the Armenian-Argentine often over-hit and gifted Almagro points that he really needed to win. Compact and cultured by overwhelming spin, Almagro shows us that there is no substitute for form and follow through on all strokes including the serve. At the end of the day, most of the motion prior to the point of contact is ironically a waste, whereas the strike zone and the follow through seem to fuel his mammoth stroke production.

We’re still about 3 months away from the French Open, and Almagro has disappointed at Roland Garros in the past. After playing well in the 2006 European clay court season, he lost in the first round in Paris. There’s a distinct possibility, as is always the case in tennis, that his performance in Mexico, on top of his win in Brazil two weeks earlier, will put pressure on him that his emotive and loose limbed game cannot bear. For players who rely more on touch, feel and technique than brute force, the mental approach to the game is paramount to their success in a way that makes high expectations their kryptonite.

However there is a possibility that at age 22 – around about the age that both Federer and Sampras emerged from two years of faltering under the weight of expectation – this could be his time.  In the blogosphere you often hear complaints that tennis has become too predictable and boring.  I have never been one to hold it against a player because he is dominant – it’s not his responsibility to make it easier for his opponents to beat him – but I have always found it curious of Federer’s detractors (who are almost as often Nadal’s fanatics) that the dominance they deride when displayed by Federer on most surfaces is somehow more appreciated when displayed by Nadal on clay. You would think that if boredom with the game is the source of their crusade against Federer they’d be equally antagonistic towards Nadal (and his opponents, for that matter) on clay. Typically they are not.

Here, we just may have someone with the game and the attitude to do in Paris what Djokovic did in Melbourne – show the tennis world (especially Federer's detractors) that the beauty of tennis is that on any given day, anyone can beat anyone. In doing so, Djokovic should have reminded them of just how good Federer has been over the last 3-4 years, in avoiding defeat so often. If Almagro can do the unthinkable and win on clay in Paris, perhaps they'll appreciate Nadal’s dominance on that surface, as lustily as they laud the end of Federer’s dominance on every other.