Fear Serena Williams

Watching Serena Williams go all Henry Gates on a line judge at the U.S. Open this weekend was an ugly scene for the sport of tennis. Much like Gates, Williams appeared to be in the right in her cause, but very much in the wrong in the way she handled it. Williams dropped more f-bombs than overheads and threatened to shove a tennis ball down the line judge's throat for calling a foot-fault on the play. Serena Williams was penalized one point, giving the match win to her opponent and bouncing her from the tournament. Gates, as you remember, was the Harvard professor arrested for going off on the cops who arrested him after he was caught breaking into his own house. Both had a gripe for what they were being accused of - a foot-fault isn't quite as serious as breaking and entering, but the symetry shouldn't be lost nevertheless - and both decided to go on extreme over-the-top explosions.



The crazy-ass tirade aside, the most despicable part of this entire ordeal was how Serena simply brushed off the incident in the post-game interview. The American tennis star didn't overtly deny threatening the life of the line judge, but offered the excuse that she had never been in a fight in her life, so she didn't know why the line judge would have any reason to fear her.

No reason to fear her?! Really?

How about the crazy angry lady menacingly heading toward you threatening to jam a fuzzy yellow ball down your throat. I might be somewhat intimidated by that, and I don't blame the line judge for fearing for her own safety. Williams has a racket, the line judge has nothing. Williams is a world-class athlete, the line judge sits in a chair. This would not have been a fair fight to say the least.

For Serena Williams to act innocent as if she didn't do anything wrong is completely disgusting and puts a black eye on American tennis as one of the country's top players is eliminated from the U.S. Open for throwing a hissy-fit.

Foot-fault? No.

Foot in mouth? Absolutely.

French Open title not needed for Federer

As I rolled out of bed this morning at the ungodly hour of 6:00 a.m. Pacific Time to watch the French Open men's singles final between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal (recap/results), I thought about how a win for Federer would most likely secure his place as the greatest men's singles champion of all time. Then I thought about how ridiculous of a statement that truly was.

It's not ridiculous to think winning the French Open would make him one of the all-time greats - after all, he's already got 10 grand slam titles, only four shy of tying Pete Sampras for the most all time. But it's ridiculous to think that he'd need to win a championship at Roland Garros to prove his greatness. Hasn't Roger already done enough? If you just look at what he's done in the tennis realm, you know he has.

Just think about. He's won 10 grand slams since the summer of 2003, when he captured his first of four consecutive Wimbledon titles. In a little less than a month, he'll try to make it five in a row. No one has ever won Wimbledon five straight times in the Open Era (since 1968), and it hasn't been done since Laurie Doherty did it more than 100 years ago (1902-1906).

Federer might as well be a landscaper. No one knows how to work grass better than he does. Pete Sampras may have seven titles at the All England Lawn and Tennis Club, but he - much like the rest of men's singles players - is powerless to stop Federer's assault on the record books (and the field). Aside from his four titles at Wimbledon, he has three championships at both the Australian and U.S. Opens. The only non-bright spot - if you can even call it that - is the fact that he hasn't won the French Open.

Boo [expletive] hoo

Federer will continue to close in on Sampras's record of 14 slam titles until he eventually passes Pistol Pete to become to greatest champion ever in men's tennis. The fact that Rafael Nadal has beaten Federer in the last two French Open finals, preventing a career slam for Federer, has zero effect on Federer's place in history. Federer does not need a clay-court slam to be the all-time greatest.

Pete Sampras is the greatest men's singles player of all-time ... for now. A look at Sampras's numbers adding up to his 14 career Glam Slam titles:
- 7 championships at Wimbledom
- career record at Wimbledon: 63-7
- 2 championship at the Australian Open
- career record at the Australian Open: 45-9
- 5 championships at the U.S. Open
- career record at the U.S. Open: 71-9

And here's a quick look at how Sampras finished at Roland Garros each time he played there:
- 13 appearances
- 8 combined first- and second-round loses
- one semi-final appearance (1996)
- career record at the French Open: 24-13

Sampras in his prime at best sniffed the finals at the French Open. Federer has already played in two championship matches on the red clay. Those two loses came at the hands of possibly one of the best clay-court stars in the history of the sports (after all, Nadal is 34-0 now in best-of-5 matches on clay in his career with a 21-0 record at the French Open).

So while Federer may have been unable to defeat Nadal to complete his career slam, I say it's not necessary. Federer's legacy will be one of the best until the day he passes Sampras, at which point he will be regarded as the best.

Sure, Federer doesn't have much competition outside Nadal - and if you think Andy Roddick has any chance of competing with him, you either don't follow tennis or you got hit in the head by one of Federer's serves. Sampras had to go up against some great players to win his 14 championships, including Andre Agassi, Goran Ivanisevic, Boris Becker and Michael Chang. Other than Nadal, Federer's competition has about as much star-power as the Kansas City Royals.

That's not meant to take anything away from Federer. He's virtually untouchable unless your name is Rafael Nadal and you're playing on red clay. So don't think that a career lacking a title at Roland Garros isn't worthy of being known as the greatest career ever assembled. With 10 slams already conquered, it's only a matter of time before he ties and passes Sampras.

The clock will certainly continue to tick at The Championships at Wimbledon where Federer will no doubt pick up No. 11.

Nadal may own Federer on clay, but when they get to London, the Spaniard's ass ... well ... is grass.

You got served

Storylines like today's will help bring tennis back. There's no doubt that the sport of tennis is suffering here in the U.S. It doesn't help that only one American singles player - Serena Williams - is left in the draw.

And today the focus is on Williams's match with Justine Henin. It's not just No. 8 versus No. 1. It's not just the lone American versus the two-time defending French Open champion. This is a rematch from a three-set thriller I vividly remember watching in the summer of 2003. The 2003 semifinals at Roland Garros frustrated the hell out of me.

In my opinion it is the match that defines who Justine Henin is as a tennis player: a unsportsmanlike cheat.

In the third set, Serena Williams was serving a crucial point when Henin raised her hand signaling she wasn't ready. Serena pulled up short on her serve, serving a fault. The chair umpire called a fault, so Serena pleaded her case that Henin signaled for her to hold up. Henin didn't acknowledge the guesture. Instead, she just shrugged it off and asked to continue the match.

From there a jeering crowd began to get to the then-unbeatable Williams. Henin went on to win the third set and began a downward spiral for Williams's career. Everyone watching that match could see numerous replays of Henin clearly raising a hand to stop Williams from serving. And then everyone also saw her fail to live up to a code of sportsmanship expected in a game like tennis. When asked about it after the match, all she had to say was that in the heat of competition, she wasn't sure what Serena was arguing, so she just stayed out of it.

BUUULLLLLLLLLLL SSSSHHHHIIIIIIITTTTT

Ever since I've had Henin pegged as a liar and a cheat. It was one serve, and she clearly put her hand up to stall Williams. Live up to it. Admit it. Come clean with it. And yet, she didn't.

So when Williams takes the court to face off against the women's draw's top seed, I want to see Williams completely dismantle the Belgian. I've wanted to see Williams win to see the advancement of Americans (or really the only American) in Grand Slam tournaments. But for tomorrow's match, I just want Henin to get a taste of the bitter medicine she served Serena four years ago.

A win tomorrow by Serena Williams is not only a win for the United States. It's a win for sportsmanship.

Double Fault at the French

This past January, I - along with probably a healthy number of other American tennis fans - prepared for a great year. An unseeded Serena Williams opened the flood-gates and swept away Maria Sharapova to win the Australian Open. It was the first title for any American - male or female - in any Grand Slam in two years.

But that match would only be the beginning. Heck, even Andy Roddick advanced all the way to the semifinals of the Aussi before running into the speed bump - er, the brick wall - known as Roger Federer. It looked like 2007 was shaping up to be a great year for American tennis.

To kick off the French Open, Serena Williams fought off a rain delay and a sluggish start to advance in a come-from-behind win. A day later, Venus moved on to the second round. The Williams Sisters are key for American tennis to comeback into the limelight. It's not going to be easy, especially after the retirement of fan favorite Andre Agassi, to get the county on the edge of their seats over tennis, but it's possible.

If it's going to happen, then the Williams Sisters need to lead the charge. But they can't do it alone. They need help from the men's draw.

And with Andy Roddick seeded No. 3 and fellow American James Blake not far behind at No. 8, this year's French Open will featu- wait, what? Hold on, I'm in the middle of telling the world how great American tennis will be this year. Uh huh. Uh huh. Oh I see. Hmmm.

*cough* *cough* Uh, about that...

During the FIRST ROUND of the French Open, No. 3 Roddick lost to unseeded Russian Igor Andreev 3-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-4. The eighth-seeded Blake found himself up-ended by unseeded Croatian Ivo Karlovic. The two best American men got embarrassed in the first round. Not so much embarrassed by the score; both matches featured a total of eight very close sets. But they were more embarrassed because of the disappointment the two loses mean to American tennis fans.

It's true clay isn't the favored surface for either Roddick or Blake. It's also true that no one outside of a completely in-the-zone Federer will knock off Rafael Nadal on his surface he loves more than fish love water.

To start the French Open, the American men went 0-8 (only one American man is left in the draw). There are no American men left to cheer for. There will be no American men advancing to even mediocrity in this tournament.

And until Roddick or Blake or a new up-and-coming American tennis star break through Federer's strangle-hold and win a title (or, hell, just make it to Slam quarter-finals consistently), there will be nothing to truly captivate the nation when it comes to tennis.

I can only hope Venus and Serena take care of business in their draw. After all, that duo held the tennis world hostage for years. If American tennis is going to make any sort of a comeback, then it all falls on the two sisters - the only two Americans - capable of putting the sport on their back and bringing it back into the spotlight.

NOTE: As of this morning (last night in France, the final American man in the draw was eliminated, leaving the US men 0-9 in this year's French Open.

Equal Pay Problem

Wimbledon will now be paying equal prize money to men and women, according to an AP article on ESPN.com. I'm sure feminists across the world are overjoyed at this victory, but I cannot view this decision as one of equality.

Oh, it's under the guise of equality, but women should not earn the same amount as men in these Grand Slam tennis tournaments. Now before everyone jumps on my back for being a sexist, chauvinist women-hater, I remind everyone what's at the basis of the women's movement:

Equal pay for equal work.

And I feel compelled to argue the case that the women are not doing equal work.

Men play best-of-five set matches while women play best-of-three set matches. That doesn't sound quite as equal now, does it? Now, do I have a problem with women extending their matches to best-of-five for Grand Slams? No. Do it. As a matter of fact, I'd love to see that.

Maybe a few women on the tennis circuit would have a problem with that, but viewers wouldn't. Men's tennis has become routine. Everyone shows up, and two weeks later Roger Federer takes the title. Same old, same old.

But women's tennis is much more competitive than it's male counterpart. I'd love to see Serena Williams continue her dominance in five-set thrillers. Women's tennis has parity. Why not extend the matches and continue to draw in viewers. I'd watch.

So before everyone looks at this announcement by the All England Club as progressive and fair, let's call it what it really is: an attempt to adjust in a world where too many people are trying to be politically correct.

The All England Club - or someone for that matter - needs to stand up and make the point that if women are going to get equal pay, they should do equal work.

Forget sexy, she's bringing tennis back

If you didn't catch tonight's Australian Open final between Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova, I can't blame you. After all, Williams disposed of the world's No. 1 player in barely over an hour.

During her victory speech at Rod Laver Arena, Williams said what most American tennis fans had to be feeling:

"I'm really enjoying this."

And how could she not. How could we all not? It seemed tennis in this country would continue to slip away, especially after Roger Federer destroyed the highest ranked American man, Andy Roddick, in the semifinals.

Williams and her championship came from out of nowhere. She entered the 2007 Australian Open ranked 81 in the world, considered a shadow of her former self.

Williams went two years without a title since she won the 2005 Australiam Open, and in that time tennis in the United States felt like it had disintigrated. No American won a Grand Slam singles title for two years. Fixtures of American tennis during the past decade faded. Her sister Venus Williams continued to struggle. The once-dominant Lindsay Davenport called it a career.

It wasn't just women's tennis. On the men's side of things, Federer has steamrolled everyone in his path. Andre Agassi and Andy Roddick won the 2003 Australian Open and U.S. Open, respectively; no American man has won a Grand Slam singles title since. And with how Federer plays in non-clay surface finals, no one has truly come close.

Sharapova may generate ratings for tennis because she is a championship version of Anna Kournikova. The one thing she isn't is American. As attractive as she might be, she won't bring tennis back to the U.S. Maybe to her native Russia, but not the U.S.

By beating Sharapova, Williams reasserted herself in the conversation of top women's singles players in the world. More importantly, she put American tennis back on the map. Back on top. Back where it should be.

This country loves its champions, no matter what the sport. Once again there is a favorite for Americans to back. She's now an eight-time Grand Slam champion who, as we saw tonight, always has a chance. Unseeded. Unheralded. Unappreciated. Not anymore. American tennis is back.

With Williams's victory down under, she - and all of us in the United States - are champions once again.