Tennis Elbow: Back for the first time

Welcome to Tennis Elbow, a new column that will look back on the week that was in the world of tennis. This week, Charles Blouin-Gascon recaps the Internazionali BNL d’Italia.

Whatever the 2013 season is for Rafael Nadal, don’t call it a comeback because it is so clearly reminiscent of how he first broke through—but more on this shortly.

The latest for the 26-year-old came this past week in Rome for the 2013 Internazionali BNL d’Italia, also known as the Rome Masters 1000. On his way to the title, Nadal won all but two of the sets that he played, and in the final dismantled Roger Federer by the score of 6-1, 6-3.

This proves that though time moves on, some things never change.

For example, Federer still really can’t beat Nadal, especially not on clay. Also, Nadal remains the greatest clay court player on the ATP World Tour—and it’s not really even close. By now the narrative is well known. After a seven-month layoff to nurse a knee injury following a second-round loss at Wimbledon, the Spaniard has now come back and proven to be fully healthy in 2013. He has mostly picked and carefully selected his events, which really means that he’s decided to focus on clay court events with only the 2013 BNP Paribas Open played on hard courts.

And the formula has worked for him—he’s reached the final of every event that he signed up for, winning six. His record is 36-2, with one of the losses a fluke against unknown Horacio Zeballos way back in February.

These days, the only man capable of giving fits to Nadal on clay is Novak Djokovic. The Serb did as much in Monaco, but couldn’t live up to his side of the bargain and lost in the quarterfinals against Tomas Berdych. (My money is on the fact that Djokovic has understood that the only event that really means anything for him now is the French Open, still the only prize left for him to add to his mantle. He’ll take losses in a Masters 1000 event if it means he can preserve energy and reach his peak for Roland Garros.)

Berdych was chopped liver for Nadal, much like David Ferrer before him, Ernests Gulbis before him and Fabio Fognini before him—and much like King Roger would be in the final.

Skepticism? Please. Nadal has won just about every match that he has played this year and, regardless of the surface, that means something.

I think he’s made sure that most of his matches have come on his favourite surface for the simple reason that he probably wants to put everything that he has in his Roland Garros defense. The way that I see it, it’s like him and his uncle Toni have told each other that if he can dominate the clay court season as he always does and win the French Open in 2013, then no matter what else follows would be a bonus.

This season, Nadal has proven to be back like the first time. His 2005 season is the one where he established himself atop, or near the top of, the ATP rankings and it remains his most prolific season still with 11 titles. Among those titles were Acapulco, Madrid, Barcelona, and Rome.

He has six far so far this year, with the four mentioned just above among the haul. The French croissant (i.e. Roland Garros) is just ahead. That would give him a seventh title for 2013—and it would make his season a successful one.

Beyond that, then he’s just playing with house money. As he knows from his partnership with Poker Stars, it’s not a bad situation to be in.

Follow Charles Blouin-Gascon on Twitter @CeeeBG

Tennis Elbow: The incomparable Serena

Welcome to Tennis Elbow, a new column that will look back on the week that was in the world of tennis. This week, Charles Blouin-Gascon recaps the Mutua Madrid Open on the women’s side.

Just like she did a year ago, Serena Williams took home the Mutua Madrid Open title in 2013. She did so in convincing fashion, dominating Maria Sharapova by the score of 6-1, 6-4.

(Don’t expect a lengthy post-match recap, because I don’t enjoy these much. And in full disclosure, I did not watch the match. In Canada, the men’s final was televised but the women’s wasn’t, because…yep, I have not a clue. I won’t use today’s column to further explain how ridiculous I find that women’s tennis is seemingly always playing second fiddle to men’s tennis. For now, let’s just say that I need that Tennis TV subscription as soon as possible.)

But back to Serena… She captured Madrid, because she dominated Sharapova—and she dominated the Russian, because that’s all she ever does. The win now brings their head-to-head record to 13-2 in favour of the American, and the two wins that Sharapova recorded came all the way back in 2004 when she first broke through.

A win would have given the 26-year-old Russian the No. 1 ranking but instead, it remains Serena’s to lose. It’s further proof that despite that she will turn 32 later this season, the younger of the two Williams sisters shows no sign of slowing down, especially not after having enjoyed perhaps her finest season yet in 2012. Simply put, Serena Williams is to the WTA Tour as Roger Federer is to the ATP World Tour. When she retires, she’ll be remembered as her generation’s best player, if not more.

But of course, she hasn’t retired yet.

The 2013 Mutua Madrid Open title was the 50^th of Serena’s career as well as her seventh on clay. Somehow, both those totals seem a little low and don’t quite give an indication to just how dominant she has been. For example, among the nine players with more career titles are Monica Seles (53), Virginia Wade (55) and Lindsay Davenport (55). All three are great players, obviously, but are they better than Serena?

Truthfully, if not for her older sister Venus and her 44 career titles including seven Grand Slam tournaments, perhaps Serena’s numbers would be higher. That said, there’s something to be said for a player whose 15 of 50 career titles came at the Grand Slam events—it’s that she performs best on the biggest of stages.

Serena never competed much on the junior circuit beyond a short stint until grade 9, and she never breathed and lived strictly tennis either. Rather, it seems like her father always allowed her and her sister to be girls as they were growing up, and Serena has been showing everyone that a tennis player can thrive while also having other interests beyond the sport.

This is no eulogy, though. There’s less ahead than there is behind her, at least for playing days, but Serena is still just as good as ever. She showed as much in Madrid in the final against Sharapova.

Last season, amid all the hoopla about Madrid’s blue clay, Serena was perhaps the only one to stand up to Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal when they complained about the playing conditions. “Just play on,” she had told them.

Blue clay, red clay…it makes no difference. She would know, with a title on each surface in each of the previous two years.

Follow Charles Blouin-Gascon on Twitter @CeeeBG

Tennis Elbow: Blue no more

Welcome to Tennis Elbow, a new column that will look back on the week that was in the world of tennis. This week, Charles Blouin-Gascon wonders what has changed in a year at the Mutua Madrid Open.

Let’s start this column in much the same way Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray led a minute of silence this past weekend in Madrid in the memory of ATP executive chairman and president Brad Drewet, who passed away on May 3 at the age of 54.

…And now, let’s talk tennis.

Let’s talk tennis, and let’s say that everything that used to be blue isn’t blue no more.

In 2013, that’s the lesson. A year ago, the Mutua Madrid Open got underway amid controversy with its playing surface—blue clay that was supposed to be more appealing to the eyes. Whether it actually was more aesthetically pleasing is probably moot, but that’s the logic that was used in 2012 by the tournament directors, among whom Romanian and former ATP pro Ion Tiriac.

It’s pretty much the same logic that led to hardcourts becoming purple and abandoning the green and red colours once upon a time.

Only in the case of the Madrid Masters 1000 event, the experiment lasted all of one year. Right away, some of the bigger names on the ATP World Tour had voiced their displeasure—and by some, I mean Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal. Indeed, the two top players of the time weren’t too keen on that blue clay, and each suffered through a difficult week—Nadal losing 6-2, 6-2 to Fernando Verdasco in the third round, and Djokovic to his countryman Janko Tipsarevic in two sets as well.

A year later, it seems like it was all just a lot of fuss for naught. While the ATP had explained, then, that, “It is a good thing that our tournaments are trying to be innovative,” it did also mention that the decision of whether or not to make the blue clay a fixture would be reached with player feedback.

In the end, the blue clay was undone, because it wasn’t up to par with the other surfaces. “There were clearly issues with the quality of the courts in Madrid,” Drewett had said that at the June 2012 meeting of the ATP board of directors. “Regardless of colour, we must first ensure that courts are safe and fair for players.”

See? That the blue clay was blue had nothing to do with it.

In 2013 then, Madrid is back to the traditional red clay. The tournament is back to its regular programming, and Rafael Nadal is probably back to his own central role. He’s proven, this year, to be healthy and as good as he was before the 2012 knee injury that sidelined him for so long. After a rough loss in his home away from home in Monaco, the Spaniard probably wants to get back to his winning ways as soon as he possibly can—and it starts in Madrid.

Every year, the Mutua Madrid Open is one of the last stops before the grand prize of the clay court season that is the French Open. Perhaps more importantly, because he did so poorly in 2012 at the event, this Madrid Masters is one of the only events where the 26-year-old can gain points…before Wimbledon! He’s currently ranked No. 5, and is likely to stay there for some time.

There will be no blue clay this season in Madrid. It’s back to usual, and here’s to hoping Nadal and Djokovic can rekindle their rivalry.

Follow Charles Blouin-Gascon on Twitter @CeeeBG

Tennis Elbow: No country for old men

Welcome to Tennis Elbow, a new column that will look back on the week that was in the world of tennis. This week, Charles Blouin-Gascon rejoices in the recent results of a few older players.

Tennis is a wonderful, and weird, sport.

There are plenty of reasons to say that, but today I’ll insist on only one. Tennis is a weird sport these days, because a few old timers are excelling right now despite it being a sport for young men.

Yet, maybe that’s not totally accurate—men’s tennis has never been quite like women’s tennis, where teenagers seem able to dominate. Between 1997 and 1999, young Martina Hingis captured seven Grand Slam titles including her last at the 1999 French Open remember? She was 19 years old then. While that has changed recently, notably because Venus and Serena Williams brought physicality to the women’s game, it still seems like a woman can dominate quicker, or at a younger age, than a man can.

That’s neither good nor bad, of course. It just is, I know. On the ATP World Tour, it seems like the prime of players occurs around age 25 and that not everyone can compete before or after that.

Stil, a look at the recent results on the ATP World Tour will tell you that a trio of veterans is thriving in men’s tennis.

The Spaniard Tommy Robredo is the youngest of the trio. He will turn 31 years old this week, and he remains a member of the Top 50. That’s because he’s put together a string of great results so far in 2013, reaching the semifinal of the Copa Claro in Buenos Aires, winning the Grand Prix Hassan II in Casablanca and losing a close, close quarterfinal match against young Milos Raonic at the Barcelona Open Banc Sabadell. It’s probably too much to expect him to do much for the rest of 2013, but just to see him still ranked No. 46 is great for the sport.

Then, there’s the ageless wonder Mr. Roger Federer, now aged 31. By his standards, his 2013 season has been sub par (i.e. still no finals so far this year), but until his results have actually shown that he’s broken down we will not doubt him one bit. King Roger remains the one most likely to reach important milestones, including a career 900^th victory, and to enjoy significant results at the biggest events. He’s enjoying a lighter calendar this year, one where he can choose whichever events he wants to participate in and which others he wants to bypass.

The dean of the group is German Tommy Haas. Over the past calendar year, Haas has played as well as just about anyone else on Tour, so much so that he’s now still ranked No. 14. In 2013, the German really is just 35 years young. Haas is playing freely, loosely and, perhaps most importantly for him, he’s finally healthy. For all of that, he is evidently still a capable and dangerous player—just ask current alpha male Novak Djokovic, who at this year’s Sony Open in Miami was dominated like he never is.

Men’s tennis is no country for old men. It’s too physical for that. But sometimes, it still is.

Follow Charles Blouin-Gascon on Twitter @CeeeBG

Tennis Elbow: War of attrition

Welcome to Tennis Elbow, a new column that will look back on the week that was in the world of tennis. This week, Charles Blouin-Gascon recaps the 2013 Monte Carlo Rolex Masters.

The war of attrition is back.

That’s what I’m telling myself as I’m watching Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic hit ball after ball after ball after ball. Surely they can’t keep at it like that for this long, right? “These guys are hitting haymakers left and right, it’s unreal.”

But I forget that these two players can go at it for, seemingly, ever. They might be the two most fit players on the ATP World Tour and remember, they once battled for just short of six (!!) hours at the 2012 Australian Open final.

In the final of the 2013 Monte Carlo Rolex Masters, the match didn’t last six hours—Djokovic won 6-2 and 7-6 (1) after (only) 1:52 of play.

It’s my favourite rivalry in all of tennis, and it is definitely back. But it took a while, the beginning of Sunday’s final delayed due to rain. And yet, what’s an extra 51 minutes when we’ve been waiting for this match for about 11 months anyway, right?

Because Nadal sustained an injury at last year’s Wimbledon, him and Djokovic hadn’t battled in a while and it wasn’t sure that they still would. First, the Spaniard needed to reestablish himself and show the world that he was back at full strength. Once he did that, however, it was Djokovic who sustained an injury of his own, in a recent Davis Cup tie against American Sam Querrey.

Nadal has so many points to defend this year, at least until Wimbledon, that there’s little chance that he can improve his No. 5 ranking. While he did have a seven-plus-month layoff in 2012, that didn’t come until after his annual breeze through the clay court season. His haul, as usual, was impressive with titles at Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome and Roland Garros.

But already this year, he lost 400 points with that loss to Djokovic. And now he needs to win, and win, and win—but he lost against Djokovic.

The head-to-head series is now at 19-15 in favour of Nadal. It was all Djokovic in 2011, because everything in the ATP was all Djokovic that year. In 2012, Nadal came back because that’s what he always does. He attacked and had Djokovic pouncing, winning three finals against the Serb after having lost seven in a row.

Then, Nadal got injured and didn’t play a match for seven months and change. The last thing on his mind was probably a match against his rival—until this week, and the return of what I think is tennis’s most compelling rivalry.

The difference, this time, was Djokovic’s resiliency and capacity to take the ball so, so early because he always stood on top of the baseline. With a ball striker like Nadal, who puts possibly as much spin on his shots as anybody else, ever, this is an exploit. Djokovic’s backhand, especially, was lethal and looked a lot like the shot that helped his ascent to the top in 2011, except that now Djokovic is using it both cross-court and down the line.

By comparison, Nadal’s backhand wasn’t up to par. While it had some good moments, the shot wasn’t dangerous enough, and Djokovic seemed all too happy to exchange cross-court on Nadal’s backhand until he found an opening.

And for that reason, Nadal wakes up with his first loss in Monaco in 47 matches. The 26-year-old had won eight titles in a row at Monte Carlo and had lost only 7 sets in his career at the tournament. When Djokovic won the first set, so convincingly too, it was the first time in 7 years that Nadal lost the first set of a match in Monaco.

Simply put, the Monte Carlo Rolex Masters is the cake that Nadal gets, and that he gets to eat too, year in and year out. It had always been the Spaniard’s court right in the backyard of the Serb (i.e. Djokovic lives in Monaco), but no more.

This is an absolutely great win for Djokovic, but Nadal still has the trump card—a Roland Garros title. That tournament gets underway on May 26. Djokovic is my favourite for the event, and I don’t care that he’s not yours. Your favourite, I know, is Nadal because you’ll take Nadal over anyone at the French Open.

That’s the same reason you took Nadal for Monte-Carlo—he never loses in Monaco, right?

Follow Charles Blouin-Gascon on Twitter @CeeeBG

Tennis Elbow: Waiting for Godot

Welcome to Tennis Elbow, a new column that will look back on the week that was in the world of tennis. This week, Charles Blouin-Gascon ponders what to write about when there’s nothing to write about.

This week reminded me a lot of Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot.

The premise of the play, which is a translation from the French original En attendant Godot, is rather simple—Vladimir and Estragon look for ways to entertain themselves as they wait for Godot. The man is someone Vladimir and Estragon hardly know though they describe him as an acquaintance. I don’t mean to play spoilers, but Godot never arrives—and Vladimir and Estragon never stop waiting for him. Fin.

Waiting for Godot is a good play—even great, perhaps—but it’s depressing, odd, sad all at once.

That’s a little bit what this week has felt for me. I waited, and waited, to figure out a good topic for this column. I never settled on one.

It’s a first for me. This week, I’m writing a column about nothing. I will play spoilers once more and say that this edition of Tennis Elbow will about a whole lot of nada. It’s definitely not the first time that I have struggled to find a topic in the 16 months that I have written this column, but it is a first for me to decide to forgo a topic altogether.

This job is at its most challenging during weeks like this one. The calendar is right about to enter its four-month sprint, but that doesn’t mean that there’s always something specific to write about. That’s the lesson, really—it’s so easy to write about the big events, or about the significance of Novak Djokovic’s win over Andy Murray at the 2013 Australian Open, but what should I write about when nothing happened?

Of course, things did happen this past week. On the men’s side, John Isner took home the 2013 US Men’s Clay Court Championship while Tommy Robredo captured the 2013 Grand Prix Hassan II. For the women, Roberta Vinci beat Petra Kvitova for the BNP Paribas Katowice Open title.

For all three players, this win should help a lot. The three tournaments were held this past week, but all three leave me lukewarm as possible topics for this column.

Part of the problem is that I live in Canada and that Canada, while a bubbling tennis superpower, still lags behind other countries. Not only that, but the sport isn’t quite as popular as others (read: hockey). And because the sport isn’t quite as popular as hockey, then the media coverage isn’t as exhaustive as it is for hockey. Milos Raonic will make the headlines if he reaches the quarterfinals of Wimbledon, but not if he loses first round at Memphis. Meanwhile, if Nazem Kadri’s dog takes a leak where it’s not supposed to, Kadri will be in the news because he’s a member of the Toronto Maple Leafs. (To be fair, I have no idea whether Kadri has a dog or not—and if he does, I’m sure the dog is well behaved.)

That doesn’t help. It could be different if I had a subscription to the Tennis Channel—but I’m not Scrooge McDuck and I was a student up until about five days before I wrote this column.

It’s at times like these, then, that I should go to my box of other topics, those that don’t necessarily need a news hook. And truthfully, I could have because I do have such a few topics up my sleeve. I could have written about Marie Eve Pelletier’s recent retirement, or about five-set tiebreakers in Grand Slam tournaments. I could also wonder why fans are disappointed in the last few years of every great player’s career when his or her play dips.

But no. These will be topics for another week. This week rather, I waited, and waited, and nothing came to me—so I wrote about nothing. Sometimes, that’s how life works.

And you? You waited a week, and my column came, and it was about nothing. I apologize.

Follow Charles Blouin-Gascon on Twitter @CeeeBG

Tennis Elbow: Now’s the time

Welcome to Tennis Elbow, a new column that will look back on the week that was in the world of tennis. This week, Charles Blouin-Gascon ponders the most recent Davis Cup tie for Canada.

Milos Raonic doesn’t care much for history, and that’s what he said after his win over Italian Andreas Seppi this past Sunday to clinch the Davis Cup tie for Canada—but even he understands that it’s now or never.

In Canada, tennis has always lagged behind many other sports, at the bottom of the sports food chain that is dominated by hockey, hockey, and more hockey. This could be about to change.

We’ve said all along that all tennis needs in Canada is for some recognition, some successes on the international stage. Once that happens, once Canadians can say that they belong on the biggest of stages along with the powers that are Spain, the USA or Serbia, then maybe, just maybe, tennis could have itself a following.

This is such an opportunity. Unfortunately, the significance of a Davis Cup title would probably be lost for most Canadians—it’s not a coincidence that there were a lot of Team Canada hockey jerseys in the stands of the UBC campus arena. If doubles tennis doesn’t cut it anymore, imagine what it’s like for team tennis.

Of course, a Davis Cup title is far from a guarantee at this point. Canada is one of four remaining countries still in line for the title after defeating Italy 3-1 in the quarterfinals, but is clearly the underdog.

How did this happen?

First, the Canadians survived the World Group playoffs by defeating South Africa last September. Up next was a tie against the favourite Spain, which Canada won 3-2. Then came the win over the Italians.

Along the way, Canada has enjoyed plenty of luck. South Africa decided not to host the tie, then its two best players, Kevin Anderson and Rick de Voest, sustained injuries. Canada should have been chopped liver for the Spaniards, except that Spain sent its “B” team to Vancouver. Team Canada captain Martin Laurendeau said, “Muchas gracias,” moved on and prepared his team for the tie against Italy.

This weekend, Canada, then the No. 8-ranked nation in the world, was technically the favourite against the No. 9 Italy. Not only that, but Canada was once again playing host while Italy was robbed of its best doubles pairing after Simon Bolelli withdrew due to injury.

Bolelli and Fabio Fognini are among the best doubles teams in the world, but now 35-year-old Daniele Bracciali had to step in. He was far from a liability, as Vasek Pospisil and Daniel Nestor needed all of four hours and 37 minutes and a 15-13 fifth set to get the win. Wait, I thought these marathon matches only happened in singles?

In this Team Canada, Milos Raonic is the clear superstar and the one workhorse. For the team to have any realistic chance at advancing, Raonic is always the one who must deliver. But the country really is well on its way. Beyond Raonic, there’s a solid doubles team in the duo of Pospisil and Nestor.

The one thing the team is lacking, yes, is depth. Nestor is 40 years old, and it would be good if Canada could find him a suitable replacement for every Davis Cup doubles rubber. Meanwhile, Pospisil is a little too inconsistent as his loss against Seppi can attest, where he lost a two-sets-to-love lead. But he’ll come around—he’s only 22.

And now, there are four countries remaining. Serbia. Argentina. The Czech Republic. And Canada, which will be matched up against Novak Djokovic’s Serbia in September. The odds may be stacked against the Canadians once more, but they could win. It’s not by being content with a semifinal berth that the country will ever arrive. Raonic knows it. It’s now or never.

Follow Charles Blouin-Gascon on Twitter @CeeeBG

Tennis Elbow: Talking to Novak

Welcome to Tennis Elbow, a new column that will look back on the week that was in the world of tennis. This week, Charles Blouin-Gascon takes a minute to talk to his favourite player.

Let me talk to you, Novak.

How are you? I hope you enjoyed Easter—though I bet you hadn’t planned on celebrating and would have rather been playing in the 2013 Sony Ericsson final. But these are the breaks, a modern poet of our time once said, so no need to fret. Plus, it’s great to spend time with the family, am I right?

We spoke or rather, I spoke and—perhaps, maybe—you listened at the end of the 2012 season. Let me tell you about that time, Novak. I mentioned many things, then, among them the fact that you were my favourite tennis player. I’m a columnist, but once again today I write as a fan. I’m lucky, because I apparently did well enough in 2012 to convince Nima Naderi that I deserved to write this Tennis Elbow column once again this year.

This means many things, Novak, including the fact that I’m still in line for attending and covering the 2013 Rogers Cup in my native Montreal. Hopefully, you’ll participate in the event.

That I’m writing this column in 2013 means that I can talk to you once more. It means that I can marvel at the fact that you remain a far third option, behind Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, in the average tennis fan’s heart. This is despite the fact that you’re so clearly the alpha male on Tour, and have been for two+ seasons now. Still, the average fan prefers King Roger’s class or Rafa’s fire and drive.

I wrote in December that, “You’re just you. You enjoy the moment, enjoy the spotlight, and enjoy life.” There’s bound to be some facets of your personality that you don’t quite show in public, but it doesn’t feel like it, and you don’t feel guarded. You’re genuine, charistmatic, funny, and that’s a lot like me.

Let me talk to you, Novak, and let me tell you how I think that the 2013 season has been a weird one so far. You’re still that dude, but your play has been inconsistent recently. You’re only 2-2 in your past four matches after having been unbeatable in the previous 22. Are these the sign of a first crack in your armour? Since you’ve asserted yourself and transformed the ATP World Tour into your own backyard in 2011, there haven’t been many signs, if any, that your play was on the decline. I doubt this is such a sign.

Let me talk to you, Novak, and let me tell you that I get what’s happened in the previous two weeks. It can’t always go right, that’s all. In Indian Wells against Juan Martin Del Potro, you were oddly inefficient on the biggest points of the match, and it cost you in the end. It happens. In Miami now, the German Tommy Haas might have been playing the best tennis of his career and he was just about flawless against you.

Both played out of their minds on that respective day. Again, these are the breaks. I get it, and surely you do too.

You seem to understand that tennis is just a sport. It’s what allows you to ensure yourself a good life in the future, as well as one for your grandchildren, and then their grandchildren too, but it’s still just a sport. You understand that you’re lucky to do what you love for a living, and that the stakes are never that high even when they are. I’m not like that, but I’m getting better at it.

You seem to understand that the worst thing that can happen, if you try, is that you may fail. And if the worst thing that can happen is that you lose a tennis match, well, then things aren’t too bad right? (Paradoxically, that’s probably why you win tennis matches as often as you do.)

Let me talk to you, Novak, and let me tell you that I wish you nothing but the best for the rest of the season. Of course, you won’t need much luck. You’re the best player on Tour, and you’ll win 80 percent, or so, of your matches once again.

Let me talk to you, Novak. I’ll reach out to you again later this year, just after the US Open and what is essentially the crescendo of the tennis season. By then, hopefully, you’ll have avenged 2012’s heartbreak of a loss against Andy Murray at Flushing Meadows—but of course, before that, there’ll have been Roland Garros. That’s your chance to complete the career Grand Slam.

Do it, Novak.

Follow Charles Blouin-Gascon on Twitter @CeeeBG

Tennis Elbow: There’s a storm coming

Welcome to the second season of Tennis Elbow. Once again in 2013, the column will look back on the week that was in the world of tennis. This week, Charles Blouin-Gascon ponders the decision to increase blood testing.

The dream is still alive.

Part of the appeal of any sport, and certainly tennis, is to marvel at the excellence, the determination, the courage and the overall performance of professional athletes within the sport. The sports fans watch sports, because they expect to be entertained but also because they can live vicariously through the athletes. They probably played sports at some point in their lives, and it’s by following a team or a player that they can know what it would have been like to play sports for a living. “Wow. If only…This could have been so great.”

But what happens if drugs stain the sport? Then, the dream turns to a nightmare. Is an athlete actually able to hit 38 home runs in a season, or is that simply the result of performance-enhancing drugs? Just as well, that’s also when sport fans become rational. “Oh of course, that’s why I could never become a pro athlete. They all do drugs, and I never would.”

Right, that’s why. Of course.

In early March, tennis decided to revamp its doping program. Indeed, the International Tennis Federation made the announcement on March 7 and specifically, it comes down to two wrinkles. On the one hand, tennis will increase the number of possible blood tests that players can be subjected to. Then, there’s the introduction of biological passports that allow for tracking of a player’s blood profile over time, and changes in that profile could result in punishment despite no positive test.

This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, as some players have asked for such a decision for some time now. And starting this year already, they get their wish.

What does this all mean really? I don’t quite know, and I suspect that no one will until some of the test results are known.

One thing is for certain, though—tennis has apparently decided to put itself at the forefront of the struggle against doping. Rather than wait, and react, tennis has decided to embrace the fight and do everything in its power to ensure that its sport is clean.

Until a sport shows that it is doing everything it can to ensure it is clean, it opens itself to possible criticism. This announcement addresses that. At the very least, this should prevent fiascos like Richard Gasquet’s who, again, blamed a positive cocaine test on having kissed a woman in a nightclub, and avoided a suspension.

Presumably, a stricter doping system will equal more positive doping tests. Does that, however, in turn mean that the sport is dirty? I don’t know—you’re more likely to find something if you’re actively looking for it, right?

Think about a sport like cycling. Some may say that it is more corrupted than football or hockey, and that very well may be true. But if cycling finds more doping, it’s also because it is doing more to fight doping.

I tackled this exact issue a few weeks ago, wondering then why some enhancements are tolerated (i.e. replacing a torn ligament in the shoulder) while others aren’t (i.e. boosting the level of testosterone). I suspect that part of the puzzle for tennis will be sorting through such riddle.

I also expect that by opening this Pandora box, the sport might find a few surprises that it might not have anticipated. It might create a storm, or three, but at the very least it is opening the Pandora box—there’s something to be said for that.

Follow Charles Blouin-Gascon on Twitter @CeeeBG

Tennis Elbow: The real Rafael Nadal stood up

Welcome to the second season of Tennis Elbow. Once again in 2013, the column will look back on the week that was in the world of tennis. This week, Charles Blouin-Gascon recaps a great 2013 BNP Paribas Open and realizes how big of a difference a week makes.

For the most part, the 2013 BNP Paribas Open lived up to the previous editions of the event. At the end, it’s Rafael Nadal who stands alone on the throne after beating Juan Martin Del Potro 4-6, 6-3, 6-4, and I’ll certainly talk about him. But I’ll do that first by talking about his quarterfinal match.

That’s because the main takeaway from this first Masters 1000 event of the season was how eye-opening that match was on the men’s side. That quarterfinal pitted two crowd favourites in Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer.

This meeting was the 29^th meeting in the series between the two rivals and in large part because of Nadal’s injury and layoff, it occurred at the earliest stage of any event other than their very first match. It was Nadal who won that first match, at the 2004 Sony Open in Miami, by the score of 6-3, 6-3.

After Indian Wells, it’s safe to say that this rivalry has come full circle. Nadal won, and convincingly, by the score of 6-4, 6-2. The series has given fans plenty to cheer about in nine years, but this match was far from the best of the 29. In fact, what should have been a classic was little more than just a big dud.

And the culprit was King Roger.

On Thursday evening against Nadal, Federer looked old. The Swiss had apparently been battling a stiff back in the previous days, and there were signs of that at the very least against Nadal. During the match, Federer looked as lost and as hopeless as he’s looked in a long, long time.

Was it more than just a stiff back and the traditional bad match-up that is the Spaniard? It’s hard to tell, really. Of course, it’s not the first time that Nadal has made Federer looked foolish, but it’s usually happened on clay and not on hard courts—and certainly not after a lengthy layoff from Nadal.

Still, let’s not panic quite yet. King Roger remains ranked No. 2. At some point, he’ll show his age, but it’s still too early to think that it might be in 2013. He’s earned the benefit of the doubt.

For Nadal, well, there’s proof that a week makes a world of difference. A week ago, I wrote that it was still too early to mention conclusively that the 26-year-old was definitely back. I stand by it. But I’m also willing to reconsider now. Is Nadal back? Well, it sure looks like it.

After so much time off (i.e. a year, essentially, between matches on hard court), it likely helped Nadal that he could look over the net and have the familiar sight of King Roger looking on. “It’s easy,” he probably told himself. “Just pummel the backhand with heavy top spin.”

I tip my hat to Nadal. I don’t think I could make such a successful return like he has, and that’s probably why I’m myself and he’s himself. Should he be the favourite for Roland Garros, now? I don’t know, and I’m really in no hurry to answer that question.

As for the other finalist, Juan Martin Del Potro, I am amazed at the forehand that he has. It’s been there for a while, but that doesn’t mean it stops being impressive. The stroke is the heavier than any other one and when Del Potro plays like he has this week, that forehand might be the most formidable force on the entire tour.

The ATP World Tour is a better place with a strong Del Potro. He’ll likely get plenty of other chances to pull off the unthinkable Andy Murray/Novak Djokovic/Rafael Nadal trifecta.

Follow Charles Blouin-Gascon on Twitter @CeeeBG

Next Page »