Howdy, everyone. It sure is a slightly less stressful weekend than the last one – unless you're a New York Giants or New England Patriots fan, in which case you'lll be hyper-ventilating by the time this post is published. Looks like three of the four members of the team USA (hey, where's Venus?) are pulling for the Giants. 

Here's you place to gather and comment on the unfolding Fed Cup sagas, especially as some of those ties come down to the wire. I hope you had a chance to read about the new books by Jay Clark and Sam Starnes (one post down). Gotta support those struggling writers, right, even if ole Sam doesn't look like he's missed many meals lately. . . Enjoy the tennis, I'm sure my American readers will join me in hoping that Serena and Christina get it done! 

- Pete

by Pete Bodo

What better time to curl up with a good book than a week or two after the end of two crucial weekends of Grand Slam play? To that end, I'm happy to announce that Jay Clark and Sam Starnes, two friends who are regular TennisWorld readers and have contributed personal essays to the pages of Tennis magazine, both have new books out.

Both of these guys have had a lifelong interest in and connection with tennis, but they are as different as their books (you'll see just how different, below).

Sam writes, and teaches writing at Widener University. He's married with children. Jay, who does something vague but undoubtedly subversive somewhere in the ever-widening digital universe, is living out his dwindling days as a single man. He recently got engaged to the lovely Caroline, whom he met through TennisWorld in a way that's a little too long and convoluted to go into here.

Long-time readers of this blog will remember that TW is directly responsible for at least one marriage, that of Juan Jose and Amy, two comment posters who struck up a relationship here despite living on different continents. I say it's about time we got another couple up on the board, right?

Anyway, I sent Jay and Sam a Q and A, thinking that it would be interesting to run them together to celebrate the publication of their books, and to give you a better idea of who they are.

Jay Clark, author of The Edumacation of Jay Baker.

1 – Can you summarize the book and describe who might most enjoy reading it?   

The Edumacation of Jay Baker is a coming-of-age tale that’s loosely based on my experiences as an awkward teen.  The book features, gasp, real people with real problems and really crappy reactions to those problems.  It’s funny.  It’s got bite.  But it doesn’t bite.  Which means no vampires.  These books about high-schoolers saving the world and turning into sexy werewolves, etc., are just a smidge unrealistic, no?  If someone had told my fifteen-year-old self I was being shipped off to compete in something called The Hunger Games, I would’ve rolled my eyes and said, “Yeah? Then how is it possible I’ve eaten four Brown Sugar Cinnamon Pop-Tarts today, b-hole?”  Then they would’ve shot me in the head with an arrow, but live and learn (and then die from the blood loss).

 I think any human with a sense of humor will get a kick out of reliving their high-school days through Jay Baker’s jaded blue eyes, taking comfort in knowing that they themselves never have to go back there.  If not, there’s a huge robot audience out there just waiting for me to tap.  #worldismyoyster

 2 – What role, if any, does tennis play in your new book?

 Freaking tennis.  It has a way of creeping into everything I do – whether that’s snagging myself a smokin’-hot girl from this here TW blog and then disappearing into thin air, or performing Bartoli-like shadow strokes from my bed to the toilet and back again. The latter hasn’t actually happened yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it did.  In fact, I’d embrace it and practice my swinging volleys, too, for good measure. Whether or not my fiancé looks at me the same way afterward remains to be seen.  Life is such an adventure. . .  

 Crap, I haven’t even answered the question yet?  One of Jay Baker’s two choice pieces of girl-candy, Caroline Richardson, is a tennis goddess who’d prefer having a conversation with her racket strings over one with her classmates.  She’s obviously a smart cookie, and Jay, a tennis-class dropout, figures practicing his strokes with her is better than doing so at home.  You could cut the subtlety of that double-entendre with a knife.  

Not-really-a-spoiler alert: One of my proudest moments while murdering myself over this book comes when Caroline engages in a spirited GOAT debate with her overzealous tennis-parent father. Jay somehow manages to bring up both Anna Kournikova and Mary Joe Fernandez in the process, but he knows not what he waxes pathetic about.

 3 – Did you play competitive tennis yourself, and what do you now think of that entire experience?

 I did and still do. Most of the time, I’m thinking, “You’re really awful, you know that?  How many years have you been sucking now?”  Then, after my male-ego regenerates itself in a flurry of testosterone, I get really excited about the possibility of shanking another overhead.  At the end of the day, we tennis players are all a bunch of masochists who enjoy putting ourselves through the ringer and using clichés like “at the end of the day.”  It is what it is.   

4 – How and why did you choose this story to write?

Working as a technical writer at Transpondsters International* a few years ago, I thought to myself, “Zzzzz…life doesn’t get much worse than this $*(@.”  Then I started writing the book in Outlook, a little hunk each day, under the guise of composing really important sales-related emails.  (Is that an endorsement opp with Microsoft I’m smelling, or just a cease and desist in the mail?)

Anyway, I chose myself as the main character, because I’m lazy.  Then I made myself more interesting, because I’m also boring and too antisocial to have “a mysterious way with the ladies” like Jay Baker does.  Now I’m extremely jealous of Jay Baker and plan on killing him off in the sequel.    

5  - Do you feel tennis has a literature that does justice to the sport?

There’s plenty of non-fiction fare to choose from—Courts of Babylon and Venus Envy, to name-drop a couple—but not so much in the fiction department.  Maybe other authors have recognized that tennis as a plot point is the kiss of bargain-bin death, and I’m the last to know. Anyway, if you'd like to order "The Edumacation of Jay Baker" just click on my Amazon link.  

6 – Federer, or Nadal? And why.

 Great, now I’m about to lose half my potential audience. Thanks a pant-load, Pete!  I have to go with Nadal here.  Not that I can’t appreciate the WTFian beauty of Fed’s game, but I happen to possess an aesthetically unpleasing arsenal of shots myself, which means I relate more to Nadal as a player.  Did I mention I’m all about world peace?   

                                                    ***************************   

 Joe Samuel Starnes, author of Fall Line. 

1 – Can you summarize the book and describe who might most enjoy reading it? 

   This book will appeal to readers of literary fiction (especially southern fiction), as well as readers of crime fiction and historical fiction about the 1950s.

 The story takes place all on one day, December 1, 1955 as floodgates are poised to slam shut on a concrete dam straddling the fictional Oogasula River, creating a lake that will submerge a forgotten crossroads and thousands of acres of woodlands in rural Georgia.  

 The story is viewed through the eyes of Elmer Blizzard, a troubled ex-deputy; Mrs. McNulty, a lonely widow who refuses to leave her doomed shack by the river; her loyal, aging dog, Percy; and a rapacious politician, State Senator Aubrey Terrell, for whom the new lake is named.

A story of land grabs, wounded families, bitterness, hypocrisy, violence, and revenge in the changing South, Fall Line is populated by complex characters who want to do the right thing but don't know how. 

 Here are a few blurbs that summarize it better:

 “An affectionate, eloquent story of loss and survival”  — Atlanta Magazine 

"If you liked Deliverance by James Dickey, you'll like Fall Line by Joe Samuel Starnes. The Oogasula is about to be dammed by the Georgia Power Company and to hell with the folks whose houses and graves are going to be flooded. Some people take the money. One of them takes the law into his own hands. This novel is vividly alive with people (and a great dog) and the river." — John Casey, author of Compass Rose and Spartina, winner of the National Book Award

If you're interested, check out the online book trailer on YouTube.

2 – What role, if any, does tennis play in your new book?

 The only time the word tennis is used in this novel is the acknowledgements where I thank my buddies at the Green Valley Tennis Club in Haddon Township, N.J. for their friendship.   Although tennis is never mentioned, I’m certain the golf club the crooked politician has planned beside the new lake will have a tennis court or two.

 3 – Did you play competitive tennis yourself, and what do you now think of that entire experience?

I started out with a sawed-off Jack Kramer racket at a very early age, and played junior tournaments from about the time I turned six in 1973 to the age of 18 in 1985.  I peaked at the age of 15 (after spending a few short weeks at Nick Bollettieri’s Academy during the holidays).  My best result, however, was in one of my last junior tournaments when I reached the finals of the Georgia State Closed tournament in the 18-and-unders. I made the front sports page of the Savannah for upsetting the top seed.

The best memories I have of junior tennis are not of the matches but of the trips.  I grew up in Cedartown, a small town in the northwest part of the state, so my dad and I (and sometimes my mom) often drove to Atlanta, Macon, Columbus, Savannah and other towns for tournaments.  It was always an exciting, especially if I won my matches and we stayed for a while.  Often times, however, I would lose in the first round and head on back home.  Those could be long drives, especially if we didn’t spend the night.

 I played so much tennis that by the time college years rolled around, I was burned out. I also decided I wanted to attend University of Georgia, and was not nearly good enough to crack that squad, endowed as they were at the time with players like soon-to-be French Open finalist Mikael Pernfors. 

I played very little tennis from the age of 19 until I turned 30, when I got back in the game.  Now, I play a few times a week, and am very much enjoying playing.  I play in a 4.5 league, and since I just turned 45, hope to try my luck in some tournaments in a new age bracket this year.

 4 – How and why did you choose this story to write?

 The genesis of the idea goes way back to 1989 when I was a cub reporter for a newspaper in Milledgeville, Georgia, and was assigned to write about minor earthquake tremors caused around Lake Sinclair, a large manmade lake there.  A former local sheriff there told me it wasn’t an earthquake, that it was just someone “dynamiting for catfish.” 

It turned out there actually were earthquakes caused by water from the manmade lake seeping into the fissures of the earth. I wrote a story about the earthquakes and the lake and became fascinated with the fact that all the big lakes I knew in Georgia were manmade.  For a long time I wanted to build a story around the damming of a river and construction of a major lake.  

 5  - Do you feel tennis has a literature that does justice to the sport?

Absolutely not.  It seems that baseball and golf books outnumber tennis books by 100 to one.  I’m probably especially sensitive to this as I have finished a novel about tennis that has been in a protracted search of a publisher.  It’s called Red Dirt, and is the story of Jaxie Skinner, an unlikely tennis pro from a blue-collar family in rural Georgia. My agent has heard from many publishers who have said that if a tennis novel is not by a famous player, they are not interested.  The tennis community is sizable, and a smart audience, so I don’t understand why there isn’t a demand for more literature about the game.  

6 – Federer, or Nadal? And why.

I'm not allegiant to either one. What I would really love to see is my fellow Georgia Bulldog John Isner beat one of them on an Grand Slam stage, preferably in the finals of the U.S. Open.

by Jackie Roe, TW Social Director

Evening, TWibe! It’s been a while, I know . . .

How is everyone doing? Though we’ve moved on from the Australian Open (or have we? maybe some of you are still feeling the after-effects), I have a few AO-related loose ends to tie up. First up, our Suicide Pool results. Here’s TalkAboutTennis.com's Mariya with a recap:

None of the 3 Women´s SP winners were from TW. I´m sad to say no one contesting for TennisWorld even made it to the second week of this Australian Open.

No TW winners in the Men's pool either. Djatns got the farthest, sharing the agony of defeat in the semifinal with her pick, Roger Federer.

She went with a bevy of former and present top players (save Dolgopolov and Nishikori) in her picks:
Haas – Hewitt – Dolgopolov – Nishikori – Berdych – Ferrer – Del Potro – Murray – Nadal – Djokovic – Federer

Better luck next time, TWibe!

And now, I’m thrilled to share with you a special AO write-up from GVGirl, a.k.a. Karen. I know you’ll enjoy it as much as I did (and it features a cameo from another one of our beloved TWibers!).

Postcards from the “Happy Slam”

G’day from New Jersey! I’ve just returned from the “Happy Slam,” and as a result of my jet-lag I still don’t know what day it is. As a crazy tennis fan I had always wanted to attend the Australian Open, but never did I imagine that on my first trip there I would be covering the tournament as media.

It still did not truly hit me that I was going “down under” until I was flying over Sydney, seeing a panoramic view of the harbor and the famous Opera House. After three planes with a combined total travel time of more than 30 hours from New York City, I finally arrived in Melbourne, exhausted and very jet-lagged, on—of all days—Friday the 13th!

Leaving Melbourne’s airport I was stunned that I actually needed a sweater. People had warned me about the ever changeable Melbourne weather and told me that I’d need everything from a coat to a bathing suit, so I really should not have been that shocked. The weather remained “changeable” throughout my fortnight in Melbourne—from 60 degrees to almost 100 degree days.

After arriving at my Melbourne dwelling in the early evening, I tried to make myself stay up until 11 so I could wake up at a normal time to get rid of my jet-lag.  Did. Not. Happen. I woke up at 3 am and could not go back to sleep. As the dawn came, I felt as though I were in London, or Paris in October; a cloudy day, with a misty cool drizzle emerged and it felt as though I were back home in the New York City area with temperatures in the 50’s. “Is this really Melbourne?” I thought, jokingly.

I made the trek from my dwelling to Melbourne Park, about a mile-and-a-half on foot. Melbourne, like New York City, is a walking city, and I’m a walker. Also like New York, it’s a city with good public transportation. Melbourne has many trains, trams, and buses. If you have a ticket or credential for the Australian Open, you can ride the city trams to the tournament for free.

I won’t get into the details about being media at the Australian Open, but while many journalists live in the media center during tournaments, I was not one of them. My hard news background as a journalist has had me work in many different places, from international war zones to local crime scenes, from local mayor’s offices to national political conventions, so I am prone to not staying still and wandering around the courts.

The Australia Open is a fantastic venue for fans to watch matches. After being inside all of the show courts and the outer courts, I don’t know how I’ll be able to watch a match in Arthur Ashe Stadium again at the US Open. If you have attended the US Open, imagine having the same sight-lines on most of the courts in Melbourne Park as you do on the US Open’s Grandstand court. That’s how I felt. You feel “up close and personal” watching the players on almost all of the courts, with the Melbourne skyline painting the background.

There was what I call an “orderly chaos” when the gates were opened before play began on day 1. Everyone seemed to be rushing to one of the Australian Open stores on the grounds to purchase souvenirs before taking their seats. Some Melbourne residents told me to buy souvenirs on the first day. Funny, that’s what I tell people to do at Davis Cup ties and the US Open.

There are places to sit all over the grounds. And I mean seats as in chairs and not benches, many of them in the shade.

One thing I noticed was the large number of people wearing black at the matches. Even myself, a consistent wearer of black, left my black outfits and shirts back in the New York City area, after hearing about the 100 degree temperatures in Melbourne (except for one item . . . I can’t go totally without black, that’s my New York City uniform!). In fact, when I interviewed two of the merchandizing managers overseeing the Australian Open shops all over the grounds, I was told that due to the overwhelming demand they were selling black t-shirts for the first time this year. International visitors are demanding them (I’ll bet many of them were New Yorkers and Parisians).

As a so-called jaded New Yorker and media person, I rarely get excited about celebrities, as I see them all the time at home. However, I had one of the biggest thrills of my tennis media life getting the chance to meet Rod Laver at a news conference. I never saw Rod Laver play—he was before my time—but I really admire him. Most of his career he played for no money but for the love of the game. He won the Grand Slam twice! He is a living piece of tennis history and for me tops the GOAT list.

Doesn’t matter what part of the world I’m in, I can always count on meeting a “TWiber.” This time it was Aussiemarg. (That's us in the headline photo!) Meeting TennisWorld posters all over the world is like meeting a member of your tennis family that you haven’t seen in ages. You instantaneously click and are fast friends. It’s happened with all of the TWibers I’ve met overseas. Anna Wintour has nothing on Marg!

I have to be honest and say that traveling to the Australian Open is an expensive proposition if you are coming from the US. It may be a once-in-a-lifetime trip, but it’s an adventure well worth taking. Aside from the tennis there is so much to do in Melbourne and its environs—fine dining, boat rides up the Yarra River, beaches, museums, and a personal favorite of not just myself but nearly every junior player I interviewed—going to pet koala bears.

I want to personally thank my husband, another media person who had re-arrange his already crazy schedule for three weeks so I could go to Australia. As parents, finding someone to watch your child for even an hour a day each day for three weeks is almost mission impossible; it took a lot of planning, but we made it happen. Make the Australian Open happen for you sometime in the future, despite the jet-lag. You’ll be glad you did.

(Click here for more photos.)

Terrific report, GVGirl! Thank you so much for sharing these musings and giving us a taste of the tennis experience Down Under.

That’s all for now. Have a great weekend, and feel free to camp out here during the Super Bowl on Sunday! (Predictions?)

Time again to bellyflop into the commenters’ pool. After this one, I think I may go to the owners here and suggest a name change for our website, from Tennis.com to Your Favorite Player Makes More Excuses Than My Favorite Player! (.com)

Actually, looking back, it was pretty civil here for such a drama-filled Grand Slam final weekend. Thanks for reading and writing, even in what may have been the early morning hours for many of you.

*****

My only gripe with the comentators is Rafa's uncle. Stop calling him uncle Toni! Every time McEnroe or Gilbert calls him uncle Toni, it makes me sick. What is he, the world's uncle. It's Nadal's coach. My girlfriend knows nothing of tennis and the first thing she said was, why do the keep calling him uncle.—Jamie S

This is funny in part because I’ve never thought of that before. Was it Mary Carillo who popularized the “Uncle” in Uncle Toni? In those early days of Rafa, the fact that he was coached by his uncle was seen by some as kind of a joke. Turned out he was a pretty good coach. Having read Rafa’s autobiography, the relationshiop reminds me of what Pete Sampras said about his early coach, Pete Fischer: “He tried to put his brain in me.” Toni comes across as a pain in the butt, but it’s also clear that Nadal wouldn’t be the competitor he is if it hadn’t been for him. Too late now, though: He’ll always be Uncle Toni to us. It fits with the DIY Rafa legend.

*****

Steve I have been reflecting more on this final You and I are big Borg fans.D. You know halfway through the match my mind turned to Borg who I still believe to this very day is the Fittest Tennis Athlete I ever saw to play the game and even now other players havent come close in terms of his fitness. I know we cant compare era's and of course with todays new power head racquets and all.It got me thinking how Borg would have fared in the match against either opponent.Okay maybe I need to move on from my Idol Borg Its funny how that thought appeared in my head halway through the match Still miss Borg to this day.—Aussiemarg

There’s something about Bjorn, isn’t there? And it’s not just you who hangs on to him, Aussiemarg, or the image of him. When I was managing editor at Tennis magazine here in the States, we used to joke that we had to get our “obligatory black-and-white shot of Borg from the 70s” into each issue. We even thought about calling it that—"Obligatory Retro Shot of Bjorn Borg." Whatever else was in the magazine, people always gravitated to the long-haired Borg photo, no matter how small we ran it. He still signifies “tennis” to a lot of people.

*****

I enjoyed the analysis and reaction, since I didn't see any of the match. But one facet of Steve's analysis troubles me – the repetition of tennis' conventional wisdom that serving second in a set puts you at a disadvantage. It truly doesn't.

Observe that Djokovic had four chances in this match to win on the next game: three by breaking (games 8, 10 and 12) and one by serving out the match (game 9). He eventually did break for the match, but you have to believe that a player's chance of holding (or breaking) changes once you get to a "sudden death" situation to believe the CW. The way the CW works goes like this: suppose two players, A and B, hold serve, on average, 80% of the time. They reach 4-4 in a final set (no TB), then A serves first, B second, and so on. If their "hold probability" doesn't change, simple math shows that A is no more likely than B to win. If you don't like math, just note that the situation is symmetrical. If A holds, B has an 80% chance of holding: if A is broken, same 80% chance. Each two games that are played, there's a 16% chance A wins (80% hold, 20% break), a 16% chance B wins (20% break, 80% hold) and a 68% chance the score will be 5 all (64% chance both hold, 4% chance both break).

Ah, but suppose A holds, there's a changeover, and B walks to the line, with the commentators breathlessly hugging themselves as "B has to serve to say in the match!" Surely, B's in trouble, right? Wrong. There's no evidence that player's hold frequency changes AT ALL at this stage of a match. Psychologically speaking, maybe B is invigorated by his or her closeness to the edge, and gets a 90% hold probability by his or her steeliness. Or maybe A can almost taste it, and starts overcooking returns.

In other words, unless you can demonstrate that being one game away from defeat differentially changes players' serving/holding ability by making it worse, there's no advantage to serving first.

None. Zilch. Nada. Bupkiss.—Andrew Burton

You forgot Zip, Zero, No Dice, and Not So Much. Point taken, it’s hardly a guarantee of anything. But I do think most players would rather be serving first in a no-tiebreaker fifth set. It can also help stop your opponent’s momentum coming out of a fourth set, as Federer did to Djokovic by hanging on to serve at the end of the fourth at last year’s U.S. Open. Almost worked for him, anyway.

*****

I want your opinion on this. Is it not time to prepare faster courts? I personally think so. I admire both players and the effort they put in. But, this is ridiculous – six hours – more than a baseball game. If it continues like this, tennis is not going to attract general public.—SA

Yes, as special as this final was, we don’t want six hours—or five, or four—to become the norm for a tennis match. It isn’t just the courts, though; the players often bring up the weight of the balls as having a big effect on play.

It’s also not like the surfaces are getting slower everyday, as spme people seem to think. Wimbledon’s grass has been the same since 2001; players have been talking about Key Biscayne playing like clay since at least 2005; the Aussie Open’s previous surface, Rebound Ace, was a similar pace to the Plexicushion they use now, and it was installed in 1988. Many fans hold out Federer as an example of an attacking player who can’t win on today’s courts, but he’s been winning on them his whole career, including five trips to the French Open final.

Still, you’re right, we do need more variety—Exhibit A is the Paris Indoors, which were a fine showcase for fast-court tennis in 2010. Then they slowed them down. I would say the indoor season would be the right place to make an effort at speeding courts up and seeing if it has an effect.

*****

I still maintain the same point in regards to people not giving Nadal any credit (see Bodo's article on this match).
If Nadal was a journeyman or just ranked within the top 30 in the world then you could bring in all the left handed, surface speed, Fed's head stuff.
However, when the guy has won ten slams been consistently at the top of the game for years and has a winning h2h against all of his main rivals, including Djoko. Then he can't just be branded Fed's 'bogey man', the lefty he can't deal with blah blah blah.
Nadal is too godd a player to chalk all his victories down to Fed underperforming.—DJB

I’ve been trying to make that point for a long time, that Nadal has something to do with his wins over Federer. But as the years have gone by, it’s become more undeniable, at least to me, that Federer also misses shots against Nadal that he doesn’t miss against anyone else. There’s the Rafa spin, the Rafa speed, the Rafa confidence against him—all of that is real. But there’s also Federer pressing and forgetting his game plan.

It would seem totally inexplicable, if Nadal didn’t do the same thing against Djokovic the next night. After playing so well versus Federer, he made routine errors at crucial moments of the first, second, and fifth sets against Djokovic. Maybe we’re wrong to call tennis an individual sport; it’s more of a relational sport, between you and your particular opponent.

*****

I'm unure eaxctly what this match will go down as a few years down the line.
Either it is the final nail in the coffin for Nadal, he threw everything at Djoko and still lost.
Or its another step of Nadal working out the Djoko puzzle. He came so close to beating Djoko on his beloved hard courts, next time he may take it. Similar to that 2007 epic W final against Fed. It was a tough loss but he built from there.
Perhaps though this is Nadal's curse, he chases for years to make up the ground on Fed and just when it looks like he's done it Djoko comes along and thats project number 2.
Who knows what this match will be, the former or the latter.—DJB

It is hard to gauge what the final means for Nadal, just as it’s hard to gauge what the semi means for Murray. Rafa did hang in longer than he has recently, and he said he didn’t feel the same “mental problems” against Nole that he did last year. But he also should have lost the match in four—Djokovic tightened up late in that set, especially in the breaker. And at the very end, Rafa went back to the defensive play that he had tried to get away from.

Much the same is true for Murray. There was progress, especially from last year’s Aussie final, but he didn’t handle having the lead well, the same way he didn’t handle it well in last year’s Wimbledon semifinals against Nadal. I came away from both the semi and the final thinking that, as close as the matches were, and as much as Djokovic struggled during them, they just ended up making him seem harder to beat than ever.

*****

I agree with much of what you point out, Steve. Especially about Djokovic's struggles being half mental. As someone who's been watching him since 2006, whenever he starts huffing and puffing I just say "It's all in his head".
One thing I do disagree with. You seem to imply that the 50 (!!!) combined break point chances the guys had during their epic are somehow evidence of how sloppy the match was. You fail to mention that these are probably the two best returners of serve in the game, neither of which is a Sampras when it's time to actually hold serve. At the beginning of the match I joked on Twitter that we might end up with 50 combined break point chances. I laughed when I read your piece and saw that 50 ended up being the number. I could get a job in Vegas, if only people cared enough about tennis to gamble on it.—Juan José

I probably should have made it two stats. rather than one, that summed up that semi for me. The break chances and the winner-error ratios: Murray’s was 47/86; Djokovic’s a marginally better 49/69. It was a great match, but a messy one. Neither this one or the men’s final were as clean or winner-heavy as some of the Melbourne classics—Roddick-El Aynaoui, Nadal-Verdasco—of the recent past.

I do associate multiple service breaks with inferior tennis, but maybe that’s something to reconsider when Djoker and Murray train their returns on each other.

*****

Steve thank u for superb observations on a finaI I slept thru to tune out the shrieks.—Douglas Montrose-Graem

Well, that’s one solution to the grunting issue. But I did feel like some inroads were made on the topic Down Under. Azarenka and Sharapova were certainly aware of the level of annoyance, from crowd and press alike. Now it’s time for someone “important” to talk to them about it.

Unfortunately, it could end up being another case of the circular nature of tennis’s issues—as in, they go in circles and we never make progress. Shrieking comes up for two weeks at a major, then disappears from the general media until the next Slam, when we wonder again why nothing is being done about it.

by Pete Bodo

It's only a World Group II, Round 1 match-up (who among you even knows exactly what that means?). It pits the U.S., the most successful team in Fed Cup history, against a Russian satellite republic, Belarus, and if you can name the four nations that border Belarus you win a shiny red Soviet-era tractor!

The tie will take place, starting tomorrow, on indoor hard courts at the DCU Center in Worcester, Mass. If you can tell the nickname of the minor-league hockey team that calls Worcester home, you win a shiny green 1950s-era John Deere tractor! 

As such things go, it's a seemingly innocuous tie. So why does it suddenly feel something like an Alamo moment?

Because the U.S. is led by the Williams sisters, Venus and Serena. Both of them are over 30. Both of them are banged up, and have been, off and on, for a while. Venus, who's closing on 32, has played exactly a dozen matches since the beginning of the year, which wouldn't be so bad if the year in question would be 2012, not 2011. She hasn't won a tournament since she put up back-to-back wins in Dubai and Acapulco almost two full years ago. And she's still in the process of overcoming and managing the effects of the auto-immune disease that wrecked her hopes last year, Sjogren's Syndrome.

Serena is in better shape, but not by all that much. Coming off a 2011 during which she played just two dozen matches (but won titles at Stanford and Toronto), she injured an ankle in Brisbane early this year and pulled out of her third-round match before she hit a ball. At the Australian Open, she was rudely pushed around and hit off the court in the fourth round by the No. 56 player in the world, Ekaterina Makarova. 

The facts suggest that the U.S. is up against it, and would be against almost any nation that has a couple of decent top 10 or 20-type players. But Belarus pulled into Worcester, home of the AHL hockey Sharks, with a newly minted Grand Slam champion, Victoria Azarenka. The 22-year old killed two birds with one stone last week in Melbourne, winning her first major and taking over the No. 1 ranking held in the past by both Williams sisters.

For over a year now, one of the main themes in WTA tennnis has been, how much longer can the Williams sisters go on? If you like to interpret or mull over the symbolic value of events, a Fed Cup win by Belarus in Worcester might strike you as a painful and poignant testament to the fact that the era of U.S. domination in women's tennis is over. Did I say era? You could say it's the end of tennis history as we know it, for the the U.S. has been the dominant force in tennis since the get-go. In fact, you could make the case that women's tennis as we know it today is a U.S. invention (thank-you, Billie Jean).

Can Armageddon be forestalled, one more time, while U.S. fans and tennis honchos wait for Christina McHale, Taylor Townsend, Sloane Stephens and other promising youngsters to get good, quick? It's an interesting question, and whether or not Venus is selected to play will have a bearing on how it's answered. If she remains on the bench the Alamo narrative will lose some of its edge. But she certainly seems ready to go:

"It's huge to have Venus on the team," U.S. captain Mary Joe Fernandez said the other day in Worcester, "Just to have her around is a big motivator for the rest of your team. It's a big excitement. She was itching to get out there to hit that first ball. I think that goes such a long way. The attitude, everybody seeing it, seeing the desire, the determination, the intensity, it rubs off. It's great to see Venus out there this morning hitting well, working hard. For me it's a big treat and honor to have her on this team."

Serena, by contrast, was sounding — and being spoken of — less like a potential mascot than a truculent combatant, ready to lace 'em up. When she was asked in the pre-draw press conference how, having been No. 1 for so long, it might feel to be playing a No. 1, her reply was stony:

"Yeah, I feel fine," she said. "I played a lot of No. 1's. It doesn't change anything."

This is encouraging, at least for U.S. fans. Beware Serena when her nose is out of joint.

As for the ankle, she added: "The ankle is better. Every day it's feeling better. It's not a hundred percent. But it's better than it was last week and two weeks ago."

Whomever Fernandez sends out there ("It's sort of a last-minute decision," she said. "We'll see how everybody is playing.") is guaranteed to have her hands full with the No. 1 player for Belarus. Azarenka may be tired from all the hoopla surrounding and following here great win Down Under, but she isn't taking this tie lightly. "I'm a patriot of my country," she declared during her presser. "I think it's important for all the athletes to participate and play for your country."

Given the energy level Azarenka typically brings to the fray, it's not inconceivable that she would play in all three matches for Belarus. The key singles match up is the third rubber, in which the team's respective No. 1s (Serena Williams and Azarenka) battle it out to open the second and final day of play. 

Azarenka vs. Serena Williams is a given; the real question is, who will play No. 2 for the U.S.? My guess is that Venus is in Worcester mainly to play doubles, if at all — can you imagine the captain asking Venus to play her first competitive singles match in five months against the new world No. 1?  And Fernandez has a terrific No. 2 option in McHale. The stars appear to be lining up nicely for the precociously poised, gritty 19-year old.  

McHale is already ranked No. 38 and she recently upset Lucie Safarova, the No. 24 seed, in Australia. She won another match there as well (against gifted hard-luck story, Marina Erakovic), before she lost to former No. 1 Jelena Jankovic. You would have to like McHale over either No. 65 Anastasiya Yakimova (she hasn't won a match this year in three events) or no. 97 Olga Govortsova, who's won just two.

Despite the volume of distractions and the general fatigue factor, Azarenka can be expected to go all-out. Her three countrywomen have only lost two doubles matches (19-2) between them, but have rarely faced anyone, in any alignment, comparable to the team of Venus and Serena Williams — or the No. 1 ranked doubles player Liezel Huber and anyone.

This one may come down to the doubles, unless Serena Williams can win her two singles and McHale (or Venus) comes up with a win in the battle of the No. 2s. It would be nice to see Armageddon postponed — at least for a little while longer.

A pattern has emerged in the later rounds of men’s Grand Slams over the last year. Novak Djokovic faces Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer. Djokovic, usually, wins. The audience, just as often, comes away disappointed.

This phenomenon was most obvious at Roland Garros in 2011, when Federer was the severe crowd favorite in his semi against the Serb. But it was just as true at Flushing Meadows, where Sarah Jessica Parker and the rest of the New York City audience  came to life as Nadal was doing the same late in the third set. And it was true again in Rod Laver Arena early Monday morning. The biggest roar of the six-hour final accompanied an inside-out forehand winner that Nadal ripped when he was up 4-2 in the fifth set. For the first time in hours, it appeared that Rafa was going to win. The crowd was ready to help get him home. He didn't make it, and they were left to cheer appreciatively, but not wildly, for the champ.

Djokovic is the world’s best player by a country mile at the moment. He’ll head for Paris in May trying to become the first man since 1969 to win four straight majors—the Djoker Slam. But while he is a king in his home country, on the evidence of the audience reactions I’ve seen over the last 12 months, he has yet to conquer the hearts of tennis fans worldwide. This shouldn’t be all that surprising. Fans rarely accept new stars right away in this sport, especially when they’re knocking off old favorites. And Federer and Nadal aren’t just any old favorites. Few players have enjoyed the worldwide popularity that they have. Together they seem to account for every tennis fan on earth; if most of us are either in Roger’s or Rafa’s camp, that doesn’t leave a lot of love left over for Nole. For even more casual observers, the general attitude might be summed up by ESPN pundit Tony Kornheiser's line about the changes at the top of the men’s game: “Djokovic? I was just getting used to Nadal.”

This isn’t to say that Djokovic is a modern-day Ivan Lendl, a dour, unbeatable villain presiding over the demise of a beloved rivalry and golden age. But he did rub people the wrong way in his brash early days, with his noisy entourage, on-court ailments, and protracted ball bouncing. Despite his historic effort at this year’s Aussie Open, his shirtless, screaming victory celebration likely didn’t win him many new fans from the sport’s traditionalist base, the same fans who have made Federer a demigod for the better part of a decade.

OK, Djokovic is not the elegant maestro; nor does he exude the childlike passion for the sport that has endeared Nadal to so many. Not every champion is going to be beloved, but tennis fans should be getting used to the idea that this one is here to stay, and that the Federer-Nadal duopoly no longer rules. What’s a diehard Roger or Rafa fan to do in these dark times? You know what they say: Focus on the positive. Here are four things that any tennis fan should be able to appreciate about Novak Djokovic.

*****

Djokovic is a good sport in two senses of the word
It’s true that he has retired from matches that looked like losing causes, rather than going down with the ship. And his full-scream victory celebrations may seem over the top to some. But Djokovic is also quick to applaud an opponent’s good shot, even when he’s behind in the score. And after a tough defeat, like his loss to Federer at the French Open last year, he’ll still go in for the congratulatory hug.

He’s also a good sport in the other sense of the word. During the Aussie Open, the Bryan brothers talked about how, unlike other top players who will keep their distance, he was happy to jump onstage with their band and rap with them. Djokovic was also happy to do the same thing a few minutes after his exhausting win over Nadal, when he reportedly belted out a rendition of AC/DC’s “Highway to Hell” at the Aussie Open staff party. Uptight he isn't.

Djokovic is a versatile performer
The players put on an exhibition before the weekend before the Australian Open began. Djokovic, as he typically is in these situations, was at the center of the fun, pretending to have a heart attack on the court.

Two weeks later, in a very different mood, Djokovic found just the right words and tone in his trophy speech after the final. He recognized that it had been a battle that could have gone either way, and he began by emphasizing the collaboration between the two players in making it an epic match: “We made history,” he told Nadal. There was pride but no sense of triumphalism in any of his words during the speech. For a top athlete, celebrity, and national figure in his country, Djokovic exhibits surprisingly little ego or self-regard.

Djokovic’s return of serve alone is worth the price of admission
He often doesn’t appear to be doing anything spectacular on the court; Djokovic’s game is based more on lack of weaknesses than it is on standout shot-making. But Nadal, for one, in his post-final presser, was impressed by one element of his game in particular. Without being asked, Rafa sang a short hymn to the Djokovic return of serve, saying it had to be one of the “best of history.”

Watch Djokovic hit returns next time he plays. He makes a spectator sport out of that shot alone, the same way Pete Sampras did with the serve. On one point, he’ll hit it early with his backhand, direct the ball at a sharp crosscourt angle, and take the initiative from his opponent with one swing. On the next point, he’ll leap out of the way of a serve hit right at him and reflex back a deep forehand return while his body is moving in the other direction. Djokovic's particular athletic mix—his balance, quickness, and hand-eye—is on full display when he's returning.

In the Aussie Open final, Djokovic combined the best of Federer and Nadal
For the better part of three sets, he made beating a 10-time Slam winner look ridiculously easy. Djokovic moved smoothy, almost casually. He controlled the rallies without taking big risks. He got the ball into Nadal’s backhand seemingly at will. He dialed the pace up as needed. Like Federer, he made all of it appear effortless.

In the end, though, it took effort, a lot of it. In the end, Djokovic needed to out-Rafa Rafa. Down 5-4 in the fifth set, with the crowd against him again, having run for 10 hours over the last three days, Djokovic came out after the changeover and started firing with more confidence than he had shown all set. He shrugged off the disappointment of blowing the fourth, and won the last three games against a guy who was 15-3 in five-set matches.

Federer and Nadal fans may not have loved seeing another Slam fall to the world No. 1, but it was an effort worthy of the era that those two players began, and that Djokovic is poised to continue. It was worthy of a round of applause from any tennis lover.

by Pete Bodo

The national motto of France is Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. But the national motto of French tennis is more like Bewitch, Promise, Gag.

Was there a more disappointing one-two fold at the Australian Open than the one turned in by those two superbly gifted French players, Gael Monfils and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga?

I suppose you can add Richard Gasquet (the artist formerly known as "Baby Federer") to make it a trinity, although Monfils and Tsonga have proven themselves of a superior class, results-wise if not on pure talent (although in my opinion it's both). It's probably painful for the faithful, but let's review.

Gasquet (ATP No. 16): Down at Hopman Cup, Gasquet generated some headlines (okay, it was a pretty slow week) when he declared that he wanted to turn over a new leaf, get himself back up into that Top 10 territory he inhabited at times in 2007 and 2008. "I will try and break into the Top 10, I did it some years ago and I'm not far this year too," he told reporters at the Hopman Cup. "I think I will be able to do it this year in 2012."

But after leading France to the final of that exhibition, Gasquet lost to No. 67 Dennis Istomin in Sydney. He did a decent job reaching the fourth round of the Australian Open, but then was totally blown out by No. 5 David Ferrer, who allowed Gasquet just five games.

Monfils (ATP No. 13): Does it tell you something that La Monf's career-high ranking is the same as Gasquet's, No. 7? Now he's ranked just three places ahead of Gasquet. Monfils won the fourth ATP title of his career in Stockholm last fall, and when he racked up his second career win over Rafael Nadal at Doha, he understandably rekindled hope. Hey, by the end of that win over Rafa, the Doha crowd was chanting Monfils' name. 

Monfils was giving his friend and countryman Tsonga all he wanted in the Doha final, but he lost control of his lead late in the first set and went down, 7-5, 6-3. Instead of a potentially career-shaping win, Monflis had to settle for his 12th loss in a final. But with the two Frenchmen emerging from a loaded field to play the final, things were looking pretty good for the Tricolore set at Melbourne.

At the Australian Open, Monfils lasted just three rounds before he crashed out at the hands of No. 92 Mikhail Kukushkin, 6-4 in the fifth.

Tsonga (ATP No. 6): The only player who was considered more of an outside threat than Tsonga to win the first Grand Slam of the year was Tomas Berdych of the Czech Republic. Berdych would go down with his head high, losing in the quarterfinals (he made his seed, No. 7) to the eventual runner up, Nadal. Too good.

By contrast, Tsonga, seeded sixth, was laid low by lowly No. 24 Kei Nishikori in the fourth round. It wasn't just that Tsonga lost, but how he lost. Tsonga outweighs Nishikori by a good 50 pounds and has a four-inch height advantage. But, as the five-setter wore on, Tsonga seemed to lose the physical battle—even though the sets were lopsided either way (neither player won more than three games in losing any of the sets).

Looking tired and out of sorts, Tsonga tried to blast his way to the win, showing none of the patience and determination that are essential ingredients for success at major events. Granted, Nishikori can be a tough customer, and he's made steady progress with his solid, hard-hitting baseline game (he cracked the Top 20 by virtue of that win over Tsonga). But Tsonga, who made the only Grand Salm final of his career on the same Melbourne Park courts in 2008, was one of the major disappointments in Oz.

***

If you're a glutton for punishment on this topic, you might also consider the resume of Gilles Simon, currently No. 12. He's the least talked-about among the top French players, yet he's been ranked higher (No. 6) than either Gasquet or Monfils, and he's an admirable—and un-Gallic—9-2 in finals. That's the best winning percentage, as well as greatest number of titles, of this entire group.

Simon lost in the second round in Melbourne to 30-year-old Julien Benneteau, ranked No. 39. That was the bad news. The good news is that the winner was his countryman, and although he went out in the next round (l. to Nishikori), Benneteau he was one Frenchman who exceeded expectations.

by Pete Bodo

When Horia Tecau of Romania and Bethanie Mattek-Sands of Saturn (yes, she's that far out there—and in a good way!) won the mixed doubles at the Australian Open, Tecau was so stunned and happy that he didn't want to leave the court. "I was thinking, 'Security is going to have to drag him off,"Mattek-Sands remarked in their presser. "He was, like, 'I'm just gonna stay here. . .'"

Eventually, though, Tecau did reluctantly depart. After all, he had a flight booked for just a few hours later, and the journeymen and doubles specialists have to keep those change fees and other expenses down if they wish to continue following their bliss.

You know how it is in tennis: the doubles game conspicuously plays second-fiddle to singles, and mixed doubles inconspicuously adds largely unheard notes at third fiddle. But still. How many people do you know who can legitimately claim to be a Grand Slam champion? The result goes into the history books (and you'd be surprised at how often it pops up among those who really care); the names go on the trophy, or the honor roll, or maybe just the wall of the stadium. You win a title, you leave a mark.

Winning anything is a fine achievement, and only those who have never or will never accomplish anything would pooh-pooh it. And winning is the entire point of tennis. Mattek-Sands and Tecau have earned a place among those we call "champions," and their joy at arriving there was unqualified. 

The team, seeded eighth, won the title over the No. 5 seeds, Russian veteran Elena Vesnina and India's doubles genius, Leander Paes. The scores were 6-3, 7-5, 10-3 (match tiebreaker). It was an upset, and a quality win.

I don't care what event you're playing—this was a Grand Slam final, and that always means pressure. A tennis player dreams of winning Grand Slam titles from about the first day he or she swings a racquet. And a tennis player would rather win a Grand Slam final than lose one, because it will be more fun for the rest of her life to say, "I won a Grand Slam title" than, "I got to a Grand Slam final but I lost." And if you want to get all crass about it, these tennis players knew that the winning team gets to split $135,000.

Those are big numbers to the kinds of players who play mixed. How would you like to have to make a first serve with your share of the pot riding on it?  More interestingly, how would you like to have to do that knowing that your partner's share is also riding on your racquet?

I often wish tennis would celebrate its doubles events with as much gusto the singles, but I'm reconciled to the fact that the world doesn't work that way. The players are, too. You can talk about that all you want over a drink or at dinner, but for those who actually get to walk out on those courts, all that stuff tends to fall away, and they're left with the simple reality that winning earns you some money and makes you feel good; losing disappoints you, even if—or especially if—you don't care so much about the money.

When Mattek-Sands and Tecau were asked where this win ranks among their "achievements," and if the experience was "top of the line," Tecau lost no time replying:

"Yes, it's a Grand Slam title."

Whereupon Mattek-Sands chimed in, "Yeah. It's a Grand Slam title." She laughed. "Yeah, it's top."

The mixed final was played on the last day of the tournament. The only players left who needed the locker rooms were Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Mattek-Sands, Tecau, Vesnina and Paes. Because all women's events were long done, Tecau, Mattek-Sands and friends were able to celebrate with champagne in the women's locker room. 

They had to make it a short party, though. The winners barely had an hour to make the flights they'd booked, and neither of them was about to pay a late fee, despite having almost $70,000 each.

by Pete Bodo

Can a single point, or series of points, have a career-shaping influence on a player? Guillermo Coria might say so, for he'll forever wonder what might have been had he converted either of those two match points he held against Gaston Gaudio in the 2005 French Open final. You'll remember that the loss appeared to have a devastating effect on Coria, and played a role in driving him into a premature retirement.

Andy Roddick also might think so, looking back on that volley he missed on set point in the second-set tiebreaker of his 2009 Wimbledon final against Roger Federer. Had he made that shot, Roddick would have been up two-sets-to-none on a day when his serve was outstanding. Instead, Federer went on to win the tiebreaker and the match, 16-14 in the fifth. It was Grand Slam No. 15 for Federer; for Roddick, for whom winning even one Wimbledon would be a career-capping triumph, it was a fourth loss there to Rog. Three of those painful defeats were in finals.

That raises the question, will Rafael Nadal be permanently marked by that critical, backhand miss in the Australian Open final a few days ago? You know the point: Rafa, mounting a furious fightback, broke Nadal Djokovic to take a 4-2 lead in the fifth set. Serving the next game, he made a forehand inside-out winner to go up 15-0. Djokovic then tagged a second-serve cross-court service-return winner. 15-all. But Rafa replied with a service winner to Djokovic's vaunted backhand for a 30-15 lead. It was the 11th time he won the point in the last 12 attempts when Rafa put his first serve into play.

During the next point, though, Rafa hit a weak drop volley that Djokovic chased down. But he wasn't able to do much with it, and Nadal had a great look at a backhand down-the-line pass. He missed it, plain and simple. It was a critical error that made many in the crowd gasp. Instead of 40-15, it was 30-all.

The miss had an immediate, painful impact. After it, Nadal surrendered the game with two quick forehand errors. Worse yet, he lapsed back into defensive mode in the very next game, which Djokovic ran off at love to level the match at 4-all. 

"Well, with the 4-2 was advantage because I felt very well physically in the moment," Nadal said afterward. "I felt with very positive energy, and I played a fantastic first point of the 4-2 with the forehand winner down the line after he had that return. . . It's true I had big mistake with 30-15. But it's not the (right) moment to think about that. That's just another moment in an almost six hours match.  Forget about that, knowing that I really had real, very real chances to have the title and to win against a player who I lost (to) six times last year."

That has to be the way Nadal looks at it, but at the same time it makes you wonder what might flicker in his mind if he ever finds himself in a comparable situation with Djokovic in the future. There's no way to know about that until it happens, and you can bet that should a similar point be played by these two in the future, somebody will remember what happened last Sunday, and make a point of asking the players about it.

But remember, even if Rafa had made that pass, it doesn't mean that he would have gone on hold, never mind win the match. Not any more than a conversion of that backhand volley by Roddick would have automatically resulted in a win over Federer.

In the quote two paragraphs up, you'll notice the ellipses marks indicating that some text was removed. Here's what I took out because it wasn't terribly relevant at the moment (it also jumps off the transcript as something like a unfiltered, spontaneous observation that Nadal couldn't suppress, or wait any longer to make):

"Is something unbelievable how he returns, no?  His return probably is one of the best of the history. That's my opinion, no? I never played against a player who's able to return like this. Almost every time."

A Nadal fan might be moved to wince by the obvious note of awe in that remark, but I think it's a net plus for Rafa when it comes to weighing the potential long-term impact of that seventh game. If you reinsert that passage and re-read the entire quote, you can see that Nadal's analysis includes an appropriate respect for, and acceptance of, Djokovic's returning skills, as well as a tempered evaluation of the place of that game in the grand scheme of things.

In other words, Nadal probably won't be haunted by that backhand miss. He feels the game was about Djokovic's returning skill. The next time they meet, Nadal will be less likely to fret about missing a similar shot or opportunity than about what Djokovic's return skills demand of his serve game. 

Great players have short memories. If Nadal loses any sleep over this match, it's unlikely to be over that missed backhand pass.

by Pete Bodo

Billie Jean King will always be remembered as a firebrand and activist, a woman who's always been sensitive to the sting of injustice, going all the way back to age 12 and the day when Perry T. Jones, the martinet and president of the Southern California Tennis Association, refused to put Billie Jean into a group photo of junior players because she was wearing shorts rather than a tennis dress.

As a woman who crept out of the closet long after her tennis career was over to quietly advocate for gay rights, Billie Jean must have been disappointed with the remarks her career rival and friend Margaret Court made on the subject of gay marriage. But when Australian gay rights activist Kerryn Phelps (note the strategic placement of the LOVE sculpture in this news story) began to beat the drum with the hope of mustering enough support to force Tennis Australian to rename the arena that bears Court's name, Billie Jean stood by her long-time friend (the women faithfully keep a dinner date each year during Wimbledon).

"No, no, no, don't get rid of her for that," King said. "Because you don’t agree with her? Are you kidding? Just because you don’t agree with someone? Please. She deserves it. She’s a great player."

Not long ago, King had the USTA National Tennis Center, home of Arthur Ashe Stadium and the U.S. Open, named after her. Yet the entirely outdoor Margaret Court Arena at the Australian Open in Melbourne Park is just the third-largest court on the grounds (Hisense Arena, with a retractable roof and 11,000 seats, easily dwarfs it—as does the main, roofed stadium, Rod Laver Arena). Is that any way to treat the all-time, all-gender Grand Slam champion (she won 24 major singles titles, and loads more in various doubles), who also is just one of just three women to have completed a calendar year Grand Slam?

"I thought the center court should be Laver and her, named together," Billie Jean added. "They’re the two greatest champions in our game, and she had more Slams," King said. "For her to have court 3 is terrible. I was furious. I went to the heads of Australia, I told them I don’t agree with this. You can’t do this, you can’t give her court 3, she deserves much better than this. That’s a disgrace to women. She won 62 Grand Slam titles, how could you ever give her court 3. It was diabolical."

Absurdly, some activists even wanted to see the Court arena renamed for Renaee Stubbs, the Australian journeywoman who came out as a lesbian to great fanfare in the Age newspaper during the Australian Open of 2006. Stubbs won several Grand Slam and mixed doubles titles, but she never even came close to a final in singles.

Martina Navratilova, another great lesbian champion, was somewhat tougher on Court than was King, but she also rejected calls for a gay jihad against Court in the name of "tolerance" and "human rights." Navratilova said she did not feel uncomfortable at all playing a Legends event at the Australian Open on the Court court: "It's an honor, as always, to be on that court. It's a personal issue. Clearly Margaret Court's views that she has expressed on same-sex marriage, same-gender marriage, I think are outdated."

The attitudes of King and Navratilova, who both support gay marriage, were classy, open-minded and tolerant. They presented themselves—and their beliefs—in a light that will win friends to their cause.