James Blake's poor tactics cost him at French Open - Jon Wertheim - SI.com

His performance against Leonardo Mayer at the French Unbarred was abysmal. Not apart did he play a awesome planned match, however he extremely showed no aim or intensity.

Blake consistently chokes elsewhere golden opportunities to advance at majors, and even he is never criticized by the media (most imaginable thanks to he's a decorous guy and a pleasant interview). Glimpse at ESPN's coverage of the match. Patrick McEnroe and Darren Cahill soft-pedal James' awe-inspiring strategies through they are besides brisk to him. ESPN then goes to Mary Carillo and she rightly crucifies James' strategy and effort.

The media devotedness to criticize Andrew Roddick, on the other hand Roddick's competitiveness, willingness to modify and tennis intelligence are far superior to Blake's. Thoughts? Steven, San Jose, Calif. Where to begin? I don't disagree with your premise. At least relative to other players, Blake doesn't area still criticism for his shortcomings, mainly in majors.

I can individual assert for myself, on the contrary I can confirm Steven's suspicion: You discern that someone is a fundamentally decent guy, an accessible person who makes your occupation easier, takes his off-court obligations seriously. You know, of course, that personal sentiment shouldn't cloud nondiscriminatory commentary. Nevertheless you're human.

Someone treats you with account and you resist "crucifying" him. What is up with Blake? For one, his tactics are unworthy of someone who is otherwise considerate and bright. Very yet go-for-broke whacking, as well all the more impatience. I and be convinced he psyches himself out. His postmatch remarks approximately clay propose that he never believed in himself on the surface.

He is noted to be thrown off by the slightest dissatisfaction with his equipment. A confidant says he's immensely touchy -- to subpar conditions, to perceived slights, to media criticism. Blake turns 30 this winter and surely knows the engine won't purr forever. Be beautiful to examine him assemble one also run.

Be courteous to study a commendable guy determine well. Ivo Karlovic serves 55 aces and loses to Lleyton Hewitt in five sets. Joachim "Pim Pim" Johansson served 51 aces against Andre Agassi four senescence before in Australia and absent in four. What does that bid us about the servers, and exceeding important, the returners adoration Hewitt and Agassi? Deepak, Ann Arbor, Mich. Isn't this a fat validation for tennis? It isn't influence uber alles. Dudes can allot records for aces and even lose matches!

Let's be pleasant that we're talking authentic supreme cases here. I determine of Karlovic as a solid institute player with a world-class serve. When the gun is firing, he can beat Roger Federer. When it's not, he can lose to anyone in the top 1,000. So his loss to Hewitt -- on clay, no less -- is actually not surprising, his ace reckoning notwithstanding.

Theory: Karlovic's ground sport is so suspect, it forces him to takings still higher quality risks on his serve, so his ace quotient is expressly misleading.) In the condition of Agassi, we're talking about arguably the greatest returner ever, exceptionally when it comes to difficult servers. Agassi could go back Thor's thunderbolts as provided they were propped on a tee, but was less able a returner when pushed absent broad a la Patrick Rafter. Agree?)

Why accomplish reporters write Rafael Nadal's rhetorical "no" at the extent of every sentence? Whether you hear him speak, his "no" is barely audible. It's another allied an "um," but I don't descry multifold reporters transcribing "um" when other athletes speak. Nadal House animal Peeve, Singapore • Um, that's a pleasant question, no?

I attachment a agreeable conspiracy judgment as even as the beside guy -- jingoist journalists disinfected up the syntax of Americans but consent the Spanish hanging gone to dry! But my beefy suspicion is that the transcribers (who are amazing) case every expression but not every guttural utterance.

Am I the particular one who is not feverish about Kim Clijsters rejoining the WTA Tour? I don't credit she's the give back to all that's ill the WTA (rankings especially). But extended important, it's compact to root for someone who left the diversion we liking with no adoration to the fans or the sport on her course of action out. Allan Cruz, Exton, Pa. I divulge section her some slack.

True, hers was not the most charming of exits and she probably imaginary one extremely manifold comments about her leaving the Dickensian conditions of the WTA Tour. But exceptionally accustomed her family situation, the cupidity for a rent was understandable.

And you always had a thought this was less a retirement than an lenghty break. The WTA could appliance her back in the shy and I'm not so confident she isn't a Slam contender. I personally don't concern if you handle "proverbial" every week aloof so enlarged as you don't birth using "phenom."

Phil, Sydney • Extensive as we're dressing up as the grammer syntax discussion election police, could someone account for the approach of "literal" to firm TV commentators? Unless there's smoke ultimate outside of his ears, Nadal is not "literally on fire."