Will be interesting to see how much Wawrinka yells tomorrow when he plays Federer. If Ana does not win the French, it will be 3 years since she won her only Slam. If Ana does not win a Slam before 2012 is over, will the media start to use the fluke to describe her French title in 2008?

"For a fan, team sports are about liking yourself. You root for the group of people who represent you."

I wonder. Interesting you like Nadal and Ivanovic, there are some similarities there as both are attractive, with sweet smiles, friendly off-court personas, and some on-court aggressiveness in their mannerisms.

Do they really resemble you in some way, or how you'd like to be?

It's strange; objectively I "like" them both as in they seem like very nice people. But subjectively, I wince every time Ana fistpumps or Nadal yells "vamos." And I can't exactly say why.

Wow - people think Ana reaching no. 1 and winning a slam is "relative mediocrity"? I think those accomplishments warrant attention, in addition to her beauty. Anna K. on the other hand.... that's relative mediocrity getting undue attention.

Steve, I just love your blogs. They are awesome.

yes great posts Steve, wish Bodo was half as good

Ficklness of human nature....was the first thought that crossed my mind after the first few paragraphs...and as I continued to read I thought, now you have opened Pandora's box here, Steve and as you had me completely spellbound at the end I snapped out of it remembering a few lines from one of my old teenage truth-searching poems:

If I scratch the truth,
I shall lose my fingers,
Where's the mistake?

To glow or not to glow, mmmmm....
I have become such a lover of tennis, I am not liking more and more rarely, instead I am more into liking or loving, eg. my former indiferrence to certain players' shots (say Wawrinka) have transformed into cold liking and appreciating the.
Sometimes the internet connection/stream was so bad that I couldn't distinguish the players properly, and then I found myself cheering THE OTHER guy!!!!
Now back to glow....mmmm...still nothing....Novak is more than glow...for me it must be the eyes, something about the eyes, definitely. They are either alive to you or not :) !

loved this post

I don't think we need to justify why we like who we like or dislike who we dislike. It's a human thing. And a chemistry thing.

There's types of personalities I like and ones I don't and with tennis being such an individual sport, personalities are definitely part of the package.

But as for the Swiss flag waving fans taking up Wawrinka's cause, isn't that 'cause they're, well...Swiss? I'd just assume anyone waving a Swiss flag would have some sort of Swiss affiliation. Or am I totally wrong?

I mean, I like Kohlschreiber, but it would never occur to me to go to one of his matches with a German flag unless I were German.

"When people talk about art, even if they know nothing about it, they can at least fall back on the fail-safe position, “I know what I like.”

And there lies the answer to a question I'm not sure you've even asked: pure art does not need any "knowledge", it's paper-pushing and vanity. Same goes with everything else.
Let's all throw a stone and see whose one will reach the Moon closest!
No two people have same fingerprints. Therein lies the answer.

Love this as well. My like or dislike of certain players can be so random and illogical, as you say. Makes the kind of sense that doesn't. And I found I can be totally fickle about some. Hated Del Po originally and now I'm a big fan. Used to like Venus more than Serena and now it's the other way around.

But I do think that the unique dynamic of men watching women and women watching men in tennis can add an extra level of like that other sports don't often enjoy. Basically, yes, my like of Ferrer and dislike of Wawrinka does have something to do with me thinking Ferrer is hot and Wawrinka is not.

I'm reading this as something of a companion piece to your previous blog concerning the Fedal narratives. It would be pleasing if the fans reacting to these pieces took this as an opportunity to reflect on the role of non-rational "liking" in their responses not just to the players but to other fans and *their* "likings".

For my part, I can easily imagine being a fanatical Rafa fan -- there is almost nothing I don't like about the guy or his game. But I'm not. Instead, I have been since 2003 a strong Federer fan, with in recent times a slowly growing sense of melancholy morphing into nostalgia. And I know this has adversely affected my appreciation of Nadal's game in ways that are not completely rational.

On a broader note, I have found it hard to like almost any top American player, with the exception of Agassi (why? don't know), since Arthur Ashe. And this seems to be in inverse proportion to their success, so Sampras, McEnroe and Connors were all at the top of my dislike list in their days.

I am not too bothered by these prejudices, but I do try to remain mindful of them when contributing to forums such as this where many people hold completely opposite prejudices for reasons no more or less valid than my own.

Fortunately, unlike politics for instance, nothing important hinges on the outcomes of tennis matches, so we *should* be able to afford the luxury of calm acceptance of other people's views. If only ...

And how about Troicki braking the racquet over his thigh yesterday!!!!!
are people here aware how difficult that is?

Pure madness, and I loved it!

I really like this article Steve, you nailed it.
Tennis fandom of any player is as irrational and unconscious as it can be. There are players that I love to hate (not real hate, of course) but off court they seem really nice guys to me. Like Federer. I can't stand him on court, almost everything he does annoys me. I don't even enjoy his beautiful game. I dislike him as a player. Now, off court, I always check out this videos, ads, interviews, exos, etc. I find him really nice, sweet, handsome and i absolutely love his giggling. But I will never ever be a fan of him. I like Nadal a little better on court (great guy also off court) but I get really bored with his game. My favorite is Djokovic, has been from the first moment I saw him in 2007. I felt in love with his cocky attitude, his energy, his looks, his game. It was instant connection. I couldn't cheer for anyone else after him. When Djokovic bounces the ball 20 times, I giggle to myself. I'm sure it's annoying to everyone else, but to me it's a small signal that he's concentrating and probably going to hit a good serve. Instead, I can't stand Nadal's ritual before the serve. All those seconds going by, all his strange movements and ticks enervate me like no other. If I was next to him on the court I'd probably slap him. He irritates me that much. But it just lasts those 30 seconds. It's funny.

And last but not the least...is anyone here a fervent fan of Ivo Karlovic?

Ivo is making a very decent run, I'd love to see him go deeper. I always love it when players give the surprise, like Ljubo last year.

Very interesting article, and a fantastic one! Steve, somehow these days I find your articles on general tennis much better than the ones you do on match reports, or draw previews -- they are beginning to feel repetitive to me -- in terms of content. And one cannot connect to them if you have not watched the match. I guess you can work on that (yes, yes, a wannabe writer giving tips to a writing genius! But then everybody of us gives suggestions to Federer or Nadal as well, so why not?).

Anyway, loved this article. Damn good. And somehow, while reading it, it was as if I was reading my own thoughts! We both have a good similarity in terms of tennis liking and disliking. Perhaps thats also a reason why I enjoy your blogs so much.

Our thoughts about players can certainly change over time; as we change our mind about them and what they represent to us. I used to love Fed's game; I tried to watch his matches if I could; then in 2009 at Oz Open, I read some of his comments which sounded arrogant to me; so I stopped liking him so much. I turned my affection to Rafa Nadal; heard something a commentator said about his mentality and I was hooked; loved his humbleness and grounded nature. Over time I stopped hating Fed and have become neutral towards him.

Also if you like a player, you might extend that liking to his friends. So now I include David Ferrer in my "like" group. We all have little things which appeal to us prob sub-conscious. I like some of the upcoming players, why? something appealing about their play (which is of course their nature). I like Dolgopolov - love his style and his long hair. Also like Somdev Devvarman, why I don't know.

It is endless, these changes of heart. All there is -- is change.

MasterAce,

When Ana won that FO, it was her third GS final in 12 months (and the second FO final). That win was no fluke.

It's curious what has happened to her since. I think she is going through some growing-up pains. She still has her weapons, her talent. I think it's all mental. I am optimistic. I think she will grow into a strong woman, and will get back to the very top, where she belongs.

Another dimension to this is *dislike*. I'm neutral-to-slightly-negative on Wawrinka, but at the 2009 Wimbledon when he looked like he was about to upset Murray--I player I truly *loathe*--I enjoyed 4 hours of rabid Stan fandom. It's a sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" dynamic--I can cheer like crazy for a guy I dislike if he's playing well against a player I truly hate!

I love Karlovic. Which is weird, because as a rule I tend to dislike dominant servers (Sampras, Roddick). But Karlovic is unique because the rest of his game is so (relatively) bad, that I get some kind of perverse pleasure out of watching him on a good serving day because of the sheer frustration he creates in his opponents. On a different 2009 Wimbledon note, the Karlovic-Verdasco match was enthralling mainly because Verdasco was playing so well and yet making zero progress. I thought he was going to explode by the end of the match--you could just see the wheels turning in his head, wondering how he was losing to a guy who can barely keep a forehand in the court.

I'm excited for Rafa-Ivo; Rafa described it best in his press conference last night, saying that most matches come down to 20 or 30 points, and the better player wins. But against Karlovic, it usually comes down to 2 or 3 points--"he makes it a lottery." Very perceptive from Rafa.

Likeable article. Doesn't make too much sense :) but you just rarely get honesty out of tennis writers and honesty with some humor and self irony is very much appretiated.

I myself who as a boxing fan learned how to distance myself from siding with one still end up backing one tennis player about 4 games in, even though I sit down totally uninterested in the winner most of the time, only interested in a nice match. Wawrinka is fun to watch but it's absolutely daytime, surface, sun color and mood dependent if I end up rooting for him or for the opponent. I have my favorites of course, but the dozen who I watch for the style with no emotional interest end up as much having my support as much as not, 2-5 games in and my choice of support comes "naturally".

Probably will take some years to start watching for the game and end up doing that.

Excellent, excellent read, Steve. And good food for thought.

dan - Very good point re: "dislike." Indeed, sometimes the matches that are most fun to watch are those in which you're rooting for the lesser of two evils.

Maybe past a certain age, "like" & "love" should in such writings as these always appear in quotes. Nabokov said "reality" is a word that should always appear that way. Anyway, why do I "like" Roddick in spite of, eg, his sometimes fractious behavior on court, or in spite of, let's say, frustration with what seems to be his resistance to what shots I think he should play or should have made. "Yep, " I can hear myself saying, "came to the net at the wrong time." I "like" Roddick, maybe "love" Roddick because I see a touch of tragedy--dare I use the word about a tennis pro?--in his constant straining to make himself better in spite of--another phrase that seems to apply to him--his limitations. & now the Great Limiter, Time, has cast his shadow over Roddick's career just as it has over Federer & will over Nadal. It's woeful & wonderful at the same time, tennis is, so it's of course a metaphor for life. Another thoughtful column by Tignor.

noleisthebest 03/17/2011 at 07:08 PM

And last but not the least...is anyone here a fervent fan of Ivo Karlovic?
-------------

Ha! That would be me. Through being blackballed by the Croatian Federation and press over unsubstantiated rumors he requested a private plane to a Davis Cup tie; on the bench while Ljubicic and Ancic won the Cup as a 2-man team; that rubber with triple-digit aces that he lost anyway; too tall and not pretty enough to compete for teenage hearts with Goran and Mario; 32 years old and never really learned how to hit a backhand... but mainly the lonely history behind that serve, growing up dirt poor in a depressing and gray part of former Yugoslavia, hitting bucket after bucket of used balls on some public court, and taking that serve to sunny happy places all over the world. Plus, when I met him a couple of years ago, he seemed as embarrassed as I was that I barely came up to his elbow, and hunched his shoulders a little in that way awkward teens do. A true "gentle giant" - what's not to like? This tournament is the best I've ever seen him play. People who complain that he's got one shot - well, wouldn't everyone want his/her own favorite to have such a weapon?

AMAZING article!! i feel the same towards ana and ppl keep asking me why because she isn't playing well for quite some time now...but she made a comeback..she has showed that she truly loves the sport and thats why i really love her!! go ana!

Nadal and Hewitt.
Nadal uppercut-the people love it.Hewitt lawnmower-why do peole hate it?
Serena fistpump-hated by all,Clisters fist pump-oh the crowd cant get enough.
AND some peole actually like Pepsi over Coke(the cola).

Ixvnyc,
Good point about Ana win not a fluke as she lost to Justine at 2007 French and 2008 Australian Open to Maria.

Liking one player over another is a mysterious business. I remember watching Roddick Vs Gasquet the other day and if it were a slam I would completely root for Roddick. I like his tenacity and his personality, and it helps that he's an American and so am I. But I was rooting for Gasquet because it was a master's tournament and Gasquet has a similar game to mine. I do a reassessment everytime I watch Federer as well. I love watching the guy, but sometimes I like to watch the other guy win. I want to see him cement his place as the GOAT but I rooted for Roddick in the 2009 wimbledon final. It's not about which players you like, it's about which players you like on any given day.

not disappointed at all today. Lovely read on a topic that surely resonates with every tennis fan. Looking forward to an interesting article perhaps on the Nadal-Delpo semi.

Awesome reply about Dr. Ivo, "Tina".

Most tennis fans are completely ignorant about Karlovic's destitute background, and unfortunately still stereotyping him as a boring "one trick pony" even though he consistantly wins by breaking his opponents' serves. Like my name indicates, just check the stats and you'll see it.

I also like him very much for his humble personality and overcoming his speech impairement (stuttering) which had to be extremely difficult for a professional athlete. Lord only knows how much better he could've been if he had grown up in a more privileged and supportive environment like most other players. Hats off to him for making the most of what he had !

Liking and disliking players is so intersting because it IS so personal. For example: Although Wawrinka has questionable personal decisions with his family and his game is, I admit, not spectucularly shiney, I LIKE him. Don't ask me why. Djokovic has an attractive game but I can't stand the guy(and i'm 50% Serbian too!!!!)

I love Nadal, Fed, and Del Potro, and then I SHOULD hate Soderling but for some reason I love the sod and despise Berdych! Funny how these things work eh steve?

Great article!! What's not to like about Ana? She is fighting back and playing well. She's lovely, charming and self-reflective, even in defeat. When she started slipping, her matches weren't even covered. Yet Sharapova, not as pretty, no personality, terrible baby in press conferences when she loses, such a boring player to watch and did I mention the agonizing screeches and super slow serving style and delay of game while the opponent is ready to serve? Her matches were always covered even when she was at her worst, double-faulting by the dozens. I do love her fighting spirit though and just like Nadal its the only thing i like, though he is humble and charming in defeat. I can't stand his grunting, sweating, underwear pulling, slow play and jumping all around during his fist pumps. I agree that if you like a player, none of that matters, you consider it all cute or charming. I think they all do what they do to stay pumped up and should be given slack on it.

Most of all, real fans want to see a great match. It can even draw you to a player you didn't know, or had never favored before. When Dj defeated Fed for his first AO I was a huge fan of his by the end of it, even though I've always loved Fed. How can you not thrill to that level of play by a 20 year old. It was the same in last year's US Open when he won all those break points he was down. I can't understand a true fan not relishing those great matches.

I felt the same way when Del Potro beat Roger in the Open. A 19 year old winning against the greatest player ever! How thrilling. I had to cheer him on and I'm happy he is coming back. Tennis is better off for the field of great players becoming broader, as it has.

BTW why do all the broadcasters like Murray so much, and make so many excuses for his rudeness toward his mother and general lackadaisical play in the big moments. I tried so hard to like him, but enough already. I hope he gets a chance at a major some say but it won't happen with that attitude.

Its so much fun to watch tennis at it's peak. I have my favorites, but I'll cheer for anyone who holds nothing back and plays their heart out for the upset.

One more thing, the announcers have to move past the Fedal rivalry and stop whining when it doesn't happen. They will be fewer and farther between, probably none after this year. Get over it and give some credit to the ones who make it through to the later rounds.

your thoughts on beauty reminded me of a talk i listened to months ago by denis dutton, who died in december.

http://www.ted.com/talks/denis_dutton_a_darwinian_theory_of_beauty.html

(waw's backhand? not beautiful to me, but powerful, impressive, yes. with federer, it's just the entire gestalt, not just one stroke. can't analyze it)

Fun, thought-provoking article. It's intesting how different our choices are: my first tennis hero was Nastase, who undoubtedly could be a complete a** on and off court, my current favourite is Fed, who's corporate model image would annoy me no end in almost any other player! I can rationalise that i must like their more artistic game, despite enjoying completely opposing styles too: I've had no problem liking their chief rivals eg. Borg and Rafa. Few players I dislike, Berdych is one and have already developed an irrational dislike of Raonic because of the (over)hype last week, whilst recognising that's totally unreasonable of me ...

Steve,

Love how you're getting metaphysical these days. Very well done, these last few posts. Thank you.

I liked Del Potro for beating Federer in the US Open 2009 Finals but hated him for dismantling Nadal on the way to get there.

I dislike Wawrinka too but I will like him tomorrow when he beats TMF. LOL;)

re Ivo - he's the only player on Twitter worth following. An ordinary, decent guy being very funny.

Steve, totally spot on with Wawrinka. I have a complete dislike for his grunts and a lack of appreciation for his backhands.
The reason being in his next match we wont so much as hear the tennis ball off his racquet.
In my view all he does at tournaments is once in a while take out a player having an off day (Berdych) who actually has a shot at going deep.
He is old enough now to get over his Swiss underdog complex and start making a real effort against Federer and at the moment is a pure waste.
Its hard to like someone without having a belief that they can actually win and progress, even more so when you know that they wont even try.
I get the feeling he only thinks about making the quarterfinals at tournaments and making it easier for others from then on to win them.

Love the off beat introspection. I sometimes think I penalize players whose tics seem directed at their opponents, trying to throw them off focus. I agree Nadal's and Ana's tics seem more meant to keep their own focus than distract their opponents. Is it because they are both attractive and appealing, who knows?

Yes, Ivo is the new hot Twitter discovery :))

I can't stand Djokovic, even though I acknowledge that he is both an amazing tennis player and a very funny guy. But his chin, and what he does with it, keeps me from liking the man.

Ryan Harrison, I am noy liking him already. I predict that he will be an obnoxiously(sp?)good tennis player.

I also thoroughly disliked that small, skinny, speedy man fron Argentina, who did not win the French Open, losing to Gaston Gaudio because all that stupid gamemanship and deshonesty. I dislike him so much that I can't even remember that his name is Guiilermo Coria.

And I loooove Dolgo, my man, despite his inconsistency. But he is such an original, so creative, so unique. He needs to change his coach, though.

And I love Dolgo for the same reason that I started loving Roger way back when he was still losing match after match, even though I could already see his absolute genious and despite that hideous ponytail.

As for Rafa,his incredible energy and focus have won my great respect and admiration, and his dimples do not hurt either, even though I could do without so much fist pumping.

whoops, pardon my redundancy. the fed gestalt... trying to convey the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. (pierre soulages is a painter who loves black. have to agree with you on reinhardt over stella. at first i confused the latter with franz kline). wish i had access to a decent museum.

well i'm off to look for ivo's tweets...

"hideous ponytail"! noooooooo. don't cut it. no makeovers, please.

ah, the ponytail of fed, not dolgo. well, that's another matter.

Susan, I hate them both (ponytails). I was just trying to insinuate that since Dolgo is my candidate for "the next big thing" in the present decade, Alexandr and Roger (for me "the next big thing" before he proved me right) even have that in common--hideous pony tails as youngsters. However, I cannot picture Dolgo reaching the level of personal sofistication that Roger has attained...

PS: I also loved Guga for all the obvious reasons, and thoroughly disliked Marcelo Rios for a completely different set of obvious reasons, Rios being so hugely talented that I cannot forgive the waste.

You are so on target. It is our gut response

Nothing Graf could do would have been a negative. I so loved her!! It is instinct!!
I always have the feeling her husband is basically, a phony.I have no evidence, though!!

We just have our gut preferences, and you expressed yours so well, Steve.

I like this piece and its exploration of something truly mysterious. I think a lot about this too. I seem to have a thing for underdogs, but then why do I wholeheartedly love Federer? Since I'm a Roddick fan, you'd think I would gravitate to Nadal (gutsy scrapper, never gives up) but though I see his qualities, I don't have any feeling for him. And Nole seems to me TOO appealing -- he's so funny, smart, talented and good looking that he doesn't need to win. I find myself cheering against him when he plays.

With the women, I like Serena. I love her full-bodied athleticism and ferocity. And I love Schiavone. I don't feel as personally involved with the women's matches, though. Again I'm not sure why.

Thanks for your thoughts on this odd area, Steve. I also related to what you said about art.

Women, women women ... I express here my indeclinable admiration for Elena Dementieva, who despite not being able to develop a half decent serve (I blame his coaches, tough, being Dementieva nor only a superior athlete but such an intelligent, intellectually prepared and well-rounded person)until way too late in his career was able to beat the best players and did so without collapsing in the face of her evident weakness. I really wish she had won a GS title at least!

I admired Justine as a player but could no stand her as a person.

Loved Sanchez Vicario for running around like a headless chicken getting back ball after ball.

Loved Steffi for her consistency and professionalism, and found Seles "style" totally unappealing even though I reconize her fierce competitiveness.

Serena is scary and she doesn't have Rafa's dimples, which makes her even more scary... I wish her well and hope to see her soon playing tennis, even though her strength and fierce competitiveness fighten me.

Go Kirilenko!

sorry about all the typos and horrors. HER coaches.
Me, please shut up!
Me

I liked this article a lot. I think being into any sport as a fan is kinda irrational in itself.

I'll change that to "other than rational" as "irrational" has negative connotations. IMO "rational" is way over-hyped.

" 'I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like,' really means 'I don't know anything about art, but I like what I know.' " --Unattributed.

"The old saw, 'I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like,' is wrong, because it really means 'I don't know anything about art, but what I do know I dislike.' " --Howard Mumford Jones.

"Art doesn't care what you like." --Kabosht.

I was wondering Steve if you are going to do the U S Open Sectional Tournament in April...................should make for good press. I went out last year and watched the semi's & finals............yes I was one of 30 watching!

I may enter just for being able to play at Flushing & get a "care package"!

Interesting post and comments

Funny:

I saw Ivanovic vs Bartoli on TV, and I found irritating those 2 things she does and you now mention here. Her demeanour also makes me skeptical about her.

Wawrinka-- I was thinking about him yesterday, and my thoughts were exactly like yours. Effect wise, he's probably the opposite of Ivanovic, like Ivanovic will beg sympathy, Wawrinka will repel.

The player that has me feel that way is Berdych. He seems like a sweet, rather quiet guy but something about him frankly creeps me out and I can't stand watching him play, even when he's on his game. It's not about the headcase moments since there are other players I like who are afflicted with that.

If Wawrinka wasn't Swiss, I probably would be completely indifferent toward him (he'd be in the same position as Berdych to me). There's nothing about his game that excites me but having the Roger monkey on his shoulders has me back off on the dislike. It's a strange position to be in, that his biggest moment in tennis is connected to Roger but every other aspect makes that a burden.

I was rooting for Karlovic last night because he's the only current player (now with Ancic gone) who has truly modeled his game on Ivanisevic. When he's on, as he was in the game he broke Rafa, you really get that sense. As long as he doesn't do that slap dance, he's okay with me.

Steve, obviously you are attracted to arrogance (Djok) and not humbleness (Wawa). I guess it is personal choice. For me its the opposite.

"Steve, obviously you are attracted to arrogance (Djok) and not humbleness (Wawa). I guess it is personal choice. For me its the opposite."
No offence intended, but you wouldn't spot humbleness if it walked past you.

Fun topic for tennis fans. Thanks, Steve. Ironically, that Warhol quote comes from a context where Andy, if we can take him at his word, said we should like everybody:

Andy Warhol: I think everybody should like everybody.
Gene Swenson: Is that what Pop Art is all about?
Andy Warhol: Yes, it's liking things.
"What Is Pop Art?" Art News, November 1963
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol

btw, don't leave Rothko out of the discussion of monochromatic paintings that "glow"

Steve ,

I think part of the reason we identify or like some players more than others comes down to archetypes , and myth.

We are reinacting these dramas on the court the same we reinact dramas when we watch films , its not so much was on the surface but the cracks inbetween were the reality lies.

Billy Moyers did an excellent interview with Joseph Campbell about this at skywalker ranch , if your interested Id highly recommend it, you can probably see some of it on the utube , but its well worth it.

Thanks once again Steve , your written articles with level of full awareness that connects us all to one of mankinds old themes, storytelling .
Lets hope Warwinka tell better one this time round.

Amen

PW

My tennis loves might be irrational, but they're consistent. Becker, Ivanisevic, Safin, and now Djokovic - I like big guys with big games and big personalities. I think most of us have distinct patterns to our prejudices - I'd guess most Edberg fans became Fed fans, while Agassi fans gravitated to Nadal...

From my perspective, the two players who are the most likeable are Schiavone and Djokovitch, for the same reason: at no point do they allow you to forget that they are human beings. They not only bring a tennis personality to the game, they bring their own personalities, which are enormously engaging. Whether they're showing elation or frustration, you always know they're feeling it. Plus they play with a lot of speed and excitement, which doesn't hurt.

I am so guilty of irrational dislikes, but my major pet peeve is bad sportsmanship. As much as I loved Fed's playing, I was disappointed to see he was a much better winner than loser. Even though I wanted to dislike Nadal because of his tics and slow playing, I love his good sportsmanship and will always remember one particular moment when he stood and cheered for Federer with the crowd after losing a match. Stan Wawrinka, on the other hand, turned me off for good when he acted like a jerk while playing his friend, Federer. Smashing his racquet? Really? I would be ashamed to play a friend and act like that.

Max: I agree that AA is a phony and I think I have the evidence. I watched an exhibition of Fed-Pete vs. Rafa-Andre. AA ruined the enjoyment for fans and players alike. He neeedled the other three in a most snide and nasty way. Rafa even asked him to tone it down, to no avail. It was nearly sad to watch, he so obviously couldn't enjoy himself. He did say in his book that he hates tennis. It showed.

I hope he has a softer personal side for his family's sake: cute wife, even cuter kid. I admire his altruism, but after seeing him in this way I wonder if that is a hollow gesture.

I agree with Louisa, I love the passion and even honesty of Schiavone and Dj. They are so electric. In the big moments they hold nothing back.

Someone should alert Andre that Mary has "evidence" that he is a phony.

Before there was Rafa, before there was Serena, there was Monica - who was so mentally tough, NFL players sometimes singled her out for her mental game. She'd be down a handful of match points and just flick them away like flies. She's my hero.

Steve, I love your art references, and also have liked some of the Bob Dylan references you have used in past posts. Do you have any kind of art background? The reason I ask is that I am an artist and tennis has always been my game, both as a player and fan. One of my best friends is a poet who is also a huge tennis fan. I wonder if tennis appeals to people who have a strong sense of aesthetics, more so than other sports. I feel tennis is the most beautiful of all sports - the arc of the ball, the players movement in reaction to it, the geometry of the court, the amazing settings of pro tournaments like Monte Carlo, the Italian Open and Wimbledon. So maybe the players we like or dislike are really based partly on our sense of aesthetics. Some top pro players have also had artistic interests - Vilas, McEnroe, Muster had either artistic or literary interest. Also, like artists, the great tennis players each have their own signature style of play, and their own trademark best shots, and this creates an aesthetic beauty about them that fans either like or dislike depending on their tastes. Even my own humble 3.5 game occasionally has occasional flashes of beauty. I hit a crosscourt forehand last week from wide of the doubles alley that painted the line on the far side of the court for a winner. It was gorgeous, though sadly these moments are all too rare in my own game.

sheesh. correction. your thoughts on 'liking', not beauty. (reading way too fast).

that was me. used that moniker once today after a comment. yep, not terribly ethical but.... btw, hello to ladyjulia again. :)