jack crawford

Grand Slam Spoilers! The Three Times Grand Slam Dreams Have Fallen One Leg Short

September 7, 2015 by Admin

By Randy Walker

@TennisPublisher

There is much talk about the five players who have completed the six Grand Slams in the history of tennis – Don Budge (1938), Maureen Connolly (1953), Rod Laver (1962, 1969), Margaret Court (1970) and Steffi Graf (1988). However, what about players who have failed in their attempts to achieve the ultimate in tennis?

The first player to fail in an attempt to win all four majors in a calendar year happened before the first Grand Slam was even achieved. It was 1933, and Jack Crawford from New South Wales, Australia won the Australian, French and Wimbledon championships and reached the final of the U.S. Championships at Forest Hills where he faced Fred Perry of Great Britain. Crawford led Perry two sets to one – one set from winning the first-ever Grand Slam – but won only one game in the final two sets, losing the final 6-3, 11-13, 4-6, 6-0, 6-1.

Budge, the first player to win the Grand Slam in 1938, five years after Crawford’s effort, wrote in his official biography “Don Budge: A Tennis Memoir” that, incredibly, Crawford drinking too much brandy was the reason for the one-sided scores in the final two sets.

“Jack was asthmatic, and particularly, on the hotter, muggier days – as this one was – the condition could begin to bother him,” wrote Budge of Crawford playing Perry in the final of the U.S. Championship on September 10, 1933. “To help his breathing in these circumstances, Crawford would often take a bracing shot of brandy before a match, or, if conditions warranted, even in the midst of one. Against Perry and, no doubt, also against a high autumnal pollen count, frankly, Crawford started hitting the brandy too hard. He had two or three ponies, and his coordination began to suffer. Fred, cold sober, lost only one game to Crawford in the last two sets and thus ended his chances for the first Grand Slam.”

While Crawford did not make history by becoming the first Grand Slammer, his effort helped coin the “Grand Slam” term as, leading into the U.S. Championships, John Kieran of the New York Times wrote in his column, “If Crawford wins, that would be something like scoring a grand slam on the courts.” As Bud Collins writes in his book “The Bud Collins History of Tennis,” a reporter with the less known Reading Eagle newspaper in Pennsylvania named Alan Gould also referred to a potential Crawford sweep as a Grand Slam just after Crawford won Wimbledon in July, but since his paper was not as prominent as the New York Times, Kiernan generally received the credit for first coining the term in tennis. Allison Danzig, the famed New York Times tennis reporter, wrote in his match of Crawford’s loss to Perry that “Crawford’s quest of the Grand Slam was frustrated.”

Connolly won the second Grand Slam in 1953, and three years later in 1956, Lew Hoad from Australia had the opportunity to be the third. He entered the U.S. Championships having won the Australian, French and Wimbledon titles and as the top-seed cruised into the final at Forest Hills to face his Davis Cup teammate and No. 2 seed Ken Rosewall, whom he beat in the Australian and Wimbledon finals earlier in the year. After winning the first set – only two sets from finishing up the Grand Slam – Hoad ran into a buzz-saw, as Rosewall caught fire and prevented history with a 4-6, 6-3, 6-3, 6-3 upset.

“A lot of people rubbed their eyes and took another look—even Hoad,” wrote Bill Talbert in Sports Illustrated. “Rosewall completely took charge once he got into the driver’s seat. Down 0-2 in the third set, he took 12 of the next 16 games. He was the master—a crafty tailor sewing a garment of defeat for his victim. Rosewall at the finish was so overpowering that in the final set, Muscles, as he’s called by his teammates, lost only three points on his own service.”

News footage and commentary on Hoad’s quest and failure can be seen here in this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl0D4Kt27Yk

Rosewall and Hoad’s fellow Australians Laver and Court won the next three Grand Slams – Laver turning in the four-major sweep in 1962 and again in 1969, when tennis became “open” to pros and amateurs. Court won all four majors in the 1970 year, one year after Laver’s second.

However, before Graf’s feat in 1988, Martina Navratilova had an opportunity to join this most elite group in 1984. The site of Navratilova’s near accomplishment, however, was not New York, but Melbourne, Australia as the Australian Open was in the early 1980s, the final leg of the Grand Slam, being played in late November, early December.

Navratilova won the French, Wimbledon and U.S. Open titles in 1984 and had won six straight major titles starting with Wimbledon in 1983. However, Navratilova was denied in her calendar-year Grand Slam quest, losing to a 19-year-old Helena Sukova 1-6, 6-3, 7-5 in the semifinals, ending her incredible 74-match win streak.

”How important is anything?” the 28-year-old Navratilova said after the loss. ”It hurts, but I’ll get over it. I still have two arms, two legs and a heart.”

”If I’d have won, I’d have done it all,” Navratilova said of her quest for the calendar-year Grand Slam. ”If I lost I had to start from scratch. Both are hard to cope with.”

Did Intoxication Prevent The First Ever Grand Slam?

August 25, 2015 by Admin

By Randy Walker

@TennisPublisher

Don Budge was the first player in tennis history to win the Grand Slam of tennis in 1938 when he swept in one year all four major championships – the Australian, French, Wimbledon and U.S. titles. However, it was five years earlier in 1933 when the term “Grand Slam” was first used in context of sweeping all four tennis titles in a year and, if not for some very strange circumstances, would have been the first year that the feat was achieved.

Jack Crawford, from New South Wales in Australia, was the dominant player in men’s tennis in 1933. He won the Australian and French Championships as well as Wimbledon and reached the final of the U.S. Championships at Forest Hills where he faced Fred Perry of Great Britain. Crawford led Perry two sets to one – one set from winning the first-ever Grand Slam – but won only one game in the final two sets, losing to Perry 6-3, 11-13, 4-6, 6-0, 6-1as Perry won his first major singles title.

In his official biography “Don Budge: A Tennis Memoir,” Budge discusses the Crawford quest in his chapter “The Grand Slam – My Favorite Invention” and discusses in detail how a bit too much brandy caused Crawford from becoming the first player to win the Grand Slam.

“Jack was asthmatic, and particularly, on the hotter, muggier days – as this one was – the condition could begin to bother him,” wrote Budge of Crawford playing Perry in the final of the U.S. Championship on September 10, 1933 . “To help his breathing in these circumstances, Crawford would often take a bracing shot of brandy before a match, or, if conditions warranted, even in the midst of one. Against Perry and, no doubt, also against a high autumnal pollen count, frankly, Crawford started hitting the brandy too hard. He had two or three ponies, and his coordination began to suffer. Fred, cold sober, lost only one game to Crawford in the last two sets and thus ended his chances for the first Grand Slam.”

Strangely, drinking brandy was in these times seen by some as a cure for physical ailments. Sidney Wood relayed a story in his book “The Wimbledon Final That Never Was…” (available here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0942257847/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_QqQTvb179H9NV) where after losing a five-set match to Rene Lacoste at Roland Garros and being treated with brandy shots before playing the mixed doubles final – drunk – with Helen Wills Moody, as can be read here in this excerpt: http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/4580

Incidentally, Crawford, in nearly completing the first-ever Grand Slam, almost didn’t even play at the U.S. Championships. According to Bud Collins in his book “The Bud Collins History of Tennis,” Crawford, after winning at Wimbledon, had planned to return to Australia after being away from home for five months, suffering from exhaustion after having won 13 straight tournaments while also ailing from insomnia and asthma. However, the U.S. Tennis Association made a deal with the Australian Association to pay them $1,500 to bring Crawford to Forest Hills, in an effort to further advance the event. Crawford’s attempt to sweep all four major titles at the 1933 U.S. Championships prompted the first official reference to the term “Grand Slam” as outlined in this story, “The Grand Slam – Origins and Correct Verbiage: here http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/12027

The only time the USA has come back from 0-2 down in Davis Cup

July 9, 2011 by WTM

WIMBLEDON-FINAL-THAT-NEVER-WAS — The Wimbledon final that never was

The United States Davis Cup team finds itself in an extremely uncomfortable situation down 0-2 after the first day of play against Spain in the Davis Cup quarterfinal in Austin, Texas. History does not bode well for Captain Jim Courier’s team as the USA has comeback from 0-2 down only once in the history of the competition, dating back to 1900.

Sidney Wood, a member of the 1934 US team that turned the 0-2 comeback win trick versus Australia in London, discusses the comeback and his second bout of “adrenaline” in his new posthumously published memoir THE WIMBEDON FINAL THAT NEVER WAS ($15.95, New Chapter Press, available here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0942257847/ref=as_li_tf_til?tag=tennisgrancom-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0942257847&adid=1KPK76QC5YHQ58MRDDP0&

The excerpt is found below…

The second time for me was in a Davis Cup match at Wimbledon in 1934 against the Aussie great Jack Crawford, then the world’s No. 1, who the previous year was one set shy of becoming the first player to win a Grand Slam after losing a five-set final to Fred Perry at the U.S. Nationals. I won the first two sets when the rains came and put us over for the next day. Sounds great continuing with such a lead? Forget it. A front-runner knows that he may not carry his winning form into the next day, also that any top-level opponent who’s behind invariably plays tougher.

The following morning, Jack couldn’t miss and suddenly I’d dropped two 6-4 sets and we were even up – except that I was also down love-two and love-forty on my serve and about to blow America’s whole Davis Cup year. Then again, that unreal, giddy feeling enveloped me, and this time I had at least some inkling of what might occur. With aces seemingly on call and my game under its errorless, hypnotic influence, I reeled off six virtually uncontested games for perhaps the most critical win of my career. That win over Jack, coupled with Frank Shields’ subsequent 6-4, 6-2, 6-4 win over Viv McGrath capped our U.S. team’s comeback from 0-2 down against the Aussie team – the first and only time to date that a U.S. Davis Cup team has come back from the brink to win a best-of-five match series.

Bud Collins reviews the history of Roland Garros

May 22, 2011 by WTM

The French Championships – or Roland Garros – is underway in Paris as the world’s top tennis players battle on the red clay to win one of the world’s most prestigious and historical tennis titles. Bud Collins, the world’s most famous tennis historian and journalist, profiles Roland Garros in his newly-updated book THE BUD COLLINS HISTORY OF TENNIS excerpted below. THE BUD COLLINS HISTORY OF TENNIS ($35.95, New Chapter Press, www.NewChapterMedia.com) also features all of the Roland Garros singles results from the quarterfinals, all doubles championship matches and tournament records – and the same for the other three major championships. Summaries of every year in tennis from 1919 to the present as well as player biographies, info on Davis Cup, Fed Cup, the Olympic Games – and so much more – are found in this 800-plus page volume that is a must for every tennis fan.

Crimson clay has made the French Championship distinctive, the lone major contested on the footing beloved by dirt-kicking Europeans and Latin Americans. For 46 years (1928–74), Stade Roland Garros in Paris was an earthen oasis amid grass in the Australian, Wimbledon and U.S. Championships. Wimbledon retains its lawns, the Aussies and Yanks have paved their hard, unforgiving rectangles, but clay stays the French way.

Although dating back to 1891 (men) and 1897 (women), the French Championships welcomed only citizens and permanent residents. Not until 1925 was that restriction lifted, the rest of the world invited in, and the French would become the fourth of the major international championships, making a Grand Slam possible. Even so, the concept didn’t seem feasible until 1933 when an Aussie, Jack Crawford, having carried his homeland, became the first alien male to subdue Paris (8-6, 6-1, 6-3 over homeboy Henri Cochet). He went on to win Wimbledon but his bid for a Slam was jammed by Fred Perry in the U.S. final. Don Budge showed up in 1938 and was the first American guy to conquer the clay (6-3, 6-2, 6-4 over Czech Roderich Menzel), and was halfway to his pocketing of the initial Slam.

The most successful players in the French-only days were Cecilia Masson with six titles (1897–1900, 02-03) and Max Decugis with eight titles (1903-04, 07-09, 12-14). But leading foreigners did come to town for an international tournament entitled Championnats du Monde sur Terre Battue—terre battue the French term for clay—that ran in 1912- 13-14, 21, 23 in Paris (1922 in Brussels). After that, the label World Championships on Clay was dropped, but not before a small, dark-haired girl of 15 won it in 1914, and again in 1921 at 23. She was the unbeatable Suzanne Lenglen, who put France on the tennis map.

The 1924 Olympic Games in Paris gave the French another taste of internationalism, and the mood was “very insistent,” in the words of one writer, for the establishment of a French Championships (Championnats Internationaux de France) embracing players from wherever, joining the uppermost category. Thus France was in the exclusive four-member club, with four all-timers facing off for the introductory titles – Musketeers Rene (The Crocodile) Lacoste and Jean (Bounding Basque) Borotra, Lacoste winning, 7-5, 6-1, 6-4; La Lenglen beating the only nonnative, Brit Kitty McKane, 6-1, 6-2. First outlanders to enter the winners circle were Americans Vinnie Richards and Howard Kinsey in 1926 in men’s doubles, beating the other half of the illustrious Four Musketeers, Henri (Ball Boy of Lyon) Cochet and Jacques (Toto) Brugnon, 6-4, 6-1, 4-6, 6-4. First among visitors to seize a singles title was Kea Bouman of the Netherlands, 6-2, 6-4, over South African Irene Bowder Peacock in 1927.

In 1925 and 1927, the tournament was played at Stade Francais in St. Cloud, and in 1926, it was held at the Racing Club of Paris, neither venue holding more than 5,000. But the Musketeers’ lifting the Davis Cup from the U.S. in 1927 made a larger venue necessary for the 1928 Cup defense, as well as the Championships. Rising near the Bois de Boulogne was Stade Roland Garros, named for a heroic French aviator who died in World War I, and a Court Central seating 10,000. On the crushed brick surface, seldom adored by Americans, the French crushed Bill Tilden and the U.S., 4-1. World War II shut down the tournament as it did Wimbledon and the Australian and brought about a sad, grisly chapter in Roland Garros history. When the war began, the French government used it as a detention center for so-called dissidents and “other undesirables,” a number of them Jews who were at risk to be sent to the death camps when the Nazi invaders occupied Paris. One of the better known inmates, author Arthur Koestler (“Darkness at Noon”), wrote that, “We called ourselves cave dwellers, sleeping on wet straw beneath the stands which leaked.” Fortunately, he survived. In 1941, the Germans released the grounds to the French Federation, and the Championships resumed, obviously limited to locals and not included in official records. They resumed in 1946, with, appropriately, a native victor, unseeded Marcel Bernard over favored Czech Jaroslav Drobny, 3-6, 2-6, 6-1, 6-4, 6-3, an all-lefty finale. That French success didn’t recur for 37 years, until 1983 when Yannick Noah dethroned Swede Mats Wilander, 6-2, 7-5, 7-6 (7-3), to be handed the Coupe Mousquetaires. Female victory rates the Coupe Lenglen, won in the post-Lenglen time by citizens Simone Mathieu in 1938-1939 and Francoise Durr in 1967. After another long wait, 33 years, the Franco-American Mary Pierce cheered a Parisian crowd by beating Spaniard Conchina Martinez, 6-2, 7-5, in 2000.

First major to say “bienvenue” to the pros and “Opens,” the French offered a $25,000 pot in 1968. Ken Rosewall won $3,000 in an all-Aussie final over Rod Laver, 6-3, 6-1, 2-6, 6-2, but runner-up for the other title, left-handed Brit Ann Jones, got the first prize women’s check of $1,000, even though she lost to Texan Nancy Richey, 5-7, 6-4, 6-1. Nancy, fearful of giving up her amateur status in that uncertain new year of prize money, is alone in the majors as a title-winning amateur woman in the post-’68 era.

Cash earnings have has gone up considerably since: $1.4 million apiece to 2007 singles champs, Belgian Justine Henin and Spaniard Rafael Nadal, out of a $20.33 million kitty. The French was the second-to-last of the major championships to offer equal prize money to both men and women—offering equal prize money for both tournament champions in 2006 and awarding equal prize money across the board beginning in 2007.

The French has wandered on the calendar, but the dates have stood firmly (last week in May-first week in June) for decades. As interest has increased from 1960s doldrums, attendance and profits have gone up considerably, the scene improved. Court Central was enlarged, now holding 15,171 (named for Hall of Famer Philippe Chatrier, the driving force for modernization as French Tennis Federation president). A second stadium, the Court Suzanne Lenglen, holding 10,018, was added in 1995. A fan favorite, Court 1 (the intimate “bull ring”) accommodates 3,790.

In 2007, play began on the first of three Sundays, making the French, a daytime event, a 15-day show, the longest of the majors. A one-day attendance record, 35,750 on the grounds, was set on the first Saturday, 2007. The French tried night tennis in 1969, but wisely discarded the floodlights after that. Darkness doesn’t intrude until about 9:30 PM. The French Championships were the last major to accept the tie-breaker, 1973, but never for the ultimate sets, fifth for men, third for women.

What is the fifth major?

March 31, 2011 by Admin

KEY BISCAYNE — Around this time of year – when the Indian Wells/Key Biscayne “double” takes place — fans, officials, players and media strike up the conversation of what tournament is considered “the fifth major?”

This begs the questions: what makes the majors, the majors?

The four major tennis tournaments that comprise of the “Grand Slam,” were the four tournaments that had the best player fields and thus, over the years, became the most prestigious. What gave the four majors – the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open – the best fields was that those four nations were the four most powerful tennis nations – the United States, Britain, Australia and France being the first four nations to win the Davis Cup. These national championships were usually held just before for just after the Davis Cup matches when each of these respective nations were the Davis Cup champions – or holders – and hosted the Davis Cup Challenge Round (or final) and some preliminary matches leading into the championship round. This guaranteed that a strong field of international players would pepper the tournament fields of these four events. It wasn’t until the 1930s when Australian Jack Crawford nearly swept all four in one year in 1933 and when Don Budge was the first player to turn the trick five years later, that the term “Grand Slam” came into being.

It’s tough to consider the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells and the Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne as a fifth major since they aren’t even the biggest tournaments in the United States. (Perhaps co-ed tournaments in Madrid and Rome should receive consideration). However, certain criteria establish these two premier events ahead of the pack in the discussion of the greatest tournaments on the grandest stages in the game.

Combined Event

The Sony Ericsson Open was the first tournament other than the Grand Slam tournaments to host a combined men’s and women’s event when it began in 1985. The tournament was first played over two weeks – like the other major events – and featured a 128-draw. The Sony Ericsson Open and the BNP Paribas Open, which more recently became a combined event, are now played over a week and half and feature 96-player fields.

Player Field

All healthy top players compete in both the Sony Ericsson Open and the BNP Paribas Open, with the glowing exception of the Venus and Serena Williams, who no longer compete at Indian Wells due to this ugly incident from 2001: http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/1811. The strong fields, match-ups and daily schedules of play make these events that much more attractive to fans, media and TV viewers.

Prize Money

The Sony Ericsson Open and the BNP Paribas Open have the most prize money of any event in tennis outside of the four major tournaments and the ATP World Tour Finals. Prize money for both events for 2011 sits at $3,645,000. The ATP World Tour Finals will offer $5,070,000 at the end of this year.

Great Venue

Part of the magic of the Sony Ericsson Open is its location – the island paradise of Key Biscayne, in the shadow of Miami, one of the great international cities of the world. The entire scene and vibe of the Sony Ericsson Open reflects the flavor and international feel of Miami and, in opinion, adds to its prestige. Views of the Miami skyline on television – especially those at night showing the night lights – add the aura of the event. The California desert in Indian Wells, while beautiful, relaxing and charming, does not emit the excitement that Miami does and does not measure up in this regard, in my opinion.

Tournament History/Former Champions

The tournament history of the Sony Ericsson Open dates back only to 1985, but with a combined list of veritable “who’s who” of tennis listed a former champions (Ivan Lendl, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Roger Federer, Steffi Graf, Serena Williams, Venus Williams, etc.) Indian Wells has a similar list of stellar champions. Big-name players win big-time events. Fans certainly gravitate more to these events with their attention. I remember Greg Garber from ESPN.com telling me last year that the reason why they staff the Sony Ericsson Open for their website was the tremendous traffic the stories produce – meaning massive interest. This year, Garber told me that their web traffic is already up 100 percent from last year.

Tradition, Trophies, Rituals

Certain sporting events have traditions and rituals that separate it from other events. Take for instance, The Masters golf tournament is full of tradition, including the winner being awarded something very unique – the Green Jacket. Another tradition in golf that comes to mind is the Dinah Shore Golf Classic – one of the majors on the LPGA Tour – where the tournament winner annually jumps into the pond on the 18th green after holing out as the champion. Three of the four major tennis tournaments have “named” trophies (the US Open being the exception. The Sony Ericsson Open used to have a “signature” trophy – a round, bowl-like crystal trophy – but with the change to a new sponsor came a newly-shaped, also nameless trophy. Both tournaments are lacking a bit in this regard, but perhaps the introduction of a signature trophy to be given to the singles champions could be introduced, say “The Larry Ellison Bowl” for the winner of Indian Wells, in honor of its tournament owner, or, in Key Biscayne, perhaps the “Buchholz Trophy” in honor of the event’s founder and brainchild Butch Buchholz.

DOWN MATCH POINT, LAVER GOES ON TO WIN 1962 FRENCH TITLE…AND THE GRAND SLAM

May 27, 2010 by WTM

It was 48 years ago on Friday, May 28, 2010, that Rod Laver was down his only match point in either of his two historic Grand Slam runs (1962, 1969). In the quarterfinals of the French Championships of 1962, Laver faced fellow Australian Marty Mulligan, who nearly turned the tide of tennis history with one swing of the racquet.

Here’s how Laver recollects the famous match in his newly updated and re-released memoir THE EDUCATION OF A TENNIS PLAYER($24.95, New Chapter Press, www.NewChapterMedia.com), co-written with Bud Collins.

I realized that this was the hardest championship for me to win, and because of that it probably meant more than the other three. It was certainly the toughest in 1962 when either Marty Mulligan, an Australian who revels on clay, or Roy Emerson should have beaten me, and Neale Fraser could have. Those were three straight five-set matches beginning in the quarters with Mulligan. Fraser in the semis went to 7-5 in the fifth, and Emmo in the final won the first two sets before I began to wear him down. Mulligan—or Martino Mulligano, as his pals sometimes call him now—had the best chance, leading me two sets to one and holding a match point in the fourth set.

How do you make an instant Italian out of an Australian? Add two o’s and stir some remote Italian blood in the genealogical pot. We kidded Marty about his conversion to the Italian Davis Cup team in 1968, but he was only doing the best he could with his tennis talents and nobody blamed him. Marty came out of Sydney and was a mate of mine on the Australian Cup team of 1959.

He’s a little fellow, very steady, and he took to the European clay better than he did to his native grass. His strokes were accurate and consistent, but he lacked the booming game that intrigued Harry Hopman, our captain. He also came along at the wrong time, in the midst of some of the best tennis players any country has developed. So Marty wisely moved to Italy to live. There he went on the payroll of a large club in Milan, becoming available for the interclub matches, very popular in Italy. The Italian clubs buy players from all over to compete in these “amateur” affairs.

Marty fitted well in Italy, learned a few words, fell in love with an Italian girl, and accepted a bid to play on the Italian Davis Cup team. Since he’d never competed for Australia, he was eligible, after declaring himself a resident. This caused a furor in Italy. One faction, backing Marty, wanted only to win, like the Americans in 1958 who broadened the Good Neighbor Policy to include Alex Olmedo of Peru on the U.S. team. But an opposing faction was horrified to think that an Australian would take the place of an Italian boy in representing the homeland.

All Marty wanted to do was play tennis and make as much money as he could. Europe was the place to do that in the amateur game, and he could make even more by playing for Italy, probably as much as $30,000 a year all told, with very favorable living conditions too. Luckily, he discovered an Italian grandmother in his family tree. She had immigrated to Australia. That made it reasonably okay, and Martino Mulligano wore the insignia of Italy in 1968, for one year. Italy wasn’t able to win the European Zone, so Marty was dumped. They figured they could lose just as easily with full-blooded Italians.

But this was in 1962 when we played. He was just plain Marty Mulligan, promising young Australian—and he was one point away from cancelling out that Grand Slam. I was down two sets to one and serving at 4-5, 30-40, the only match point against me in either Grand Slam.

It’s hard to get a bunch of Frenchmen excited about two Australians playing tennis, but I was the favorite, the top seed, and here was this nice-looking nobody named Mulligan about to pull the big upset. Momentarily the customers adopted him as though he were St. Martin, the Patron Saint of France.

If Charlie Hollis had been there, he’d have screamed: “Get your first serve in!” It was the only thing to do in a tight spot, and I got mine in all right—into the net. So now I was down to the second serve. I spun the ball to his backhand and came sprinting in to the net behind it. Maybe I should have stayed back, but all through the match he’d been sending his backhand return down the line, and I wanted to move right to the spot and cut off the return. Sure enough, he stuck to the pattern, and I was there to bang a winning volley. It was deuce. The match point was gone, and I held serve for 5-5. I was still in there, but Marty was fighting hard to close it out in four sets, and the crowd let him know they felt that way too.

The set stretched to 8-all, and then a linesman’s eyesight was questioned by Marty, and this quiet, polite Australian erupted uncharacteristically. He was serving and I hit an approach shot that sailed over the baseline. At least Marty thought so, and I’ll take his word for it. His word didn’t count, only the linesman’s who said the ball was good. My point.

This was too much for Marty. He began screaming at the man on the line and the umpire. I was shocked. I’d never heard him raise his voice before. Then I was stunned as Marty picked up a ball and smacked a high-speed drive at the linesman. The fellow’s eyes were definitely all right; he ducked, avoiding a headache at the least. The ball hit the grandstand loudly and rebounded across the court.

Marty wasn’t the only one shouting now. The umpire was shouting back. Neither understood what the other was saying, but they didn’t need an interpreter for most of the remarks. The referee marched out to try and stop the argument. You’d think I’d written the script, the way things worked out, but I stood by uncomfortably until Marty got it all out of his system.

When we resumed he’d stopped complaining, but he’d lost his concentration—and he’d lost his followers. Suddenly he was no longer St. Martin to the crowd, and they began jeering him. They had been carrying Marty but now they got on his back, and he couldn’t resist that load. I won eight of the last ten games.

BON JOUR PARIS! BUD COLLINS PROFILES THE HISTORY OF THE FRENCH CHAMPIONSHIPS

May 21, 2010 by WTM

The French Championships begins this Sunday, May 23. Bud Collins provides readers with a brief history of the French Championships in this exclusive excerpt from his celebrated book THE BUD COLLINS HISTORY OF TENNIS ($35.95, New Chapter Press, www.NewChapterMedia.com)

The most successful players in the French-only days were Cecilia Masson with six titles (1897–1900, 02-03) and Max Decugis with eight titles (1903-04, 07-09, 12-14).

But leading foreigners did come to town for an international tournament entitled Championnats du Monde sur Terre Battue—terre battue the French term for clay—that ran in 1912-13-14, 21, 23 in Paris (1922 in Brussels). After that, the label World Championships on Clay was dropped, but not before a small, dark-haired girl of 15 won it in 1914, and again in 1921 at 23. She was the unbeatable Suzanne Lenglen, who put France on the tennis map.

Thus France was in the exclusive four-member club, with four all-timers facing off for the introductory titles – Musketeers Rene (The Crocodile) Lacoste and Jean (Bounding Basque) Borotra, Lacoste winning, 7-5, 6-1, 6-4; La Lenglen beating the only non-native, Brit Kitty McKane, 6-1, 6-2. First outlanders to enter the winners circle were Americans Vinnie Richards and Howard Kinsey in 1926 in men’s doubles, beating the other half of the illustrious Four Musketeers, Henri (Ball Boy of Lyon) Cochet and Jacques (Toto) Brugnon, 6-4, 6-1, 4-6, 6-4. First among visitors to seize a singles title was Kea Bouman of the Netherlands, 6-2, 6-4, over South African Irene Bowder Peacock in 1927.

World War II shut down the tournament as it did Wimbledon and the Australian and brought about a sad, grisly chapter in Roland Garros history. When the war began, the French government used it as a detention center for so-called dissidents and “other undesirables,” a number of them Jews who were at risk to be sent to the death camps when the Nazi invaders occupied Paris. One of the better known inmates, author Arthur Koestler (“Darkness at Noon”), wrote that, “We called ourselves cave dwellers, sleeping on wet straw beneath the stands which leaked.” Fortunately, he survived. In 1941, the Germans released the grounds to the French Federation, and the Championships resumed, obviously limited to locals and not included in official records. They resumed in 1946, with, appropriately, a native victor, unseeded Marcel Bernard over favored Czech Jaroslav Drobny, 3-6, 2-6, 6-1, 6-4, 6-3, an all-lefty finale. That French success didn’t recur for 37 years, until 1983 when Yannick Noah dethroned Swede Mats Wilander, 6-2, 7-5, 7-6 (7-3), to be handed the Coupe Mousquetaires. Female victory rates the Coupe Lenglen, won in the post-Lenglen time by a citizen, Francoise Durr in 1967, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4, over Aussie Lesley Turner. After another long wait, 33 years, the Franco-American Mary Pierce cheered a Parisian crowd by beating Spaniard Conchina Martinez, 6-2, 7-5, in 2000.

As interest has increased from 1960s doldrums, attendance and profits have gone up considerably, the scene improved. Court Central was enlarged, now holding 15,171 (named for Hall of Famer Philippe Chatrier, the driving force for modernization as French Tennis Federation president). A second stadium, the Court Suzanne Lenglen, holding 10,018, was added in 1995. A fan favorite, Court 1 (the intimate “bull ring”) accommodates 3,790.

In 2007, play began on the first of three Sundays, making the French, a daytime event, a 15-day show, the longest of the majors. The French tried night tennis in 1969, but wisely discarded the floodlights after that. Darkness doesn’t intrude until about 9:30 PM. The French Championships were the last major to accept the tie-breaker, 1973, but never for the ultimate sets, fifth for men, third for women.

ROGER FEDERER’S LAST AUSTRALIAN TITLE – “THE PERFECT 10”

January 27, 2010 by WTM

On the current career resume of Roger Federer, the Australian Open stands as his most elusive major. The Swiss maestro has gone three years without winning Australia’s Grand Slam tournament, an eternity by the standards of Federer, the reigning French and Wimbledon champion who last won the U.S. Open in 2008. Federer last won in Melbourne on January 28, 2007, defeating Chile’s Fernando Gonzalez 7-6 (2), 6-4, 6-4 to win his third Australian Open title and his 10^th career major tournament title. Federer’s win over Nikolay Davydenko on Wednesday in the Australian Open quarterfinals placed him into his 23^rd straight Grand Slam semifinal, a record he earned also at the 2007 Australian Open when he surpassed Ivan Lendl’s previous record of 10. As documented below from the authoritative Federer book THE ROGER FEDERER STORY: QUEST FOR PERFECTION ($24.95, New Chapter Press, www.RogerFedererBook.com), author Rene Stauffer reviews Federer’s final-round match with Gonzalez in this selection from the book chapter called “The Perfect 10.”

Federer reached his seventh straight Grand Slam tournament final—tying the 73-year-old record held by Australian Jack Crawford. By reaching the semifinals, Federer broke Ivan Lendl’s record of 10 straight Grand Slam semifinal appearances. He was careful not to celebrate prematurely. A year ago in the Australian Open final, he nearly crashed and burned against the unseeded upstart Marcos Baghdatis. His final-round opponent was the red-hot Fernando Gonzalez and Federer did not want to let his nerves—or another slow start—prevent him from closing out another Grand Slam title. Gonzalez defeated Lleyton Hewitt, James Blake, Rafael Nadal and Tommy Haas en route to his first Grand Slam final. He was the third Chilean Grand Slam finalist after Luis Ayala, a finalist at the French in 1958 and 1960, and Marcelo Rios, who also was a finalist at the Australian Open in 1998. Gonzalez desperately wanted to become the first player from his country to win a Grand Slam singles title.

For the second time, Federer reached a Grand Slam final without surrendering a set. In 2006 at Wimbledon, he also won 18 straight sets en route to the final before Nadal managed to win a set in a tie-break to spoil a perfect run to a Grand Slam title. Gonzalez began his first Grand Slam final on a cool January evening undaunted by Federer’s quest for a perfect run through a Grand Slam draw. The Chilean, in fact, had two chances to immediately stop Federer’s run to perfection in the first set. Serving for the first set at 5-4, Gonzalez held two set points at 40-15, but Federer hit an elegant volley to save the first set point, and benefited from the hard-hitting Chilean netting a blistering forehand on the next set point. As it turned out, it would be the only chances Gonzalez had in the match.

Nothing could stop Federer after he confidently won the first-set tiebreak 7-2. He did not shy away from engaging the Chilean’s whipping forehand, while converting winners off his backhand side and at the net.

At 10:08 pm local time in Melbourne, Federer fell to the court after converting on his first match point in his 7-6 (2), 6-4, 6-4 victory. He yelled out in joy and lay on the court in exultation. Federer’s parents, Lynette and Robert, traveled to Australia for the first time and looked on from Federer’s box along with his late coach Peter Carter’s parents.

The match was a perfect 10. The victory was his 10th in 10 career matches with Gonzalez—the Chilean being the first player to lose 10 straight matches to Federer. It was Federer’s 10th career Grand Slam title and the first time he won a Grand Slam without losing a set. Federer became the first player to win a Grand Slam tournament without losing a set since Björn Borg won the 1980 French Open. The only two other players to win a Grand Slam event without losing a set in the Open Era were Ilie Nastase at the 1973 French Open and Ken Rosewall at the 1971 Australian Open. In his quest to find perfection, Federer was nearer to his goal than ever before. The headline in the newspaper Age the next day read: “The Perfect 10.”

With his 10th Grand Slam title, Federer moved into fifth place in the all-time rankings list—tied with American Bill Tilden who, in the 1920’s and early 1930’s, was the paragon of the tennis world. “Moving from nine to 10 is a big step,” Federer said after his 36th consecutive match victory. He now only needed four more Grand Slam titles to catch up to Pete Sampras and his record 14 Grand Slam titles. Besides the American, only Australian Roy Emerson (12) as well as Rod Laver and Björn Borg (with 11 each) were ahead of him. Federer won nine of the last 13 and six of the last seven Grand Slam tournaments and he also was a finalist in Paris—marking an unprecedented run on Grand Slam trophies.