All I can say is that Djoko, at this point in time, is looking stronger than Fed. You wouldn't see Djoko losing to Simon. So he lost a tough match to Murray, that can happen to anyone, remember it happened to Fed this year in Dubai. What would've been shocking and disturbing is if Djoko lost to Dancevic in the 2nd rd., but Djoko doesn't suffer those losses. On the hard stuff, the way he moves and plays smart, percentage tennis, he's still the No. 1 threat to win the Open, IMO.

As for Mirka, who really knows what Fed and her relationship is like. Is it normal? No, how many pros travel the tour with their girlfriend as their manager? Fed's the only one. Spadea is a different cat. He's had a girlfriend travel with him like about two weeks of the four years I've known him. He doesn't like to have company other than that of his coach. I've never seen him so much as break bread with another player. When he's in the player's lounge or cafeteria, I've never seen him aknowledge another player's existence. Is he stuck up, not friendly, hardly, but he doesn't like to fraternize with his competition. 

But Fed not winning a Slam this year, and not winning a hard court Masters event this year with only one to go outdoors, is shocking. The guy's 26-27 not 31. Blake's demise was predictable b/c of his style of play, as he gets older, 28, he can't be as effective, but Fed was supposed to have the greatness and versatality to continue to win big as he aged. That that has not been the case is shocking. Maybe the mono is some excuse, but when you lose to Fish and Roddick back-to-back that like Lottery-type odds for Fed.

West Coast,

You wanted to know if Sampras expressed the Nadal-Djokovic comparison before Wimbledon?  Well he did.  I am sure he has egg in his eye now. You  can see him in an interview on this on youtube, try the following link:

Since you mentioned about Agassi's comments regarding Pete's play bringing down an opponent's game, I do not interpret the same as you may.  I actually consider this a compliment because he plays so well that he makes the other look worse. The truth is that Agassi never understood fully how to play Sampras.  He usually fed Pete's strike zone, hitting flat drives that allowed him to hit his running forehand, and even go over his backhand.  The only time he did not feed it was when he served his kick serve high to Pete's backhand.  He was better off hitting high loopers to slow down the rally, but Andre would have to be confident in his own footspeed, which was never his great strength.  But he still should have tried this especially the 2002 US Open final.  Ultimately, Pete was the better player, who played strategically and athletically better tennis.  

I believe  you like myself are a fan of great tennis and great players. I am a Nadal fan also. I agree with you about Federer's personality differences between when he wins versus when he loses. I assume that is why you may not consider him as a second player to cheer for.   Since you asked for suggestions for a potential second player to root for, I would recommend Murray and/or Gasquet.  Both had an excellent week.  Murray beat Djokovic for the first time, while Gasquet beat Ferrer, and both played Nadal tough as well.  Both boys competed like men this week. Gasquet showed he actually cared, and Murray did not need a diaper change.   

--tommyboy 

Redhead,

 I can not believe that you are comparing Spadea, and Reynolds to Simon.  Simon is now 14 in the world, and is likely to make the top 10 in his career, based on math alone.  He has a better ranking than Spadea ever did.  He won 4 titles on tour, and Spadea only won one.  Spadea lost to Simon in Roland Garros last year and you are making a big deal of Spadea leading him in the match.  So what? I repeat!  Vince lost! Reynolds has never won a title on the tour and likely never will.  Simon is superior to both of them. 

Simon has the potential to win a Master's Series one day, and easily make the top 10 on current form alone.  He needs to improve his strength conditioning, his serve and backhand slice to have a long term career. 

Redhead, just because you wrote a book on Spadea does not mean he is an all-time great.  You do not have that kind of influence.  I admire Spadea's fighting spirit, and underrated personality, especially his boldness to challenge any passerby to battle-rap.  I am sorry that you did not get the chance to write a book on a real all-time great like Sampras or Agassi.  Their careers speak for themselves and their greatness are not determined by whether their lives were written about by you or not. 

--tommyboy
 

I talked to Spadea yesterday. He thinks that Fed will win the Open. He compared Fed's loss to Simon to Sampras's loss to George Bastl, who can you believe it, is still playing. Spadea still thinks Nadal can't take the pounding of seven five-set matches on hard courts and will break down. Although, I heard Brad Gilbert say yesterday that he thinks Nadal is the "heavy favorite" at the Open.

Tommyboy, 

I like Simon, too, and he definitely surprised me with his Indy and Toronto results. Look, if Blake could be a top-10 player, Simon, who is a much more resourceful player than Blake and can obviously play on clay and hard courts, can be top-10, too. But let's not compare him to Spadea, shall we. No, I'm just kidding.

Spadea is an interesting player, I think, b/c he far surpassed what all the experts of his time, Stan Smith, for one, felt he would achieve. He's equally interesting b/c he had the talent, the amazing talent, eye-hand, strokesmanship, to be a much better player than he was. He beat all the greats of his era in their prime, Agassi, Sampras, Safin, Henman, Kafelnikov (he never beat Chang and Rios), and went deep in some big tournaments, but mentally he didn't have the goods to commit himself to greatness. He also had his rather disruptive father as his coach until he was 25. 

I'll never forget Pancho Segura saying to me, "Spadea could've had a different career if he beat Chang when he was up two sets to one at the Open and serving for the match in the 4th set." But Vince didn't have those transcendent wins at the right time.

I don't consider Spadea a "great," far from it, but his story intrigued me b/c it was based on so much faith and ultimately there's a lot of pathos to it. I did a book on John Starks, too. Was he Michael Jordan? No, but Starks had heart just like Spadea has heart. As a writer, I'm not interested in the "greats," I'm more interested in the "long-shot" stories that for a fleeting moment were great and had their chance to solidify that greatness, but some tragic flaw prevented them from achieving it. 

Vince tells me that Jim Pierce wants to write his book. That's another bizarre story.

  I am glad that you came around on Simon.  I believed in him since his loss to Nadal in Australia.  For most of the first set, he was killing Rafa.  But Rafa hung in there, wore him down physically, and just rolled over him in straights.

 My apologies to you Redhead about my comments on why you are writing about Spadea. I  do  understand especially since you made the comparison to John Starks.  It is good to learn why some players who have competitive character and athleticism and a work ethic do not necessarily make it as big as others.  Your studies on them are legitimate.  Spadea had reasonable talent with his speed on court, and competitive drive, but his court positioning and some of his technique especially on his serve and forehand were flawed early in his career. 

I do not agree with Spadea's analysis on the upcoming US Open because he never had a great mind for the game anyway. So if he said that Federer is going to win the US Open, that is premature.  Why?  Because I would wait for the Olympics and how the top 3 fare there, as I have been saying all along.  Among the top 3, Nadal has the best athletic conditioning.  Even if he performs strongly at the Olympics, I like his chances at the Open because he will recover.  However, I would not like Djokovic's or Federer's chances if they have strong Olympic performances because they are not as well conditioned and are less likely to recover.  Also if any of them win the Olympic Gold  they would be on such an  emotional high.  To come back after that and then compete for the US Open right away is not going to be easy

Roddick and Safin are not competing at the Olympics, and have a better chance to compete for the US Open because they will not have to deal with a very intense experience before it. They will not need to deal the exhaustion of travel.  They will not have any emotional highs to recover from entering the US Open. 

About Sampras' win at the Open after his loss to Bastl at Wimbledon.  I would not make a comparison to Federer on this one.  Why?  Because Sampras  won the 2002 US Open because he had all those night matches against players who were cooked in the heat on earlier days.  He also competed without the video challenge system so he might have lost some of those matches in that fortnight if it was available. Sampras notoriously gave the stare down to linesmen and got a lot of home town calls. Federer basically does not have a home grand slam to fall back on.  He will not get four night matches. The night session should be balanced amongst the top 3 men and Andy Roddick.  Federer will have to earn the win the hard way, and it will be hard because Nadal is going to be healthy to compete for the US Open title and his game has never been more mature than it is.  The video challenge will make sure that the legitimate winner comes through, and that does not necessarily mean Federer.