John Isner Is All Bacon

by Deghasio

For the third time in as many years, John Isner lost a close match to Philipp Kohlschreiber at the US Open. Despite having an unblemished record against the German in best-of-three-set tournaments, including a three-set win over his sometime-nemesis in Auckland, Isner has been unable to beat Kohlschreiber when it matters—namely, at best-of-five grand slams. Even besides Isner’s superior head-to-head record, two key factors seemed to point towards Isner winning yesterday. First, Isner is famous / notorious for playing better in the US than overseas. Secondly, Isner is an above-average player in a tiebreak. His devastating serve wins him numerous “free points,” and his large wingspan allows him to put pressure on his opponents by getting a number of their serves back across the net. Before Isner-Kohlschreiber US Open III, Isner was 233-123 (64.9%) in tiebreaks, and Kohlschreiber was 133-128 (51.0 %), including a lowly 8-11 in 2014. In yesterday’s match, this specific factor dramatically switched. Kohlschreiber won all three of his sets in tiebreaks, and in many of them he barely struggled. He won the third ‘breaker 7-2 (courtesy of two Isner double faults), and even when Isner was serving well in the first and especially fourth set tiebreakers, Kohlschreiber was still able to win by a score of 7-4. So why the sudden reversal? Rather than try to break down this intriguing matchup using “numbers” or “facts” or “logic,” I’m going to explain it the only way I know how: using sandwich proxies.

John Isner is basically a BLT sandwich. He has one elite skill: his serve. A BLT’s taste is overwhelmingly dominated by the bacon. A BLT is like The Smashing Pumpkins: yes, Jimmy Chamberlin was important part of the band, but Billy Corgan was by far the heart, soul, brain, and neurosis of the band. (That's right, I just compared John Isner to a sandwich and then compared that sandwich to an alternative rock band.) Similarly, Isner’s game is dominated by his serve. It’s a crisp(y), delicious serve: in yesterday’s match, he pounded in 42 aces in just four sets. He won the NCAA tournament based on that serve. He became the highest-ranking American based on that serve. Hell, he won entire tournaments on the strength of his serve.

The rest of his game, as everyone knows, lags far behind his awe-inspiring serve. His volleys are the mayonnaise of a BLT: necessary, but not exciting. I’d describe Isner’s net play as exactly good. He has functional volleys and occasionally pulls off an impressive half-volley, but he doesn’t have the natural instinct Federer has, or even the instincts that Dimitrov of Gasquet have.

Isner’s forehand, I will say, is lethal if he can tee it off. However, he is not in the position to do so as often as he would like. The rest of his game is filler. Because of his weak backhand (the lettuce of his game), Isner often has to run around his backhand and hit his forehand just a tiny bit off balance. This leads to (right-handed) opponents being able to hit backhands down the line into the open court for winners. Inherently, running around backhands is not a bad strategy—Nadal, for instance, is a frequent practitioner of this strategy. Unfortunately for Isner, he does not have the footspeed or fitness to pull off this strategy against superior opponents. Isner is often caught flatfooted on the aforementioned down-the-line backhands (which Kohlschreiber employed effectively yesterday), and he has often been a victim of cramping in prolonged matches.

The second Isner can’t rely on his serve, his delicious BLT dissolves into mayonnaise, lettuce, and tomato. No thanks! In the second set ‘breaker he hit two double faults, and Kohlschreiber cruised to victory. In the fourth set, Isner looked unstoppable on serve; for a while in the tiebreaker, it seemed as though every serve he hit was an ace. Then, at four all, Isner hit a monster first serve that Kohlschreiber managed to block back. Isner popped a half-volley to Kohlschreiber backhand, and the net three points—and the match—were the German’s.

Isner is the player he is. It’s hard to fault him for relying so heavily on his serve. He has leveraged just about all the wins he can based on his talent and skill set. A lot of times he can squeeze together just one break of serve and win a—this is exactly what happened in the second set of yesterday’s match. However, in order to win multiple best-of-five set matches across a fortnight, Isner needs to be playing just about perfectly. Even the slightest error—say, a first serve body serve instead of a first serve ace—can change the entire complexion of a match. And if, heaven forbid, his serve should fail him, he’s just about doomed. Great returners neutralize Isner, which is the reason why Nadal and Djokovic have a combined 9-2 record against Isner.* Once the bacon’s gone, the sandwich goes as well.

*Actually, the reason is that Isner is one of the greatest NCAA players ever, and Nadal and Djokovic are two of the greatest players ever, but just go with it, okay?

The 2014 US Open Drinking Game

by Deghasio 

“All those years I was dreaming of other things, I was actually doing what I really wanted: hanging out with my family, drinking with my friends, making friends with my family and hanging with my drinking.” – Homer Simpson

After writing about 15-year-old CiCi Bellis yesterday, I feel the need to assert my age by presenting the world with my 2014 US Open Drinking Game*, which is as follows:

Drink every

• Changeover
• Break of serve
• Attempted tweener (finish drink)
• Announcer reference to his/her playing days
• Statistic with blatantly small sample size
• Announcer reference to grunting or time violation
• Crowd shot of celebrity of former / eliminated player (2x if former champ)
• Camera shot of player’s boyfriend/girlfriend/coach/family
• Advertisement with former champion
• Reference to player’s last year / best tournament result
• Cut to announcer in stands (finish drink if interview)
• Announcer reference to death / demise of American tennis
• Change of racket (finish if smashed)
• Clothes swap (chug throughout)

*Special thanks to Sam G. for helping in the creation of this game.

Happy drinkings! Unless you are CiCi Bellis' age, in which case please wait 4 years and 9 months before participating.

A Few Sandwich Related Thoughts on CiCi Bellis

by Deghasio

I’ve gotten thousands* of e-mails over the past few days asking me to compare US Open phenom CiCi Bellis to a sandwich. My automatic reaction to Bellis was to dislike her because I hate happiness. Bellis’ first tennis memory is watching Maria Sharapova, who made her grand slam debut in 2003. My first tennis memory is watching Andre Agassi, who made his grand slam debut in 1986. Related story: I hate teenagers.

* All e-mail statistics approximate.

Bellis’ win over Dominika Cibulkova was really impressive—Cibulkova is a really good player who, it seems hard to believe, was neck-in-neck with Li Na in the first set of a grand slam final just 7 months ago. Despite my natural pessimism, it’s hard to call this a fluke—Bellis played a three-setter in her next-round loss to Zarina Diyas, and she has a number of U-18 wins under her belt already, including the USTA national championships, Les Petits As, and a runner-up in the French Open doubles. Bellis’ results show that she clearly has the talent to be a professional.

Despite these good results, it’s impossible to accurately predict Bellis’ career. Bellis has already drawn comparisons to the likes of Seles and Nadal as teenagers, but tennis is littered with prodigies who never became the champions they were supposed to become. Bellis is the youngest player since Kournikova to win a US Open Match, and Kournikova eventually was relegated to becoming a singles journeyman / doubles specialist / model. Fellow young prodigies like Nicole Vaidisova, Kathy Rinaldi, and 9-year-old magazine cover star Richard Gasquet all had big ambitions as teenagers before settling as week-to-week players. Donald Young was one of the most hyped young players in American before generating headlines with phrases like "Historic Losing Streak."

After careful consideration, I think Bellis is not a sandwich at all, but rather raw ingredients. (CORRECTION: Investigative journalism has revealed that Bellis is actually a human being.) Bellis’ best comp is a can of tuna. I doubt Bellis will end up like Young for a number of reasons, chief among them that the men’s tour was historically strong when Young turned pro, whereas Bellis is playing during a turbulent time when anyone going on two-week-long hot streak can make a run at a grand slam. The worst-case scenario for her career is what I’m calling the Tuna Sandwich Tier, home to the likes of Gasquet, Vaidisova, and Rinaldi—the professionals who win a title or two a year and make a deep run in a few grand slams. With a little luck and hard work, she could end up with a couple grand slams, become a perennial top-ten player, and most prestigiously, retire as a member of the Tuna Melt tier, AKA the Lleyton Hewitt Club. And who knows, maybe Bellis will join the delicious Pan Bagnat tier and fulfill the comparisons to Nadal. First she has to graduate high school.

The US Open Is a Crazy Chicken Burger (US Open Men’s Preview)

by Deghasio

What to eat while watching: A delicious chicken burger.

Why it’s delicious: This US Open could prove to be the craziest grand slam since the 2013 Wimble-geddon. The top quarter of the draw promises to have great matches early in the draw: Tsonga and Murray are set to play in the fourth round, as are Djokovic and Isner, and the winner of those two matches gets to duke it out in the next round. The much-maligned third quarter may not have star names in it, but Lleyton Hewitt and David Ferrer always (well—almost always) play hard. The quarter also has a platoon of big hitters in Tomas Berdych, Ernests Gulbis, Marin Cilic, Marcos Baghdatis, Jerzy Janowicz, Kevin Anderson, and Bernard Tomic, who on any given day could make a run to the semis, and on most of the other, non-given days will not make a run to the semis. I have no idea who will make it out of that quarter, but I’m excited to watch them crash-and-burn as they try to fly. Milos Raonic, top-five seed and winner of the US Open Series, has playing the best tennis of his life—or my life—since reaching the Wimbledon semifinals, and is potentially poised to make a leap.

Why it’s chicken: I love tennis. I love burgers. (Discussion for another day: Is a burger a sandwich?) I love tennis so much that when my two favorite players pull out with wrist injuries, I will still watch the US Open. I love burgers so much that when people freak out about Mad Cow, I will still eat chicken burgers. Is a great chicken burger delicious and worth eating? Yes. Do I secretly wish I were eating a beef burger? Yes. I know ALS is bad, but save the ice for the wrist, Rafa. You’re only the defending champ who last lost before the semis when Obama Guitar Hero was the coolest game on shelves.

Why it’s a burger: No matter how much bacon, fancy mayonnaise, coleslaw, olives, and melted cheese you add to a burger, it’s essentially just a burger. At the end of the day—and by day, I mean tournament—the 2014 US Open is essentially about Djokovic and Federer (the favorite?). We can talk about injuries and Canadians all we want, but the bottom line is that two members of the big three are still overwhelming favorites to make the finals. And if they produce a match anything like their classic Wimbledon final, I’ll sit back and shut up about beef burgers.