US OPEN 2011: Djokovic Beats Nadal For 4th Major

Novak Djokovic cemented his status as the world's best tennis player this year by defeating 2010 U.S. Open champion and World #2 Rafael Nadal of Spain 6-2 6-4 6-7(3) 6-1 in four hours, ten minutes to win the 2011 U.S. Open men's singles title. It was the Serbian World #1's astonishing 64th win in 66 tour matches. It was Djokovic's 6th consecutive defeat of Nadal in a final this year, his 10th title of the year and 3rd major, 4th grand slam title of the year. This is a singular performance in tennis history, clearly surpassing John McEnroe's 1984 record of 82-3 where he won Wimbledon and the U.S. Open as well as losing the French Open final to Ivan Lendl and did not play the Australian Open. Djokovic has managed to compile an almost unbeaten record while playing some of the greatest players of all time in 16-time major champion Roger Federer and 10-time Rafael Nadal (and beating them repeatedly). Djokovic becomes the second player, after Juan Martin del Potro to defeat Federer and Nadal on the way to a major title.

Final Review
As predicted, Djokovic's game matched up well against Nadal's, unfazed by the Spaniard's main weapon, his lefty forehand. However, to me the surprise was that Djokovic did not play his best tennis for most of the match. Nadal really played better during the first two sets, but somehow managed to lose them. For example, Nadal broke Djokovic in the first service game of both of the first two sets, taking a 2-0 lead in each, but ultimately losing them. In the first set, Djokovic responded to the 0-2 deficit by winning 6 games in a row by extending the rallies and dealing better with the windy conditions and rowdy crowds. The Serb was not using his fearsome backhand or powerful forehand to go for winners, instead playing within the lines. What Djokovic did do consistently better than Nadal for the entire match was return serve brilliantly. In the third set, Djokovic started going for more winners, hitting the ball harder and the two traded breaks of serve until Djokovic attempted to serve for the championship up 6-5 and was broken by Nadal to force a tiebreak after some incredibly long rallies and brilliant points which energized the crowd and carried the Spaniard to an easy 7-3 win in the tiebreak.

After holding serve in the first game of the 4th set, Djokovic received treatment on his lower back, taking a medical time out. One would have thought this admission of physical frailty would energize Nadal but instead it seemed to make him uncertain about what approach to take. He held his first service game of the set but then failed to win another game after that, losing the final set 6-1 and seeming to capitulate mentally to the inevitable defeat during the championship game when Djokovic served for the title.

There's no question that Djokovic is as far into Nadal's head as Nadal was in Federer's head at one time. Nadal beat Federer five times in a row (twice) but now Nadal has lost to Djokovic six consecutive times, in important finals (four Masters Series finals and 2 Grand Slam finals). This loss will be difficult for Nadal to take because even though Djokovic cracked first physically, Nadal cracked mentally (and was on the edge of cracking physically).

Next year should be fun!

US OPEN 2011: Men's Final Preview

Rafael Nadal ESP (2) v Novak Djokovic SRB (1).

 For the first time since 1995 the #1 and #2 players in the world will be competing in the U.S. Open men's singles championship match. Amazingly, Djokovic and Nadal have competed as #1 and #2 in 5 finals already this year and all five have been won by then-World #2 Djokovic. One of these was in the 2011 Wimbledon final when it was clear that the next day, regardless of the result, Djokovic would become World #1, and then he emphasized his position by dismissing Nadal in four sets to win his first Wimbledon title and 2nd major of the year.

Now, Djokovic is World #1 and playing in his first grand slam as the #1 seed. The 2010 U.S. Open singles final was between these two players, and Nadal won relatively easily in a 4-set match, delayed by rain to the third Monday of the tournament.

How They Got Here
N. Djokovic d. R. Federer 6-7(7) 4-6 6-3 6-2 7-5. For the second year in a row Djokovic defeated Federer in a U.S. Open semifinal despite being two match points down. Federer served brilliantly and played aggressive tennis for the first two sets and then his play dipped immediately in the 3rd and Djokovic's rose to win that set. Again in the fourth set Federer quickly went down a break and then another break. It's possible that the Swiss player might have been marshalling his forces to play a 5th set, but in my eyes the reason for Djokovic winning the 3rd and 4th sets was a combination of the Serb playing well and Federer playing not so well. Then in the fifth set Federer managed to get a break in the 8th game of the set and served for the match at 5-3, 40-15. On his first match point down Djokovic hit a go-for-broke first-serve forehand return winner smack on the sideline. On the second match point, at 40-30, Federer hit a good body serve which Djokovic barely managed to get back relatively short in the court, Federer skipped forwarded and attempted to hit a cross-court forehand angle winner behind Djokovic but the ball hit the net cord and bounced out of the court. Deuce. Instead of taking his time and realizing the importance of being two points away from one of the biggest wins of the year, Federer played quickly, mangled a backhand into the net and faced breakpoint. He swiped that away with a quick ace. Back to deuce. Unable to buy a first serve at this point, Djokovic was ahead in the point from the beginning and won that point for a second breakpoint. This time Federer double faulted on breakpoint down to hand Djokovic the lead 6-5. The new #1 quickly served out his service game, reaching match point and Federer responded to a good serve with a weak backhand reply which sailed long. Game, set and match. Djokovic is now 63-2 for 2011. Federer will finish 2011 without winning a major title for the first time since 2002.

R. Nadal d. A. Murray 6-4 6-2 3-6 6-2. Although I predicted Murray to make his breakthrough and win this match, he again showed why he is not mentally prepared to win a major. In the first two sets Murray seemed content to just play long rallies with Nadal, refusing to be aggressive and cursing like a pirate. He was also giving a running commentary on his own game, radiating negative energy all over the court that Nadal feasted on, growing more aggressive with every wince and yelp the Brit produced. After being down two sets Murray re-focussed, cut down on the negative energy and ran like a gazelle aroundthe court, winning the 3rd set relatively easily. But in the 4th set he fell way behind early and though he made a push at the end, it was too little too late. Murray becomes only the 7th player in history to reach the semifinals or better in all four majors for the year, but he is 0-3 in major finals so far. Nadal is able to reach the U.S. Open final for the second consecutive year.

My Prediction
I incorrectly predicted the result of the women's final, where the underdog Samantha Stosur beat heavily favored Serena Williams to win her first major title (and 3rd tour title overall). This time, it is Novak Djokovic who is going for his first U.S. Open and 4th major title over someone who has one 10 major titles and is the defending champion.

Head-to-head even with five consecutive losses, Nadal still leads the match up 16 to 12 but on hard courts Djokovic leads 9-5. It is Novak's best surface and Nadal's worst. Their games match up even worse on hard courts than they do on other surfaces. There's no question that Djokovic is playing better than he played last year, and that Nadal is not. So clearly the match will be closer than last year's final. Nadal has had difficulty winning sets against Djokovic this year, and grown repeatedly hesitant at "dangerous" moments. Djokovic knows he is playing with house money since he just won a match for only the second time in his career being down two-sets-to-love, and he did it against Roger Federer! It will be hard to over-estimate how confident he will be and how much he wants this title to cement his #1 status for the rest of the year, ending the Federer-Nadal duopoloy for good, and marking the beginning of the Djokovic-Nadal-Federer "trivalry."

MadProfessah's pick: Djokovic.

US OPEN 2011: Playing Tennis While Black? #PTWB

The first video above shows the soon-to-be notorious incident which happened at 2-6, 30-40 with Serena Williams serving to Samantha Stosur during the 2011 U.S. Open Women's Final (won by Stosur) for which Serena was assessed a point penalty for deliberate hindrance for shouting "come on" before the point was over. Darren Cahill first posted on Twitter a link to this video of an identical "hindrance" incident with Serena playing Svetlana Kuznetsova two years ago, bizarrely with the exact same referee Eva Asderaki officiating last night. Then it had no more than 600 views. Now it's up to 13,000 and rising LOL. The comments on the second video claim that because Doha 2009 and US OPEN 2011 were played under WTA and ITF rules, respectively, the umpire was correct in awarding a point (and thus a game) penalty to Serena Williams.

Let's go to the text shall we?

The ITF rules on "hindrance" state (Rule 26):

"If a player is hindered in playing the point by a deliberate act of the opponent(s), the player shall win the point. However, the point shall be replayed if a player is hindered in playing the point by either an unintentional act of the opponent(s), or something outside the player’s own control (not including a permanent fixture).”

The WTA rules (pdf) on "hindrance" state:

If a player hinders her opponent, it can be ruled as either involuntary or deliberate. 

1. Involuntary Hindrance 

A let should be called the first time a player has created an involuntaryhindrance (e.g., ball falling out of pocket, hat falling off, etc.), and the player should be told that any such hindrance thereafter will be ruled deliberate. 

2. Deliberate Hindrance 

Any hindrance caused by a player that is ruled deliberate will result inthe loss of a point.

My issue is with the interpretation of the rule. In what way did Serena's scream hinder Stosur in returning the ball? How do Azarenka's and Sharapova's shrieks not hinder the player on the other side of the net? If grunting is not involuntary hindrance than neither should screaming "come on!" If one takes the position that screaming out a word right before one's opponent is going to hit the ball is involuntary hindrance then a let should be played. It was very clear that Serena had hit a winner and was screaming out "come on!" as almost all tennis players do at that point. No human in that position was going to get that ball back in the court. Stosur happened to get her racquet on the ball before it bounced twice but no way was she going to get the ball back into play. If it had been some other event which had interrupted play the umpire should rule that Stosur had no play on the ball and give the point to Serena. But umpires often do interpret the rule (wrongly, in my view) that if the player gets a racquet on the ball (or is even in the vicinity of the ball when the incident happens) then the entire point needs to be replayed.


So the ruling by the umpire was the Serena deliberately hindered Stosur by screaming "come on." This is absolute bovine excrement and must be reported as such. Why is it deliberate hindrance to scream out "come on!" before an opponent hits an unreturnable ball? If the ball WAS returnable, then I think one could rule it was a deliberate hindrance. Because, the player was deliberately hindered from returning it into play. But the ball was not playable so regardless of what Serena said or did that ball was not coming back into play. The bigger question is, why did the same umpire rule differently at the US Open than two years ago at the Doha 2009 tournament, under essentially the same rules in an identical situation? That umpire, Eva Asderaki like the notorious Marina Alves, should never be allowed to referee a Serena Williams match again.


But the bigger issue is with the ability of umpires and officials to make calls which videotape allows the fans and observers to know are incorrect. That is what used to happen with line call and now (thanks to the 2004 U.S. Open quarterfinals match with Jennifer Capriati and Serena Williams when repeated, obvious line calls were made against Serena by Referee Marina Alves) we have electronic line calling. And tennis is much better for it. Ask Maria Kirilenko!

What drives us observant followers, fans and players of the game insane is that there are a LOT of these subjective interpretations of the rules in the game of tennis and more often than not they seemed to be interpreted arbitrarily (or to the detriment of Serena at the U.S. Open). My point is that there should be an increased attempt to REDUCE subjectivity in tennis and have all umpire calls appealable by going to an objective source such as videotape (where available) and then a ruling by the tournament referee using the objective source.

Incidents such as "not up," "foot faults," "non-racquet contact with the ball" are all examples of situations which could be resolved by going to the videotape. You can also find multiple examples where umpires have made questionable (and incorrect) rulings against Serena Williams, Venus Williams and James Blake where the video shows pretty clear that the umpire was in error. What do these players all have in common? Hmmmmm.

There are video cameras in the cars of police officers all around the country to prevent incidents of what is known as "Driving While Black or Brown)." 

All players need the ability to review video of incidents on the tennis court to substantiate umpire rulings!

Until that time, anyone playing in an official match, especially if they have "dark" skin may be subject to an incident of "Playing Tennis While Black"!

Eye Candy: Antonio Vizcaino

Antonio Vizcaino is a 6'2" model with striking eyes, dark mocha skin and an eye-catching physique. I first found his pictures at Male Model Scene. Happily I was able to find some more pictures where Antonio was less clothed. I have not been able to find information about his age, ethnicity or other physical information. If you know, please leave it in the comments.

US OPEN 2011: Stosur Outplays Serena To Win 1st Major

Defying nearly universal predictions of defeat Samantha Stosur of Australia, 27, played the match of her life to defeat a listless, unusually slow Serena Williams and win her first major title at the 2011 U.S. Open 6-2 6-3.

Although Serena started the match with an ace it became clear very soon that she was not moving well and not serving well. If she was playing at 80% to win against Caroline Wozniacki on Saturday night, Sunday afternoon she was at around 50%. I don't know if it was something physical or not, but she as clearly the same player who had shown up for the first 5 rounds of the tournament.

Regardless, Samantha Stosur took a page out of Francesca Schiavone's book and played the smartest match of her life, maximizing her chances and optimizing her talent. She served well, volleyed well and was aggressive with her best shot, the forehand, especially in the return of service. Since Serena's serve was surprisingly slow, Stosur repeatedly hit it back for a clean winner, something Serena usually does to her opponents.

The oddest moment of the match came in the first game of the second set, when Serena was serving at 30-40. She served, got a weak return and hit a blistering forehand into Stosur's backhand corner and screamed  "Come on!" a split second before Stosur, scrambling to her left, managed to get her racquet on the ball. Immediately, the commentator John McEnroe said "Well, they have to play a let now." Instead, bizarrely, the umpire claimed that instead of winning the points she was awarding it to Stosur, due to the "verbal hindrance." Since it was a breakpoint, this meant that Serena not only lost the point, she lost the game. Serena was obviously displeased by this turn of events and asked the umpire "Aren't you the one who screwed me no this court a few years ago? That's not cool." The incident managed to completely turn the crowd in Serena's favor (and against Stosur) and they cheered vociferously until Serena won the next 3 points on Stosur's serve to get triple breakpoint, eventually breaking back on her 3rd chance. After a few games the crowd settled down and Serena's game returned to her listless level, unable ot move her feet to get tothe ball, while Stosur continued to hit the ball sharply and cleanly into the corners.Eventually Serena was broken and Stosur consolidated the break and on the next service game, down 2-6, 3-5 Serena faced double breakpoint which was also double championship point. She was able to save one of them, but on the second one Stosur hit a clean inside-out cross-court forehand winner, winning the point, set and match.

Overall, it was an excellent result for Stosur, who became the first Australian player since Patrick Rafter in 1998 to win a major championship (also the U.S. Open). Regardless of the "hindrance incident" Stosur was the better player on the day and deserved to win the match. It also brings to a close an interesting year for the slams on the women's side where three of the four winners were brand new: Li Na in Paris, Petra Kvitova in London and Samantha Stosur in New York.It should be interesting to see which of these three wins another one first. I would put my money on the Czech lefty.

US OPEN 2011: Women's Final Preview

Serena Williams USA (28) v. Samantha Stosur AUS (9). 

The 2011 US Open finalists are the two women in the draw with the two best serves in women's tennis. Serena demonstrated the importance of having an effective serve in her 6-2 6-4 drubbing of the now and future World #1 Caroline Wozniacki in a routine semifinal whose result was never in doubt. Serena served 11 aces and hit another 23 winners from all over the court--and she was probably playing at about 80% of her ability. Her "B" game. Wozniacki simply had (and has) no weapons with which to bother Serena and almost no offensive intent or capacity so Serena simply bided her time, broke the 21-year-old Dane at will and was content to serve out the match. When suddenly she played a loose match game at 6-2, 5-3 she calmly broke back easily to reach the final.

Stosur's route to the final was more complicated. She played the unheralded (some would say unknown) Angelique Kerber from Germany, at 6pm on the Grandstand court (capacity 6,000) when the second men's semifinal was still going on on the main stage at Ashe which holds 23,000+. Instead of winning easily, Stosur won a relatively tight 6-3 2-6 6-2 victory. Stosur has had a pretty dramatic tournament overall, playing the longest tiebreak in Grand Slam history in the 4th round (losing it 17-15) against Maria Kirilenko and playing the longest U.S. Open women's match (in terms of games played) against Nadia Petrova in the 3rd round, eventually winning7-6(5) 6-7(5) 7-5 in 3 hours, 16 minutes.

Stosur is the probably the only other player in the draw who is not overwhelmed by Serena's physicality. She has won 2 of the 8 matches the two have played on the tour, including one at Roland Garros where she saved a match point! The Australian 27-year-old has very broad shoulders herself and probably an even better kick-serve than Serena's. However, Stosur has one distinct weakness: her backhand. She can either slice it (not very effectively) or she can hit it with two hands, often not very cleanly or powerfully. Sitting in the stands, literally 15 feet from her in the now-famous tiebreak with Kirilenko I was very surprised how softly the ball came off her racquet on the backhand side. Serena can just pin her into the backhand corner with forehands down the line and it will be a very short day. However, Stosur does possess an excellent topspin inside-out forehand so if her footwork is good she may be able to run around her backhand and hit her powerful forehand but unless she hits a winner against a very fit and fast Serena, Stosur will be off the court and unable to reach the reply. Mentally, since Stosur has been in a major final before (losing badly to Francesa Schiavone in the 2010 French Open final) she should not be overwhelmed today, but she simply does not play finals well, having won only twice in 11 attempts. Serena is playing in her 5th U.S. Open final in 12 appearances, with wins in 1999, 2002 and 2008. We all know what Serena's mental toughness is like.

In the 2011 U.S. Open I have correctly predicted 2 of 4 women's quarterfinals and 2 of 2 women's semifinals. Last year I correctly predicted 2 of 2 women's semifinals and 4 of 4 women's quarterfinals. This year I have also correctly predicted 3 of 4 men's quarterfinals, and 1 of 2 men's semifinals. My prediction for the women's final is that Serena Williams will win her 14th major title, putting her a scan 4 titles away from the all-time greats: Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert (but still behind Steffi Graf's 22).

MadProfessah's pick: Serena Williams.

Gymnocalycium mihanovichii friedrichii

This small, deep purple cactus native to Paraguay has grown a second head, and the smaller head is sending up even more flowers than the main head. Gymnocalycium mihanovichii friedrichii prefers filtered light or bright shade.

This particular plant was overturned and tipped out of its pot by some animal. I rescued it from the baking sun and left it in a shady spot in my To-Do pile, where I proceeded to neglect it for weeks: no soil, no pot.

Finally I potted it up in the spring, placed it where it gets morning sun. It's rewarded me with flowers from March to (at least) late August. This plant is a trouper!

CA-44: Rep. Hahn Faces Two Black Challengers For Congress

The old 36th Congressional District becomes the new 44th

Whoa! The fallout from decadal redistricting continues. The latest drama surrounds Black political power in Los Angeles County and its representation in the United States Congress. The 36th Congressional District, which was won by Janice Hahn in a special election in July 2011 has been redrawn so that the Congresswoman's residence now resides in the new 44th District.The problem is that the new 44th District was deliberately drawn to have a higher percentage of African American voters, and as many people have noted, Janice Hahn is not Black. But recently Hahn announced that she will run for Congress in the 44th District.

However, Congresswoman Laura Richardson and State Assemblyman Isadore Hall are, and they have both announced that they are running for the new 44th District. Rep. Richardson is running because the district in which she lives has been re-drawn to have a lot more Republican voters from Orange County in it.

A few weeks ago, Janice Hahn released a poll showing her with a big lead over both Hall and Richardson:

Rep. Janice Hahn: 47
Rep. Laura Richardson: 24
Asm. Isadore Hall: 7


Hall's problem is that nobody knows who he is. Richardson's problem is that people know exactly who she is, and they don't like her. According to Hahn's poll, Richardson has a favorability rating of just 37%. (Though she does much better with black voters, at 68%.)


[...]


According to the poll, Hahn does better than Richardson even among black voters. Hahn claims a 74% favorable rating among African-Americans, to Richardson's 68%.

Black politicians who have long supported any Hahn for elected public office (her father Kenneth for County Supervisor, her brother James for Mayor of Los Angeles and Janice herself for City Council and Congress) are very angry.

However, this week Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa endorsed Janice Hahn for Congress in the 44th district.

US OPEN 2011: Men's Semifinals Preview

The Fabulous Four meet again:
Djokovic (1) v Federer (3), Nadal (2) v Murray (4)

This year I correctly predicted 3 of 4 men's quarterfinals and 2 of 4 women's quarterfinals. Here are my predictions for the men's semifinals, with the women's semifinals preview also available. Last year I correctly predicted 2 of 2 women's semifinals and 2 of 2 men's semifinals.

Novak Djokovic SRB (1) v. Roger Federer SUI (3). This is of course a repeat of last year's instant classic Men's semifinal won by Djokovic after saving 2 consecutive match points in the 5th set. The question is, will this year's result be the same as last year's? Arguably, Djokovic is playing much better now than he did then, but so is Federer. (But clearly Djokovic's improvement over 2010 is larger than Federer's.) Is the fact that Federer is one year older (and now over 30, playing someone who is 24) more significant than the fact that he is the only player to have beaten Djokovic in a best of 5 set match all year? Or is the Serb's juggernaut record of 62-2 for the year more salient? Amazingly, Federer and Djokovic have met during the last weekend of the US Open for the last 5 years and Federer is 3-1 so far (including one final, in 2007). In fact, the Swiss great leads their career head-to-head 14-9, but has lost three times to Djokovic on hard courts this year (including the 2011 Australian Open semifinal where Federer was defending champion). In New York, Federer has actually had the toughest draw of the Top 4 players, facing Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (11) and Marin Cilic (27). Djokovic has had a much easier time with two retirements in his first 5 rounds and a double-bagel match.  Djokovic's competition has been Nikolay Davydenko, Aleksandr Dolgopolov and an inspired Janko Tipsarevic. Interestingly, his matches have gotten tighter (in the score) as the tournament progresses, while Federer has basically played at the level he needs to win, relative to whoever is on the other side of the net. As most readers know, I am a decided Federer fan and when I started this write-up I intended to make a clear call for The Greatest Of All Time. I'm convinced he can win this match, but I am unsure as to whether he will. Doing the research for this piece has shown me that Djokovic is more likely to win this match, and the title. However, if Federer comes out early playing the kind of tennis he played against Tsonga and Juan Monaco I believe he can win in straight sets. Regardless, I doubt it will match last year's semifinal's shot-making and drama. MadProfessah's pick: Federer in 3 sets OR Djokovic in 4 or 5.

 Andy Murray GBR (4) v. Rafael Nadal ESP (2). Nadal holds a significant 12-4 career head-to-head over Murray, including a slight 4-3 edge on hard courts. However, their more recent matches on hard courts have been very close, with the most famous being their electric 3-set thriller at the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals in London in 2010, won by Nadal. In matches at the majors, Nadal leads 5-2 but at the 2010 Australian Open Murray was beating the Spaniard like a drum in the quarters when Nadal pulled the ripcord and retired from the match. However, I think what matters most is the match-up today and how they have been playing to date in New York. Nadal has had to get through Andy Roddick (21), David Nalbandian and Gilles Muller. Murray has had to get past John Isner (28), Donald Young and Feliciano Lopez (25). Really both players have had a relatively easy path to the semifinals, although Murray had to survive a 5-set scare against talented Robin Haase in the second round. The Brit is clearly starting to cement his "Fab 4" status, by making the semifinals or better of every major played in 2011(something Djokovic has also managed for the first time this year while Nadal has only done it once, in 2008 and Federer did for five consecutive years in a row from 2005 and 2009). He is showing his consistency and letting his innate talent shine through. Murray also has confidence, being one of two players to have defeated Djokovic in 2011, something Nadal hasn't done. I believe Murray is going to do something he hasn't done before (and which a lot of people don't expect him to do), and beat Nadal in a major semifinal. MadProfessah's pick: Murray in 3 or 4 sets OR Nadal in 5.

US OPEN 2011: Women's Semifinals Preview

After a rain delay cancelled the scheduled women's quarterfinals matches last night, all four matches were able to be completed today, the women's semifinals are now set.

This year, I correctly predicted 2 of 4 women's quarterfinals. Last year I correctly predicted 2 of 2 women's semifinals and 4 of 4 women's quarterfinals.

These are my predictions for the 2011 women's semifinals, which for the first time will be played Saturday night in prime time, with the women's final on Sunday, and the men's final moved to Monday's day session.

Caroline Wozniacki DEN (1) v. Serena Williams USA (28). This is the match on the women's side everyone has been waiting for. Can the putative #1 player in the world prove her dominance against the fan's #1? Serena and Caroline have only met on court twice (both in 2009), with Serena winning both times.Wozniacki has only been to one major final, while Serena has won 13 finals and appeared in 3 others, losing to her sister Venus Williams twice (2001 US Open and 2008 Wimbledon) and Maria Sharapova once (2004 Wimbledon). The problem that Wozniacki has is that many people feel that she can be hit off the court. Her game is built around counter-punching, and she (often) plays her best tennis when she is behind in the score. But getting behind on the score against someone as mentally tough as Serena Williams is not the same thing as getting behind the score against 2004 US Open champion Svetlana Kuznetsova. It does show that Wozniacki likes pace and can feed off her opponent's power and use it against them. There is no more powerful a female player than Serena, and she will demonstrate the danger of Wozniacki's strategy to blast past her and reach her fifth US Open final. PREDICTION: Serena.


Angelique Kerber GER v. Samantha Stosur AUS (9). Although I didn't pick either one of these players to reach this point in the tournament, I am delighted to see that Samantha Stosur is in her second major semifinal, with an excellent opportunity to reach her second major final, where hopefully she can acquit herself better than she did in the 2010 Roland Garros final.

Kerber is the only unseeded player among the semifinalists and since she's ranked around 92 in the world will make more money from this tournament than she made in the last year (or two) on the tour. In other words, Kerber is just happy to be here and will not put up much resistance if the match gets tough. The rap against Stosur is that she's mentally fragile, and the fact that she has played 11 tournament finals and only won 2 of them is evidence of that. However, she impressed a lot of people with her mental fortitude in her match against Maria Kirilenko when she lost the second set 15-17 in the longest women's tiebreaker in grand slam history (blowing 5 match points in the process). Stosur was able to survive the emotional rollercoaster of playing such an intense tiebreaker (where twice she was denied match point wins due to Kirilenko's successful electronic line challenges) to win the deciding set relatively easily 6-3. This new toughness should serve her well in the final on Sunday night. PREDICTION: Stosur.

US OPEN 2011: Men's Quarterfinal Preview

The first two quarterfinals have already been completed (following my predictions precisely) so on Friday during the day the second two quarterfinals will be competed, consisting of the four winners of the 4th round matches that were postponed for two days due to rain: John Isner, Andy Roddick, Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal.

Last year I correctly predicted 4 of 4 men's quarterfinal matches and this year I correctly predicted 2 of 4 women's quarterfinals. Below are my predictions for the last two men's quarterfinal matches of the 2011 US Open.

John Isner USA (28) v. Andy Murray GBR (4). Interestingly, these two have only played once before, last year, at the 2010 Australian Open where Murray made it to the final, losing to Federer in straight sets. Frankly, I was surprised that Isner was able to take out Frenchman Gilles Simon in the round before. Although he has (probably) surpassed fellow American Andy Roddick as the most feared server in the world, he also shares the Roddick problem of being considered something of a "one note" wonder.  However, hard courts are definitely the 6'9" American's best surface and he has made his presence felt in 2011. It's difficult to make the quarterfinals of a major tournament without having multiple weapons, or a dollop of good luck. This is Isner's first major quarterfinal and Murray's tenth. Isner will most likely have a very partisan crowd backing him up, and Murray will delight in not having the weight of a nation's hopes weighing on his shoulders. The problem for Isnner is that he is playing Murray, who has been in 3 of  the last 7 hard court major finals (losing in all of them, but demonstrating his hard court bona fides) and is likely to reach his fourth.  PREDICTION: Murray.


Andy Roddick USA (21) v. Rafael Nadal ESP (2). Nadal holds a 6-3 career head-to-head over all but that falls to 3-all on hard courts. They have only played once in a major, back at the 2004 US Open when an 18-year-old Nadal was schooled by the defending US Open champion in three, not very competitive sets 7 years ago. I did not predict Roddick to get this far in the tournament, but I think, now that he has, he really, really wants to get further, and he believes that he can, especially in New York. The shorter the match is, the better it is for Roddick, because if the match goes into four or five sets, Nadal's superior fitness will become more and more of a factor.

However, I do think that Roddick is ready to make another move to get deep in a major, especially here in New York where he had his greatest success. Nadal is still reeling from his unprecedented five consecutive losses to Novak Djokovic earlier this year and really had an undistinguished preparation coming into the Open. He must realize that due to the weather he will be forced to play four best-of-5 set matches in four days in order to defend his title, potentially the last three being against Roddick, then Murray and then the winner of Djokovic/Federer. Even for the indefatigable Spaniard, that might make him want to say "no mas." PREDICTION: Roddick.

Sen. Mikulski Tweets DOMA Repeal Support

Closeted United States Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) was previously the subject of a petition campaign to get her support for the Repeal for Marriage Act, federal legislation which would repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, has announced (via Facebook and Twitter) that she will indeed sign on to S. 598.

The Washington Blade reports:

In a statement provided to the Washington Blade via e-mail, Mikulski confirmed she’s a co-sponsor of the legislation.

“I am proud to co-sponsor legislation to repeal key provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act,” Mikulski said. “I believe all Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law and all of our citizens deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.”

She continued, “The Respect for Marriage Act, S.598, will allow couples who have a legal marriage in a state to have the same federal protections as every other married couple. This includes the right to receive spousal benefits under Social Security; to file joint federal tax returns and to take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act when a spouse falls seriously ill.”

Mikulski’s support brings the total number of co-sponsors for the Respect for Marriage Act to 30. In July, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the repeal legislation and how DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, burdens gay couples.

Last month, a coalition of LGBT rights groups — Freedom to Marry, the Courage Campaign and Equality Maryland — delivered a petition with names from nearly 3,000 Maryland residents to Mikulski’s office calling on her to support DOMA repeal.

Hat/tip to TowleRoad.

Celebrity Friday: Cheyenne Jackson

Out actor Cheyenne Jackson (right) and
his newly married spouse Monte Lapka

Today's Celebrity Friday is about the civil marriage of out actor Cheyenne Jackson to his male partner Monte Lapka which was announced via Twitter last week. They tied the knot in New York, now that the state has legalized marriage equality.

Likability Perceptions Vary With Sexual Orientation

Zack Ford over at the LGBT Think Progress blog calls attention to an interesting academic article which explores how the perceived sexual orientation of strangers changes their perceived likability.

The results in "Impressions at the intersection of ambiguous and obvious social categories: Does gay + Black = likable?" are published in Journal of Experimental Psychology:

In one study, 22 women and nine men viewed 104 photos of straight and gay black and white males and rated their likeability on a scale of one (not likable) to seven (extremely likable). Participants were not informed that some of the men pictured were gay. While overall, white straight men were rated as more likable than white gay men, black men were rated in the opposite manner: gay blacks were more likable than straight black men.

"We observed that people judge others based on sexual orientation even if they are not consciously aware of whether someone is gay or straight," said doctoral student Jessica Remedios, lead author. "By understanding how sexual orientation affects the rapid evaluations we form about others, we can learn more about predicting and minimizing the negative consequences of homophobia."

In a second study, 36 women and 14 men were divided into groups to view the same 104 photos. One group was instructed to approach whites and avoid blacks by pulling a joystick toward them when a white face appears and pushing the joystick away when a black face appears; the other group was instructed vice versa, to approach blacks and avoid whites. Among participants approaching whites, the responses were faster for the straight men than for the gay. Among participants approaching blacks, however, responses were faster for gay than straight men. "Given that faster approach responses indicate greater positivity toward stimuli, the second study is consistent with the liking expressed in the first study," says Remedios.

"These findings suggest that sexual orientation, despite lacking explicit perceptual markers, infiltrates the automatic impression that is formed. Further, our judgment of gay men depends on whether they are white or black."

Curious result, eh?

MOVIE REVIEW: Midnight In Paris

I must admit that Woody Allen movies are not usually my thing although I have seen the classics (Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters, Sleeper, Bullets over Broadway, Manhattan) and more recently viewed Match Point on Netflix but have never gotten around to seeing his latest triumph, Vicky Cristina Barcelona. However, lots of people recommended this summer's sleeper hit, Woody's Midnight in Paris,  which like most of his films has a stellar cast. This time that cast include Oscar-winners Marion Cotillard, Adrien Brody, Kathy Bates and Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams. Oscar-nominee Michael Sheen (The Queen, Frost vs. Nixon) has an amusing role. 

The movie is centered around an interesting question: Would you rather have been born in a different historical era? The question stems from a character who is unhappy with his life and thus wonders whether life was better in the past. The movie explores Paris in the 1930s when famous figures like Gertrude Stein, Pablo Picasso, Ernest Hemingway, Scott and Zelda Fitzegerald, Salvador Dali and many others were all contemporaries.

The film is somewhat diverting but suffers from the historical equivalent of a movie shot in numerous picturesque locations without a compelling plot to maintain the attention of the audience. In other words it seems like something of a "travelogue" with various famous historical figures breezing in and out of the frame without the audience becoming fully engaged in the characters' dilemmas.

That being said, Midnight in Paris is a film which you will think about more than very many of the other entertainments served up by Hollywood (Thor, Captain America, X-Men: First Class, Green Lantern, just to name a few) which have an evanescent presence in one's memory almost immediately after leaving the theater.

Title: Midnight in Paris.
Director: Woody Allen.
Running Time: 1 hour, 34 minutes.
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for some sexual references and smoking.
Release Date: June 10, 2011.
Viewing Date: August 27, 2011.

Plot: B+.
Acting: B+.
Visuals: B+.
Impact: A-.


Overall Grade: (3.416/4.0).