How much for that sandwich!?

You can barely read the prices but for the filet mignon steak sandwich you see in the photo, it costs $18.00!

Maybe next time when I attend the U.S. Open, I'll treat it like going to Six Flags and have an ice chest with drinks and sandwiches in the car in the parking lot because it did not taste like an $18 sandwich!

I did purchase it and I didn't taste anything special from it other than it tasted like a steak (meat) sandwich. It definitely wasn't worth $18 but there isn't anything cheap to eat at the U.S. Open!

Colleyville Public Library

I sometimes play tennis early on a Saturday morning in Colleyville. I think the park used to be called Bransford but now it looks to be called Colleyville City Park.

I've been to this park many times but have never walked around it. Years ago I brought my kids when they were little because it had a pretty cool playground facility made out of railroad-ties type timber...but not exactly. It was like a giant wooden fort or an on-the-ground tree house. That's been since removed for a "safer" playground.

This one particular Saturday I drove out to play I had arrived fairly early. My friends, for doubles play, weren't going to arrive for at least twenty minutes so I decided to take a walk around the park to stretch my legs from the thirty minute or so drive from my home in North Dallas. It was a pretty cool day compared to the energy-sapping heat/humidity we had been having. I walked about halfway around the park and saw that it actually backed up to the town square. I've driven through that square once years ago because I thought I could cut through it to get to the tennis courts. I was wrong.

Anyhow, this is the first time I noticed the Colleyville Public Library building.

It's not a huge deal for all people but it looked kind of cool to me. I walked in the little archway there to see what it looked like. I peeked into the building through the large glass windows like a little kid. Nothing extraordinary but nostalgic since I've probably not been in a public library in many, many years!

It briefly took me back to the days I'd go to the Euless Public Library as a kid for class field trips or the occasional origami book to check out so I could learn new paper-folding patterns to impress people.

Tennis media shows Federer favoritism, duh!

This showed up on my Facebook page today.

Don't get me wrong. I like Federer. I'm sure almost all who like tennis probably like Roger Federer or his playing skills anyway. He may not be their favorite player but it is hard to deny the accomplishments he's achieved as a professional singles tennis player.

That being said, this news report "leads" off with a bad statement.

When I hear it said that someone led a team to victory, it makes me think of that person as winning, playing awesomely and was just damn near infallible to the point that there was no way they or their team could lose.

However, this was not the case with Federer's "leading." He lost the first Davis Cup singles match for this final in straight sets to Gael Monfils. This would not be leading the victorious charge in my book. Stan Wawrinka on the other hand won his first singles match and was pretty impressive as a team with Federer in the doubles against Gasquet/Benneteau.

So maybe I'm splitting hairs here but I would say that Federer started out the day well by winning the first reverse singles match which just happened to secure the overall win and title for the Swiss Davis Cup team. Again I would not say that Roger lead the Swiss to a Davis Cup title rather that with Roger's win the title was secured and Stan did not have to play to break the tie.

I just get irritated with commentators or reporters overly supporting one player versus another just because one has fourteen grand slam titles while the other merely has one.

I hate playing tennis...no I love it...I hate it...no...

I am playing in a tennis tournament tomorrow morning. For the past couple of years, I have been only playing doubles. I'm not at my singles weight is what I tell people but I actually just get too frustrated and pissed at myself because I don't get the chance to play enough for practice.

The weight really doesn't matter to me but that's just the 'joke' I use. I would like to lose a few twenty pounds just to be a little more light on my feet but I don't know if that will happen anytime soon.

Truth is, I suck at tennis. I've lost that competitive edge that I used to have. It sucks to be the nice guy across the net but I can't help it. I'm damaged goods.

Okay, I really don't suck. I just lack getting enough practice to be more consistent with my awesome shots! Once a week on a Saturday morning is not going to help me hone my shots. Of course, some of the guys I play with play 2-3 times a week and they really aren't any better when I come back after a couple of weeks or more between playing. It's sad for them (in my eyes) but also anger for me because I know I have the potential to be better than I am...if only I had more time to practice and/or persons to practice with.

I used to play singles at least 1-2 times a week with a neighbor friend. It was good practice just to get out and hit the ball. I am always better than him because most of the time when he would win a point, game, set or match, it was because I lost it from stupid shots and errors rather than him kicking my ass.

I lack consistent focus. Winning just stopped becoming the highest priority when I played. I was just glad to get out and hit. To have fun and enjoy the interactions with friends.

But then came leagues and tournaments. It was tough to change my mental game. Many times I didn't and I'd lose. Most of the time I'd take the first set. I then would let up because in my mind I had already won. I would know I could beat the guy so I wouldn't really have to do it because it was already a given. So, I'd lose the second set and usually the third if I didn't pressure myself mentally to pay the fuck attention and win the damn match. Worst is when I'd be up something like 5-1, 5-2, 5-3. I'd have one more game to win and I knew it could be done but I'd become unfocused and then I'd be at 5-5, 6-5 or even worse lose the set 7-5. I'd be mildly upset but, again, I'd be happy to have been able to play and have a fairly decent match even with the brain farts!

I only bring all this up because in my tournament tomorrow I am playing singles. I didn't tell my doubles partner that I also registered for singles. I didn't want him to get stressed out about my possible fatigue from playing possibly two matches before our first doubles match. I play at 8 a.m. and win or lose I play again at 10 or 11 a.m. At 1 p.m. will be our first doubles match.

I'm a little nervous...okay, a lot. I haven't played singles competitively in a long time. I mean there was the times with my neighbor friend but that really wasn't for any prize...just kind of bragging rights until next time. To top things off, I'm going to play this very consistent Asian guy that I've hit with on other days and even played a few doubles matches against with my doubles partner. I saw Asian guy a week or two ago and asked if he was going to play singles in this tournament. He said he probably was as the registration deadline was that Sunday by midnight. I joked with him and said I might play just to see him in the finals. Well, karma really likes to fuck with me so I'll be seeing him in the first match.

Again, he's not technically better than I am. He's just more consistent and he just happened to win this tournament, as well as a few others, in the men's 4.0 singles.

I am trying to prepare mentally now and hopefully that will automatically or at least help translate to me physically tomorrow morning. Our match is at 8 a.m. which means I have to get up at 6:30 a.m. to get ready, maybe get a light breakfast and leave to get to the city it's being hosted in about 25 miles away.

All good times ahead. If I lose, I can chalk it up to experience, I guess. I don't like to waste $25 but I guess it'll help me know where I stand. I'll be happy to be a 6-4, 6-4 loss but would be even happier if I pull off the reverse for the win.

We'll see. At least I know that I get to play in a consolation bracket if I lose and still have my doubles match to play.

I'll let you know how it goes.

French Open flashback

1977 French Open Mixed Doubles Champions —— Mary Carillo & John McEnroe.

If I didn't know better, I would say this is NOT a mixed doubles team.

Should WTA players make equal prize money as ATP players?

I started typing this about a week ago but was on vacation and didn't have time to complete my thought. It's still pertinent. It's just posted late.

For starters, in case you didn't know:

• WTA = Women's Tennis Association = female professional tennis players
• ATP = Association of Tennis Players = male professional tennis players

There was a recent article (linked while it lasts) on Tennis.com where Gilles Simon, a good-but-with-spotty-success male tennis player says he's against equal prize money for men and women tennis players in tournaments.

Of course, this received a lot of feedback from the women's players calling Simon an idiot, a sexist, and one very good female player said, "Do people go to see his matches or mine?" She's got a valid point but the other comments are just ignorant.

There are many people, especially women, that feel the women's players should get equal pay. I get their plight and I know women's tennis has come a long way with the prize money thanks to the efforts of Billie Jean King and other professional women tennis players. I'm glad women are getting paid what they are due but I don't think they should get equal pay...always.

Let me put it into perspective with a simple example:

A man and a woman start work at a company at the same time, doing the same exact job, having the same exact skills and level of work experience...basically ALL things being equal! The man puts in a 40-hr week and gets paid $1,000. The woman puts in a 30-hr week and gets paid $1,000.

Is this fair?

Now again, all things being equal. If the man and woman both work a 40-hr week and get paid $1,000, then that's equal pay for equal work.

Relate this to tennis and we get the following: men play 3-out-of-5 sets while the women play 2-out-of-3 sets. Should the women get equal pay? I don't think so! That's not equal pay for equal work.

One ignorant comment from a top-ten female player (I forget who) was something to the extent of, "If the men have to play four or five sets, well that's their problem. They should have won three sets in a row." So then it could be said that if females play 3 sets, too bad, they should have won two sets in a row.

For those tournaments that have 2-out-of-3 sets for both the men and women draws, I could see maybe equal pay for equal play. I guess maybe these tournaments' prize money could come down to which gender pulls in the most money but that's up to the promoters and such.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share my 2¢.

See, it's not just Americans...even England has money chasers

So quick back story. David Nalbandian was in the Queen's Club final. He lost his temper after losing his serve. He kicked a barrier around a line judge's chair which I'm sure he thought was much more sturdy than it turned out to be. The barrier gave way and hit the line judge in the shin. The line judge was genuinely injured although it looks from the video to be something as simple as a minor cut and I'm assuming he'll show a bruise later. (I noticed) He was very animated with his reaction which my first thought was "Oh shit, this dude's gonna sue." I don't know if that's what they do in England but that's what he'd do in America. Nalbandian's actions violated an ATP rule and he was disqualified and therefore lost the match. Subsequently, he was fined and then someone filed an assault complaint against him. That someone turned out to be the linesman.

While the links last, you can see the first (maybe the first) story here, a follow-up here and then the most recent one naming the linesman as the whiner complaint filer here).

Now while I don't condone his actions, I don't think Nalbandian is a bad guy. We all let our emotions get the better of us at times. No, that doesn't excuse our actions. I'm just saying that there was a time that something as simple and accidental albeit totally avoidable as this could be moved on from with a simple apology and maybe taking someone out to dinner or such to show there is true remorse and sincerity.

Again, the way the linesman acted up the injury was kind of comical and movie-like. I just knew something more was going to come of it. I don't know what the laws are like in England but in America, the fucked up court system would award this guy a couple of million for his physical AND mental anguish.

Andy Roddick should just hang up his racquet!

Just to back me up, here is an image from an article on Tennis.com.

click image for link to article while it lasts

I think I've typed about his decline before but Andy Roddick should just end his misery now. He's losing to people he probably really shouldn't lose to. Yeah, yeah. He's had some injuries and shit but dude, the body can only take damage and recover so often. It's different if you had a pretty stellar game to begin with but when it was becoming average for years now, you've got nothing to rely on when you aren't 100%.

Look at Federer. He's still a great player but even his game doesn't seem to be able to lift him over those final hurdles. I don't know if it's age, injury, focus, or what but there use to be another gear or two that Federer could tap into and defeat his opponents even in the past few years. I'm not saying Federer needs to retire. I just think he needs to change his game a little...more net play, more attacking side-to-side, something...like Agassi did in the 2nd and better leg of his career. I don't think he's gone like Roddick because he's still taking the sets to scores such as 7-6, 7-5, or 6-4. Those are close sets and come down to one loss of serve.

Anyway, back to Roddick. Roddick had a two-shot game: killer serve and killer forehand. He's lost both. I don't think it's because people have figured the serve out. I see that it's different, maybe ever so slightly, but it is. Same with his forehand. It used to be much flatter and more powerful. He'd drive through that thing versus the more loopy stroke he has now. The loop allows players too much time to get to it now whereas before it was almost always a winner.

Roddick can take away from his career that he was a one-hit wonder: the 2003 U.S. Open. He's made it to some great finals like U.S. Open 2006 and Wimbledon 2009, both against Federer, which are perfect surfaces (fast) for his old serve and forehand.

A new coach in Larry Stefanki is no longer providing the resurgence it did back 2009. Put a fork in him. He's done. Andy should just enjoy retirement, play on the seniors tour, and live off his wife, actress/model Brooklyn Decker. Accept it and live with it. I would enjoy every moment with her too!

Rafael Nadal vs. Novak Djokovic in Men's 2012 French Open Final

The Men's finals are set for the 2012 French Open. In fact, it's currently in progress. I haven't had a chance to jump on and ramble about it before now because Saturday was a busy day for me. Anyway, the final is:

Rafael Nadal

— vs. —

Novak Djokovic

What does Nadal have to do to win? What every opponent of Djokovic should do...if they can...make his ass run! Before Djokovic's run of wins, he had a very bad stamina/conditioning issue. My thought is that he still has it obviously not as bad but his skills have improved so much that it's allowed him to do less running and such during his matches. I believe if his opponents would continue to run him back and forth as much as possible and as long as they can (obviously it is difficult but it's just a game plan) he will begin to falter earlier in the match. Again, I know it's difficult but at the skill levels of Nadal, Federer, Murray, Tsonga, Berdych and others it should be an attainable task. Nadal is currently up 6-4, 5-3 with Djokovic due to serve after the rain delay. I missed the first set but in the second, Nadal was making Djokovic work very hard for the points if the got them at all. Nadal was hitting through the ball, side to side with good angles and pace. He got up 2-0 and then for some reason he changed his strokes. He started looping the balls and Djokovic started pouncing on them and making Nadal work harder. Before you know it, it's 2-2, then 3-3. Finally, Nadal woke up and started hitting through the ball again without the loops which lead to a break of Djokovic's serve and a hold of his own to make it 5-3. Djokovic was about to serve before they called for a rain delay.

What does Djokovic have to do to win? He needs to continue the way he was hitting in games 3 and 4 of the second set. Again, I didn't see the first set. Even though Nadal is great on clay and his movement is pretty outstanding, even he can't run forever. I recommend the same side-to-side hitting with good angles and pace. When the moment comes, be at or near the net to get the easy put away volley because Nadal is so far behind the baseline and the good approach shot should put him off the court as well. That's some of what Djokovic did during the 3rd and 4th game of the set. He had some very good, deep approach shots and then followed with some very nice vollies.

Who do I want to win? I'm feeling my favor in the Nadal corner. Partly because I'm sick of hearing all the kiss-ass praise from the commentators. They always pick someone to back and blow so much smoke up their asses to make them seem so great. They elevate them to a level over the opponent of the time which they should not. The opponent obviously deserves to be there as much as any one else because they ARE THERE on the court as well! Now, don't think I don't believe Djokovic is a good, maybe even great, player but he's not the best returner in the game right now. He could share the title with a handful of people. He's not the best mover on the court. He moves better than a year and a half ago because he's worked on his conditioning but Federer still moves well for a 30-yr-old. Murray returns and moves well too. Nadal still has the best overall movement and conditioning no matter what. So why the overpraise of Djokovic over one year when these people have been moving and doing well (Murray somewhat inconsistently but still well)? Also, looking at the run to the finals for both Nadal and Djokovic, Nadal has been the more consistent. He has yet to drop a set while Djokovic had to play back-to-back five-setters before playing a fairly close three-set match with Federer. So, my overall vote is for Nadal especially since they always called him just a clay court player but he showed them by winning all the grand slams at least once and on run for a 7th win at Roland Garros.

Well, play has resumed and the commentators are still praising Djokovic even now that he is down two sets to none and losing 2-0 in the third. I really don't think he will but if Djokovic were to come back from this deficit and win the match, the tournament, the trophy, then there would be no shutting up these idiot bandwaggoner fuckers!

French Open 2012

The Men's Semifinals and the Women's Finals are set for the 2012 French Open.

- vs. -
Novak Djokovic ------------------------------ Roger Federer

- vs. -
Rafael Nadal ------------------------------ David Ferrer

- vs. -
Maria Sharapova ------------------------------ Sara Errani

2011 Wimbledon Championship

Congratulations to Novak Djokovic for beating Rafael Nadal for the 2011 Wimbledon Men's Championship. He is well-deserving but for some reason I still dislike him somewhat. I can't pinpoint why but he just isn't someone I want to win. Maybe that will change in the future.

Also, congratulations to Petra Kvitova for beating (and shutting up) Maria Sharapova for the 2011 Wimbledon Women's Championship. She is well-deserving too. I don't know if I could handle "the screamer" winning another tournament. Sharapova is a very good player but her screeching takes away from enjoying her skills and the match in general. Please! Please! Someone do something about the screaming/yelling from the women players of the WTA!

Wimbledon 2011: Roger Federer vs. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga

I don't have much to say about this other than I'm shocked.

I don't think Federer played a bad match (although I only got to watch the first two sets before heading to work). I also didn't think Tsonga played a bad first two sets. It's just that usually when Federer is up two sets to love, he wins the match. I'd like to watch the last three sets...maybe on Wimbledon Primetime on The Tennis Channel tonight.

Anyway, good job Tsonga. I like the way he plays when he's playing well and up to his potential. Sorry for Federer. Sometimes you think that "old" champions should go out on a winning high but they feel like they can do anything (who doesn't) after they win. Was the last major Federer won was the 2010 French Open? Maybe he should have just walked away then. I'm not saying he still isn't a phenomenal player. I just don't like to see those sports figures that were on top for so long sort of flailing here and there before they FINALLY decide to walk away and by then people are feeling sad for them more than excited that they are still playing the game.

So, ramble, ramble, ramble...on to the Rafael Nadal vs. Mardy Fish match. I wish Fish the best and hope he can win the tournament but I'm not super confident in his ability to take the trophy. I like his game though...still serving and volleying in this day and age is such a blessing to watch versus the boring baseline to baseline exchanges.

Pete Sampras was robbed

Not on the tennis court from a bad call but from a public storage facility.

From TENNIS.com:

LOS ANGELES (AP)—Tennis star Pete Sampras says most of his trophies and other memorabilia were stolen from a West Los Angeles public storage facility.

Click here for actual article while it lasts.

I'm sorry but I would think that with the money Pete Sampras has made from a phenomenal tennis career (supplemented by his wife, Bridgette's 'acting' gigs) he would be able to find storage on his land in his own house for his memorabilia.

I have a lot of shit and even I wouldn't trust it in a public storage location much less I wouldn't pay to store the shit.

However, I would invest in building or buying a public storage facility because those apparently make good money. I say this because the sheer amount of those businesses I can find around Dallas AND those I've seen built in the middle of nowhere on I55 through Missouri. All the land a lot of people have through the "country area" of Missouri and yet they will put shit in public storage. It's just amazing to me what people will waste their money on instead of just purging.

Anyway...I feel bad for "Pistol Pete" but if these items were important enough to keep, they should have been kept on his immediate premises.

Cigars

I just recalled something that I learned in my B&W photography class which I never would have imagined. Actually, I guess, I actually got something I previously heard, and possibly learned, verified.

So, what I verified is cigars are not supposed to be inhaled.

Huh? What? I thought all smokes were to be inhaled for their enjoyment. Apparently not!

How I came to this question for my professor is one Saturday I was playing tennis with the regular group of guys. My long-time friend was talking about someone he knew that would smoke cigars and "he'd inhaled!"

He said this like it was a new phenomenon. I, on the other hand, said, "So, what's the big deal?" He went on about how you are not supposed to inhale a cigar because it'll burn out your throat and lungs not to mention make you cough for hours while it's doing it.

I was like, "Really?" I just assumed that smoking something meant inhaling it. We aren't all like Bill Clinton. We smoke it and we want the total effects of it so we inhale it!

Armed with this question, "How do you 'smoke' a cigar," I saw my photography professor the following Monday for class. I waited to ask him because he's been smoking cigars for about forty-five years so I figured he was an "expert" on the cigar-smoking subject.

According to Prof. Photog, "A cigar is meant to be enjoyed by puffing on it and allowing the smoke to circle the pallet and then exit, often blown threw the nose. It IS not meant to be inhaled because, yeah, [said in a humorous tone] it will kill ya. The flavor is supposed to be savored like a wine or a prime cut of steak."

So, in retrospect, I can see this explanation as very valid because I've inhaled cigars, many of them, trying to enjoy the flavor and aroma but not getting anything but a generic tobacco taste and feel. I've tried many brands thinking it was the cheap versus the somewhat expensive or the different flavors where some were stronger than others. But never have I experience an actual flavor but once, mildly.

I haven't tested the theory since learning of this interesting knowledge but I am eager to try just for science's sake...and to put my own curiosity to rest.

What do you think? Do you have a theory on cigars? What is your recommended brand (keeping in mind that I'm middle-class and a $10 cigar is way out of my budget)? I've tried Swisher Sweets and a few other "7-11-type" brands and most of them I liked licking the paper more than I did smoking the cigar.

The many hats of Chris Fowler

Fowler pregame of Arkansas-Alabama game Sept 25, 2010.
Courtesy of ESPN and my digital camera.

Chris Fowler (ESPN bio or wiki) has got be one of the most versatile sportscasters I've seen. This guy is freaking everywhere on television sports.

My first recognition of him is a commentating on pro tennis matches. I never understood why he was commenting on tennis when he has no formal training or background in the sport. Most of the commentators are professional players that had retired after an actual pro career in tennis whether it was short or long.

When Fowler would comment during a match or even ask questions during player interviews, I would always say to myself, "Who the fuck is this?!" and "Why is HE talking to the player?" I mean I get not every pro has a knack for speaking but John (and Patrick) McEnroe, Jim Courier, Justin Gimelstob, Mary Jo Fernandez, Brad Gilbert, that Corina chick, and even Martina Navratilova speak just fine for the interviews and have an inside, personal knowledge of the game of tennis.

Not Fowler. He seems more like one of those stats or textbook commentators. What he knows is from what he reads and from talking to those that experienced. It seems hollow to me when he commentates or interviews. I guess it's the tennis player in me but that's just the way I see it. Some of his comments (and the pros-turned-commentator's but his more) annoy the crap out of me. It's almost like he's there just to add some difference...I can't think of what that difference is but I'm sure it's something the producers come up with.

I just don't like impostors when it comes to sports. I don't know a lot about football, basketball, rugby, lacrosse, Nascar or golf. I have a working knowledge of some sports and a somewhat deeper knowledge of others. I don't comment on those that I do not faithfully know or follow. Fowler knows his stats although I feel like someone who's lived or played the game over their lifetime is more genuine than those you can read off a sports ticker.

Anyway, I'm not hating (okay, maybe a little) on Fowler. According to his wiki, he's obviously a talent that ESPN loves based on the different sports he's commentated over the years. I'm just a tennis snob and I think only tennis-affiliated people should host/comment at professional tennis events.

Dick Enberg (or Bob Costas, I think) is another one but I won't even get started on him.

How many fist bumps is too many?

This was shown during a men's tennis match at the U.S. Open between Sam Querrey and Stanislas Wawrinka. Wawrinka just broke Querrey's serve after losing his own and Wawrinka's posse reacts.

How could you not love this face?

She looks for me in the crowd.

She finally sees me.

She shows this kind of excitement every time she hears from or sees me.

In the news 09/06/2010

I think this was one of the best headlines I read in a story line this evening.

From Yahoo News:

Wozniacki downs 2006 champ Sharapova at US Open

Click here for article while it lasts.

Both players are pretty attractive. Both players are very skilled. One screams while she plays while the other relies strictly on her abilities. One isn't enjoyable at all to watch because of her screaming.

Can you guess which one I can't stand?

Nah, nah...nah, nah, nah, nah...hey, hey, hey...goodbye, Andy Roddick

Tennis was not so good last night for Brooklyn Decker's husband. Yes, I feel he is no longer "Andy Roddick - tennis player." He has been sucking for so long and his one major (2003 US Open Champion) that he won was from pure determination, a powerful, feared forehand and a dominating serve. What does he have now? Nada!

Headline on Tennis.com reads:

Roddick eliminated by Tipsarevic in second round
Click here for article while it lasts

I watched the match an in my opinion, Tipsarevic dominated Roddick on every aspect of the match. Even though he lost the 1st set, it was a minor hiccup. I think they said Tips was coming back from ankle injuries so I'm sure he wanted to try and ease into seeing how they felt before going harder.

He just played Andy's "wait for them to make a mistake" game plan better and at times changed that plan to the "I'm ripping this bitch past your ass" plan. Mrs. Decker just seemed like he was confused on how to play: should I go for broke when it feels right or wait for the other guy to do that and screw up? It didn't work either way. It was a pity. It is a pity to see someone with such talent waste it, like James Blake. Maybe either or both will have a second wind like Agassi did. Let's hope.

I like Tipsarevic. He's a very decent player. I've seen him playing at his best and not-so best. He's a likable guy and he was very respectful in his on-court post match comments. What's no to like about a guy like that?

Here is another article on the official U.S. Open website about the match while it lasts.

U.S. Open 2010

In case you didn't know, the 2010 U.S. Open has begun. Actually, it began yesterday, August 30^th if you want to get specific.

I'm watching the Rafael Nadal vs. Teimuraz Gabashvili match at this time. Nadal just won the 2^nd set tie breaker. He's up 2 sets to 1 (7-6, 7-6). There is supposed to be a women's match afterward between Caroline Wozniacki and someone else. I guess it's good that they have lights at The Open but also makes me wonder how enthusiastic these ladies really are to play around 11pm or so at night (since it's currently 9:49pm CST).

Anyway, the opening ceremony was last night. I watched a little bit of it and I had a few comments to make. Now, I was paying attention half-heartedly so I could have my timing mixed up with the night matches so I guess this is based off of what I thought I perceived.

First of all, the opening ceremony should not be the night of the opening day. Many day matches had already been played. I was watching a couple of evening/night matches, including one that seemed to be in-progress, when they cut to the opening ceremony. Again, this could have been replayed from before the night matches started but I can't be certain as I wasn't fully paying attention to the opening ceremony because of all the stupid, boring speeches.

Second, it was weird the way the brought, talked about, used as a theme, those tennis players they put on the "red carpet" for overcoming diversity. Martina Navratilova, Esther Vergeer (who is quite hot by the way), Dori Samadzai-Bonner, and James Blake. I guess it was a good message but it was just kind of lame, boring and WTF for me. I thought Martina did give a sort of from-the-hip speech but it was sort of weird when she said something about being fortunate because she could be like Esther. I think Esther was weirded out by the comment too although she hid it pretty well.

Third, it's pretty sad that the lady, Christiane Amanpour, that introduced the above four "diversity overcomers" was leagues better at giving a speech compared to the white-haired USTA lady (I think she's the USTA president) and New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg. It's kind of lame and embarrassing to know that people in these positions are very pore presenters. White-hair lady read word for word from her paper without much inflection or crowd "eye" contact. Bloomberg wasn't much better. In fact, I'd have to say Bloomberg was more disgraceful because he's in a high political position AND is the 8^th richest man in America. I think he could afford to take business presentation techniques courses at some university.

Fourth, Gloria Estefan sounded great but I think her performance was robotic. She is older these days so I don't expect her to bounce around but it was kind of a somber song. I guess it was along with the theme but it's like...this is tennis people and it shouldn't be themed along the likes of world hunger. Maybe I just didn't make my point clear but if you know what I mean then good otherwise oh well.

Fifth, there was a 12-yr-old Black boy that performed the National Anthem. He was forgettable. I think he won some competition to sing at the opening ceremony but I wonder what his competition was like. I don't know if he was just nervous because of the humongous crowd on Arthur Ashe stadium but his rendition was very lacking. I'm irritated to see/hear young singers trying to warble songs, any songs. I wasn't digging it and I don't think it was a good exhibition of his talent. He did have moments, a very few of them, where he sounded good but most of the time it was painful for me to watch and hear as a former "choir boy." Again it could be nerves, but he would take deep breaths in the middle of words because he was preparing for the long warbles. Don't get me wrong though. I sound harsh with my critique but he had ginormous huevos to sing acapella in front of so many on such a huge "stage" so overall kudos to him. I'd just recommend him watching his own performance and move on from there. Oh, and I'm not just being a dick with the "forgettable" comment. I have tried to Google for his name and no article on the official Open website or any other website mentions him even being at the ceremony.

Sixth, the fireworks were short and sweet if not somewhat lame but decent overall.

In the grand scheme of things, I would have been stoked just to be there watching so why complain about seeing it on TV? Because I can!