WORLD TENNIS: “DOWN UNDER” // NBA: “DENVER
For more sports analysis, go to Mile High Sports Radio AM1510 or FM93.7, and to Denver
“SPORTS NOTEBOOK” HAS RETURNED TO POSTING ITS COLUMNS TUESDAY AND FRIDAY EVERY WEEK. Editor/Publisher, Marvin Leibstone.
WORD TENNIS: THE men’s final at the Australian Open, held Sunday, January 29, surely resembled a famous mid-1970’s match, Muhammad Ali versus then heavyweight champion of the world, George Foreman, in that tennis players Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal fought one another as titans of their sport and as exemplars of the better athlete’s will to win by giving one’s all. Djokovic and Nadal traded shots for five hours and 53 minutes, the longest Australian Open match ever, and with a nail-biting finish, Djokovic the winner, Nadal experiencing his seventh straight tournament defeat and a third Grand Slam drop in a row, those three Grand Slam losses to Djokovic as if the Serb arrived on the tennis scene solely to be Nadal’s nemesis. For Djokovic, the “down under” win became his third consecutive Grand Slam take, making him the third men’s player to do so, following tennis greats Roger Federer and Pete Sampras.
After the Ali/Foreman fight of the 1970’s, a commentator said, “Great fights belong to two winners, not one. The losing in a great match is a minor difference in mathematics,” and it seemed that way as Nadal became a comeback kid after losing two sets to Djokovic, when the players began exchanging the top position minute-after-minute until a crack Djokovic shot set Nadal back for the number two tournament position. Near-match equality was proven in a 31-shot rally and the tying 4-4 of the fifth set, and from the fact that Djokovic’s scoring wasn’t of galloping ahead numbers: 5-7, 6-4, 6-2 (the only wide-apart score), 6-7, 7-5; and, the difference in unforced errors was close, Djokovic having 69, Nadal, 71.
If during the Djokovic/Nadal match anything appeared evident about a challenge involving two superb athletes, it was this: though two competitors can be equal regarding skill, power, endurance, flexibility and tactical intelligence, neither can be perfect, therefore each will have a few weaknesses. It is likely, then, that the athlete exposing a particular weakness during a final moment of play will come in second, losing by a point or two, yet it is just as likely that a few more minutes of play could produce the opposite, a Nadal beating a Djokovic.
* * *
NBA: After winning six games in a row, the Denver Nuggets lost 109-105 to the Los Angeles Clippers on Sunday, and wouldn’t have if former Nuggets guard and now Clipper guard, Chauncey Billups, hadn’t scored 32 points. Billups wasn’t poorly covered by the Nuggets, he was just too good for what would have been effective Nuggets shielding against most other players of his capability. Heart of the matter: Billups was having one of those almost unstoppable “in the zone” nights. Sadly, and in the final minutes of the last quarter, the Nuggets defended way too enthusiastically, feverishly, sloppily, in hopes of preventing the Clippers from striding past their lead, thereby fouling enough so that it was free throws instead of two- and three-pointers that pulled the Clippers ahead with enough points to win. Also, the Billups hits for 32 overshadowed a sizeable contribution from Clippers guard, Chris Paul---25 points.
The Nuggets dropping back in the fourth period was a surprise, for during most of the Nuggets/Clippers game they controlled the floor, and on both sides of the basketball. Five Nuggets players scored in double digits by mid-fourth period, Nene leading at endgame with 18, Danilo Gallinari, 17, Andre Miller with 16 and 10 assists.
The Nuggets are still fine with the loss to the Clippers, 14 wins/six losses and in second place of the Northwest Division of the NBA’s Western Conference, two games behind the Oklahoma City Thunder and three ahead of third place team, the Utah Jazz. Win-for-win, the Nuggets are in second place of the Western Conference and one game up on last season’s NBA Championship team, the Dallas Mavericks, with more games won this season than by several top teams of last year, among them, the L.A. Lakers, the Boston Celtics and the New York Knicks.
Since the start of the current NBA season, the Nuggets have experienced four winning streaks: the recent six, a streak of three and two x 2, and 12 of its wins have included total points greater than 102, its highest win 123 points (vs. the New Jersey Nets), and no Nuggets game has finished this year under 89 points.
The Clippers are in first place of the WC’s Pacific Division, which makes them a threat for post-season billeting. In February, the Nuggets will be facing the Clippers again, twice, and also facing the WC’s Southwest Division leading team, the Dallas Mavericks twice, and the Thunder, as well. By winning these February games, the Nuggets will have a mid-season position pointing toward another shot at the WC championship and an NBA championship title.
* * *
MLB: Have you ever looked at a map of highway, train and airplane routes covering the nation in all directions? It’s a good guess that a map of trades from America’s professional baseball teams, each crossing distances in different directions, looks like that, with more than 50 trades having occurred since October, 2011, the more known that of Albert Pujols leaving the St. Louis Cardinals for the Anaheim Angels, and Prince Fielder leaving for the Detroit Tigers, both signing contracts worth more than $200 million for a period of 10 and nine years respectively.
Other trades that may (. . . or, may not) juice up teams profitably are Carlos Beltran leaving the New York Mets for the Cards, and Bobby Valentine becoming manager of the Boston Red Sox after the firing of Terry Francona, and Sox ex-GM Theo Epstein now helping to organize a remaking of the Chicago Cubs. Add, hurler C.J. Wilson from the Rangers to the Angels, the Pittsburgh Pirates picking up outstanding fielder, Clint Barmes, and infielder, Marco Scutaro, leaving the Red Sox for the Colorado Rockies, and reliable slugger, Seth Smith, going from the Rockies to the Oakland Athletics.
There’s probably no MLB franchise owner + staff sitting still during an off-season, primarily from fear that another club will find that winning edge before they can. No franchise thinks, “If it aint broke, don’t fix it,” not even owners and managers that have championed their leagues and gone to the World Series. But if the off-season is a cattle-show, with players hustled from one franchise to another like steer for new pastures, it’s also a crap-shoot, in that only a few of the best ballplayers make giant leaps upward in a new season as regards batting average or, from the mound, ERA reduction and games won. Most advances made in a new season by the best of the better ballplayers are gradual, making a substantive difference only if numerous teammates are manning up, too. Even from the lowest expenditure, e.g., payment of less than $2.0 million for a player, an off-season trade becomes big bucks exchanged for an unknown outcome.
In other words, what a franchise thinks will be a new king, knight or rook, could turn out to be a pawn, yet there doesn’t seem to be a better way to build a winning team. Fact: off-season trading is a game by itself, and all games include a big chunk of “chance.” To Anaheim and Detroit
END/ml
No comments:
Post a Comment