• Fair question. A lot of you ripped me for picking Murray, noting that he was the favorite in Australia and lost to
Let's be honest: Federer is the obvious favorite. He's won this event five years running, he beat Murray in Cincy, he's back to playing at a Federerian level and might well win his third Slam on three different surfaces since June. (Discuss: Would this make 2009 his best year yet?) Still, I'm sticking with Murray. Mostly because I tipped him in July and it seems dishonorable to abandon him now. But also because he's played awfully well on hard courts, he's beaten Federer more than he's lost to him and he
• I still maintain that best-of-five would be a physical disaster on the women's tour. I don't think there's anything particularly sexist or radical about suggesting that the points in men's tennis are shorter and generally entail less ball striking, thus it is easier for them to play longer matches.
But leaving that aside ... who exactly is stopping the women from playing best-of-five? The WTA could certainly lobby the Slams to change the format. Clearly there's a reason it's not doing so. In the same vein, it's not as though a coterie of sexist men is preventing female players from hiring female coaches.
• Who are we to argue with Wikipedia?
• File this under "TV calls the shots." Note, though, that the player assigned to the later "Super Saturday" match doesn't fare decidedly worse in the final.
• I could live with that.
• What else do we expect from a.) a Midwesterner and b.) a D-III player?
• Federer. And he wins over the crowd by the end of the first set!
• I think slapping retrieving shots approximate the "high to low" stroke of squash quite well.
• Can I borrow your towel? My car just hit a water buffalo.
• Great story on
Fletch: "John Cock...toasten." There's a dish at Moe's Southwest Grill called the John Cocktoasten.