“I’m convinced being a tennis analyst is the easiest job in the world. Because whatever the person does, if it works, you just say, ‘That’s what’s good,’ and if it doesn’t work, you guys just go, ‘He should have done the other thing.’ I’m pretty convinced that I could be a tennis analyst when I’m done."
Andy Roddick, take a bow. The 2003 US Open champion launched into a tirade against tennis analysts, terming them arm-chair experts.
Roddick claimed:
“It just doesn’t take much thought. If I’m grinding, and I’m winning, you guys are like, ‘He’s reinvented himself,’ and if I’m playing like crap and pushing, it’s, you know, ‘He’s horrible and needs to hit the ball.’ Everybody’s an expert, but I’m better than most of them have been."
Nobody’s arguing with the former champion. Very few analysts have won Slams or as many tournaments as Roddick has.
Hats off for telling it like it is.
What he really meant:
“Sports analysis is easy. You’re right if the player’s wrong. You’re still right if the player’s not.”
What he definitely didn’t:
“I’m done reading my copy of ‘How To Take Criticism With a Smile’. I’d love to lend it to you guys—now (that I’ve had my say).”

“Who do you think will win the men’s US Open title this year?”, he barks at me.
I am none-too-pleased at being drawn from my morning cuppa while catching up on the funnies in the paper.
“Why do you want to know?” I growl back.
“I need to know because I need to know.” replies Otto.
“Your guess is as good as mine.” I respond.
Image via Wikipedia
Sunday evening and it’s seven days into the 2011 Australian Open.
The spotlight remains focused on the rivalry for the ages. Federer and Nadal are on course for a shoot-out on Sunday, the 30th of January.
That is, if the drama on court plays out as the script their fans envision.
The No.1 and No.2 seeds have taken different routes to the much expected showdown.
Highlights from the 2010 US Open. Some from the sidelines, some from the action. Capturing the moods , captioning the moods!