The Open wrapped: Okay, so I was as wrong as could be when it came to Tiger. He really was on another plane from everyone else in the field. One driver in 72 holes, and he still looked like a man among boys. Thank G*d DiMarco played well enough to make it a little interesting at he end. Everyone else played scared and never made Tiger have to work at it.

It was disappointing that the wind never really blew and the rain never came, because watching The Open under those conditions is lot more fun and and brings the field together a little more. Tiger may still have won playing the way he did, but it wouldn't have looked quite so easy. Maybe next year.

Who can save the old girl now? Without the wind and weather, links golf courses can be utterly defenseless, which is wha we're seeing right now. 83 degrees and hard fast fairways are gonna lead to low scores when these guys tee it up, no doubt. I'm a bit of a bastard, so I'm rooting for at least one day of nasty weather to cool down the birdie barage.

Overall, I'm pleased with my predictions, even though Tiger looks like he's set to put it in the bank. There's still time for that to change (okay, not likely). The rest of the leaderboard is about what I imagined - not many Americans (good playing DiMarco, and where the hell have you been for the past year), a healthy dose of who-dats, and some foreign powerhouses looking strong in Els and Goosen. And Adam Scott fills the role of my Aussie rising star.

I agree that McDowell will fade, Eno, and in fact the 73 he shot today may as well have been 78 with the low scoring around the course. Of course, he'll always remember the night he slept on the lead at The Open, and a couple decent rounds this weekend could land him a nice finish.

The cut is projected at -1 I believe, but if you finish today worse than -7 you better hope for ridiculous weather and then play a couple career rounds. Clearly Tiger is the favorite now, but we can hope for a battle, perhaps a long awaited Tiger/Ernie down-the-stretch-they-come finish. We'll see.

British Links: Thanks, Flyer. I always enjoy reading your thoughts about golf -- often more than watching the game itself. Here's my take following a look at the day one scores.

Gut feeling: McDowell blows up tomorrow. He's only made the cut four times this year when facing the pressure of PGA opponents like Tiger and Phil and Vijay. Today was a great round for him, but unlikely to be duplicated.

As for Tiger, he seems at home here. He's one of the few American players who seems totally unfazed by what the British think of a golf -- i.e., brown, coarse, salt-burnt grass growing in stone-hard dirt, surrounded by high winds and chance of rain every 30 seconds. (As several commentators have noted, American golf is like much of American football: played on an artificial surface.)

In addition, he shook off early mistakes and made up ground with his short game. I mean, he's five under in spite of finding the rough, doubling the bunker, plugging his ball, and finding various other obstacles. Imagine what he'll do if he has a good day!

One other thing worth noting. Weather in the North of England is not like this very often. What happens on that front is definitely a factor.

By popular demand: I've been eagerly anticipating the Open Championship this year, maybe more than before, and I think I know why. This year's tournament is the most mysterious major championship we've seen in golf for quite some time, like going on a blind date, set up by someone you've never met.

First, there's the golf course. When asked what he thought of the site for this year's Open, Tiger Woods replied, "I know it's in Liverpool." Brilliant insight, that, since the course's name is Royal Liverpool (not Hoylake, as you may have heard - that's the name of the train stop nearest the course which is how Brits used to refer to their favorite links, i.e Sandwich for Royal St. George's). The greatest player in the world, and a pretty knowledgeable golf historian, Tiger claimed never to have seen a picture of it before this month. It last hosted the Open in 1967, won by Roberto de Vincenzo, who is better known for signing an incorrect scorecard at the Masters a year later, causing him to lose that major to Bob (who?) Goalby. Royal Liverpool, I'm afraid, was forgotten a little more after that. After all, if de Vincenzo goes on to become a multiple major winner, old Hoylake's story changes a little, I'd say.

Add to that the fact that this year's tourny has no clear cut "Story." Or maybe too many stories. Tiger? Is he back. Phil? Can he put Winged Foot behind him? The Europeans? Have they surpassed America in talent? Boy, that's a lot to be decided in one four-day stretch. Add to that the vagueries of links golf and English weather and this week is wide the freak open. But that doesn't mean I won't play Carnac.

Here's how it plays out (bear in mind, it's after 2:00 as I write this and play is probably close to done for the first round and I haven't seen a single shot or even a leaderboard...damn job gets in the way every time). Tiger beats Phil, who really ought to start preparing for next year's U.S. Open now so he can just win it and be done with it. He'll have to satisfy himself, like Sampras, with 3 out of 4 for his career (too bad he won't have that whole most-majors-ever thing to console him). Just not cut out for the links was Phil. But, Tiger doesn't win this week, either. Royal Liverpool is a neat course, but it ain't St. Andrews and Tiger, intentionally or not, saves his best stuff for the best courses. Which means look out Medinah in August at the PGA, which I predict he wins going away.

Really, there's not an American I think is a favorite this week, and neither Ernie Els, Vijay Singh or Retief Goosen is having a banner year, to round out the Big Five. Of those three I'd say Ernie has half a chance, since he has a game that can win on a links (he wins all over the world) and he's had good rounds lately, if not four good ones together. Retief has half a chance, also, since he's one of the best putters in the game and that means he's never out of it. Vijay is sort of like Phil - go get a U.S. Open and forget about across the pond.

That leaves us with a bunch of Brits, Swedes, Aussies, Kiwis and the like who are absolutely taking over the game. I continue to pull for one of the Irishmen who are always in the mix: Padraig Harrington, Darren Clarke, Paul McGinley, maybe. But it's always a bridesmaid for those guys. The real killers these days are the Aussies, proving that it's not the alcohol that keeps Irishmen from winning majors. Geoff Ogilvy won't go back to back, but Stuart Appleby has plenty of game and tends to pop up out of nowhere hot as a $5 pistol. A British Open would suit him well.

Of course, it's entirely possible we'll get an unknown or barely known again this year - it's sort of every other year and Tiger won last year, so that's what I'm expecting. And somehow, that would suit this year's event. Unknown course, unknown champion. Fine with me.

I should get bonus points for making it through all that without mentioning The Beatles. But there I go, went and did it. None of them was a golfer, not even later in life like Alice Cooper. Bunch of stiffs.

Now it's off to find out how wrong the Day One results make me look. Cheers.

Flyer's Well-Timed Appearance: Can't wait to hear about Radley's book. You'll post something about the Open, too, right?

In the mail: A little professor lingo there. Heh.

I've ordered a copy of Radley's new paper/book (98 pages with a cool cover, I'll give him book cred) on paramilitary raids by police forces. I've enjoyed his coverage of the topic on the blog and he deserves some recognition for the work. I don't know if he gets any of the $10.00 that Cato charges for the book version instead of the PDF, but I hope so.

I'll try to post my thoughts on it after I read it.

Federer-Nadal, Again: I stand by my statement, post-Roland Garros, that there's a better than even money chance that Nadal will beat Federer on grass before Federer beats Nadal on clay. Sometimes a player just has your number, and you can't do anything about it. Think McEnroe-Conners in 1984. I mean, who the hell whips Jimmy in straight sets? McEnroe did it and made it hurt.

Well, Nadal appears to have Federer's number. Granted, we are now on Roger's preferred surface, and he's still number one (for now); but Rafa has brought his grass game up hugely and is a legitimate threat Sunday, which many had hoped for but almost no one imagined was truly likely.

The only light for Roger, really, is that Nadal struggled significantly against Baghdatis's solid service and variety of winners in the second set. If he comes heavy, Federer can play Marko's game 10 times sharper. But the Federer who showed up for the final in Paris will get his ass whipped.

The dreaded fl*p fl*p: Razor's been telling us this for quite some time, but finally the MSM has caught on to the footwear fashion faux pas. You'd think something like this would come from those brownshirts at Fox, though.

Middle Sunday Blues: No matches today, alas, but a moment to see off Andre. Razor put it well last week. The former Peck's bad boy of the tennis world became an elder statesman with surprising ease and grace, becoming especially popular here in London, a tournament he skipped early in his career.

I really though he still had the grass court moves to take Nadal, more so after Nadal had to fight five sets against a who-dat to get there. But no, the bones creak a bit too much. A young Andre would never have let a clay-court upstart dictate the match's pace like that, but dictate Nadal did. And Andre, despite being a spectacular baseliner and one of the real physical specimens of the game, looked small and slow against the buff Nadal.

Andy vs. Andy was the other big surprise, with Roddick bowing to Murray in straight sets. Famously resiliant British hopes rise once again.

Venus went out with a whimper, complaining that her opponent wasn't giving her enough time between points. Oh, boo-hoo. If tennis players take any more time between points, the game will begin to resemble major league baseball in its pace.

Now, other than Roger, who has a shot at the Mens' trophy? Well, Hewitt, technically. I'm delighted to see doubles specialist Max Mirnyi get this far. But in order to get into the quarters, this big Belorusse has to beat his partner, Jonas Bjorkman (who is nearly as old as Agassi). They may have already worked this out ahead of time. Both are long ahots to do any damage in singles, but they have a great chance to take another doubles title. What would you do? One of them might tank.

And hooray for Andy Murray and all that, but can he get Roddick and Hewitt to choke within days of each other? Well, stranger things have happened. If Hewitt is bringing his A-game, though, a baseline duel with Nadal would be a good match.

On the ladies' side, there seem to be too many seeds floating around Mauresmo's half for her to have a prayer. I've heard her birthday is this week. Maybe, as a birthday gift from the gods, the three Russians between her and the final will choke. Not likely.

Finally, keep an eye on Na Li, who hung on against Kusnetsova to get here. She's young, sharp, and came to the net well against the Kusnetsova.

Update: Tank, schmank -- Jonas and Max went five sets, nearly four hours. They will not be terribly fresh for their third-round doubles match tomorrow, I think.

Moreover, Na Li has now decisively beaten two top-ten players and is into the QF round. Her match against Big Kim will be a good one, I predict. Li (or is it Na?) is quick and powerful, with a strong and accurate serve. However, meeting Clijsters will test her against a real power player. I like her chances, though.

Hitchens: In Vanity Fair:

America was not the land of birth for this lavish caress, but it is (if I may mix my anthems) white with foam from sea to shining sea. In other cultures, a girl will do "that" only when she gets to know and like you. In this one, she will offer it as a baiser as she is making up her mind. While this persists, and while America's gay manhood is still sucking away as if for oxygen itself, who dares to say that true global leadership is not still within our grasp?

Yes, that's what he means.

Via Instapundit.

Nadal Advances . . . in five sets . . . against a qualifier. And he faces Agassi next. Methinks someone's capri pants are going to be in tatters by the end of that.

Meanwhile, Jon Wertheim takes on the Federer-Nadal hoo-hah, and he nails the point I made at the French:

It's less Federer's head-to-head record [with Nadal] as it is the appearance he's being beaten mentally.

Yes. Other than the first set, he played like someone believing Nadal's press agent and buying into the "clay streak" hype. Nadal played only marginal tennis that day; by the grace of god, he won when Federer showed he could play worse.

Finally, on the once again media fodder of equal prize money for the broads, I'll restate my position: Tough shit.

To elaborate: When the ladies voluntarily decide to play best-of-five for their prize money, I'll scrub the gents' loo at Wimbledon with a toothbrush to earn them the difference. Until then, a smaller prize is unfair only in the minds of such deep thinkers as Maria Sharapova.

The former champion Maria Sharapova said: "I think men and women should be treated equally."

Meantime, Leander Paes reaches for the Vijay Singh award:

Leander Paes, the Indian doubles player, said he thought 80 per cent of women players would not be able to play five-set matches.

He's right, too. But so insensitive to say so!

Non-Story Dead: R-Fed destroys Henman -4, -0, -2. Stick a fork in Hennie -- if he can't make it here, he can't make it anywhere (apologies to Frank). Much was being made of Henman's actual winning record over Federer leading up to this match, but I suspect most of those wins came either at Wimby or in tune-ups about 3-4 years ago. Anyway, no other seeds faced any considerable trouble.

Agassi is getting the hero's send-off, as he should. Who would have guessed, say 12-13 years ago, that the Vegas Bad Boy would now be a) hairless, b) playing long after Sampras hung it up, c) married to Graf [still a stunner], and d) tennis' ambassador??? Not your humble scribe, that's for sure.

And the Ladies? You're right not to count Venus out. She's a fan favorite, and she's got a history here. But when was the last time she went two straight weeks for a title? Last year. I wonder if she's tough enough to hang in to the quarters.

I like Justine's chances, as usual. She played well at the French and at the Hastings grass tune-up last week. And she's been in a lot of finals this year -- meaning she seen the talent in the field and has sweated through numerous rounds to get there. She's tough enough.

I think Mauresmo's a choker, and I always have. As I live and breathe, I can't believe she won the Aussie. I don't expect her to do much.

I've always like Hingis's game, and she's got more power that she did back in her earlier career -- though that's not saying much. It would certainly be a feat for her to cement her comeback here, where she won nearly a decade ago.

More later.

Good Show! That's the spirit, Razor. After blogging the French nearly solo, I briefly feared you'd be out of commission for The Championships (capital T, capital C) as well.

Best that I not waste time disputing your picks, as they are wise -- on the men's side, anyway. Roger is surely the best grass player out there, and a tough loss at the French doesn't seem to have lingered with him. That said, presented with the betting proposition "Nadal will beat Federer at Wimbledon before Federer beats Nadal at Roland Garros," I would look my money over very carefully before choosing a side.

Some points of note: The Brits could not pull off their annual feat of mathematical legerdemain this year -- a seeding for Henman.

Tough to believe Lleyton Hewitt won here in 2002 -- seriously! The big name in his draw is fellow "what-the-hell-happened?" Andy Roddick. Lleyton won the Stella (That's "Stella!" to Flyer) Artois, so maybe he's back in business.

Roddick, on the other hand, has won cazzo this year. He turns 24 before the U.S. Open -- not Methuselah, to be sure, but certainly time to think about not ending up with that single major on your shelf. 15 years on, pretty much everyone spells Michael Chang's name F-L-U-K-E.

That other Andy -- Andy Murray -- went through Nicolas Massu like a Sidewinder missle. True, Massu is not . . . er, not a grass player's grass player, you might say. But he's a veteran, a journeyman, and he got dusted by the gangly British kid in straight sets. Many a British heart went pitter pat. Tim who?

Let The Real Games Begin (once it stops raining): It's raining everywhere. That can only mean that it's Wimbledon time. Break out your berries and cream and follow along with Razor as he handicaps the tourney:

Mens

Here's who won't win: Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Robredo. Nadal hasn't proven himself off of clay, and I just don't see it. Roddick may very well be done for. Blake -- he's got moxie, but I don't see him winning a major whilst R-Fed is alive.

Here's who could win: Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Ancic, Agassi (never underestimate this guy although his body is telling him that he'll be lucky to make it to Flushing Meadows)

Here's who will win: Federer. He's motivated and he's good. Plus he has history on his side.

Biggest Non-Story: Henman. Sorry, but that ship has foundered long ago.

Biggest Story: Probably Agassi who I think might make it interesting.

Women

Here's who won't win: Mauresmo, Clijsters, Dementieva (no serve), Myskina (I don't know that she can play anymore -- something happened to her after winning the French a few years ago).

Here's who could win: Justine, Sharapova, Hingis (who knows, maybe she makes this her coming out party -- er, coming out again party?),

Here's who will win: Venus -- she's due to play well. She loves Wimby, they love her -- Serena's not around to bother her, and I have to think pride pulls her through.

Biggest Non-Story: The expected Russian domination of the game -- where have they gone?

Biggest Story: Wimby cutting out the low-cut tops on the women. Why don't we just put them in bloomers while we're at it?

The Best There Ever Was: Back when t.v. mattered, there was this. I am already shuddering over the movie re-make....

Sullivan misses the point: Or maybe just avoids it purposefully, but why make it so obvious. In his Email of the Day post yesterday he cites a correspondant who says:

I can't believe you would put the interrogation policies of the Bush administration and the barbaric beheading of another human being on the same moral plane. You wrote today:

"My point is that we can no longer unequivocally condemn the torture of these two soldiers because we have endorsed and practised torture ourselves."

Until you can show me evidence that a U.S. Government interrogator has taken a dull knife, cut into the throat of another man or woman, and sawn through skin, muscle, tendon, and bone until the head of that persons detaches from their neck, please don't make such an intellectually dishonest comparison between these barbarians and our own government.
Our enemies are fundamentalist nihilists. We may have to fight a harder, dirtier war against such a disgraceful enemy. But we still must do what is necessary to win.

Sully replies thus:

This is an honest argument: to fight barbarians, we must become more like them. I disagree; I believe torture is always wrong, and profoundly corrupts the torturing nation that endorses it. I also think that in the short and, even more, in the long run, it will prove our undoing in this war. This is a battle between barbarism and civilization. We cannot destroy our moral compass in order to save it.

At the very end of the email the writer does indicate some vague support for getting a little down and dirty with those who don't fight by Marquis of Queensbury rules, but the overall thrust of his argument is that we don't engage in behavior that in any way resembles the atrocities committed by our foes. We don't cut off heads or otherwise murder our victims, we don't torture enemies, at least not in the same sense of the word. He's basically saying, "We may have to get a little rough from time to time, but this (ed. those who beheaded american soldiers) is torture. And if you can't see the difference maybe you're not so qualified to say who holds the moral high ground."

Andrew totally ignores that accusation and makes a nice attempt to distract the reader with a little rhetorical dodge, offering to legitimize, if not accept, an argument that isn't there ("This is an honest argument."). But it's a cheap trick and is the kind of thing that has pissed off much of his readership.

If it's Friday, this must be a mojito: No, just coffee. The past couple weeks have been pretty hectic, so here's a quick rundown: Michelle Wie still hasn't won anything and proved that when the sponsor's aren't holding the door open, she can't get on the course with the men; Big Ben finally got his head examined, just not in time so do him much good (I'm glad he seems okay, but if he misses one mini-camp I say they start fining him $10,000 a day); al-Zarqawi lost the big game of tag (you're it, no tag-backs, and enjoy your 72 raisins).

Went to Miami on Wednesday and got fried on $9 mojitos (Miami can now officially be cut off from the continent as far as I'm care - what a shit hole). Then went back to the hotel, ate a $50 steak sandwich and passed out. Got rewarded for my genius with a canceled flight home yesterday and an 8 hour wait for a new plane to be brought in, from China, apparently. Now I'm packing to drive to Cleveland for a college friend's wedding. I'm sticking to beer. Maybe they'll have Rolling Rock.

Later.

If it's Friday, this must be a mojito: No, just coffee. The past couple weeks have been pretty hectic, so here's a quick rundown: Michelle Wie still hasn't won anything and proved that when the sponsor's aren't holding the door open, she can't get on the course with the men; Big Ben finally got his head examined, just not in time so do him much good (I'm glad he seems okay, but if he misses one mini-camp I say they start fining him $10,000 a day); al-Zarqawi lost the big game of tag (you're it, no tag-backs, and enjoy your 72 raisins).

Went to Miami on Wednesday and got fried on $9 mojitos (Miami can now officially be cut off from the continent as far as I'm care - what a shit hole). Then went back to the hotel, ate a $50 steak sandwich and passed out. Got rewarded for my genius with a canceled flight home yesterday and an 8 hour wait for a new plane to be brought in, from China, apparently. Now I'm packing to drive to Cleveland for a college friend's wedding. I'm sticking to beer. Maybe they'll have Rolling Rock.

Later.

Why Roger Lost: I've been thinking about it this week. Let's face it, the ice-man put on a pitiful performance. He was unable to think about his game, correct errors before they sank him, or take advantage of Nadal's poor start. Granted, Nadal has whipped Federer on clay all year long, but this was completely winnable for Roger. His momentum coming out of the first set was staggering. The best clay player in the world was wholly unable to read or respond to Federer's game. Nadal is great for his age, but he's still a kid, and Federer is old enough that he should know how to push that momentum against a hot player.

So what does this mean? One word: choke. Federer choked, and will continue to choke against Nadal. For how long? Until he doesn't anymore. For long enough that he's unlikely to win the French, ever. Early in Federer's career, David Nalbandian was his nemesis, a second stringer who consistently beat Federer -- sometimes beat him badly. And not because he was terribly talented, but because Federer would choke against him -- all the while beating top tier players like Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, and Agassi.

Anyhow, it took Federer years -- years of getting past a psychological block, analyzing Nalbandian's game, whatever -- to finally start consistently beating Nalbandian. He doesn't have years to break down the young Nadal, who has the potential to dominate the clay court like nobody since Borg*, who had won the French five times by the time he was Federer's age. Nadal is on that kind of pace.

That said, Federer can win. But he needs to play a clay court game. He needs to take advantage of the unbelievable angles he can put on the ball, his shot placement, and his strong, versitile serve. After the first set, none of those were on regular display on Sunday.

Sometimes players win matches, and sometimes the match is won for them. Nadal had the match won for him. Federer played awful tennis and gave away the victory.

*Of course, it goes without saying that Borg, the original ice-man, dominated nearly everything in his brief career. He won 11 majors in 8 years and went to an additional five major finals -- and retired at 26 (imagine Federer retiring next year, at 26). If he had been as good on hard courts as on grass and clay, it wouldn't even occur to people today that the "best ever" question was open for debate.