We're all in: A look back at the inuagural Laver Cup

Hoisting the Laver Cup / Roger Federer and Team Europe celebrates.

Throughout the tennis world, all eyes were focused on the O2 Arena in Prague last weekend for the inaugural Laver Cup. By all accounts, it was a huge success. For three days it was Europe versus the World – even, if at times, it was more like Europe versus the United States. Still, anytime you have an event where Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are included – let alone teamed as magnetic doubles partners – we're all in.

"I could get used to playing on the same side of the net as @Rafael Nadal," Federer tweeted after he played doubles with Nadal.

At a time when the Davis Cup has failed to adapt, innovate and simplify its format, the Laver Cup – largely the brainchild of Federer – stepped in and made a statement. From its all-star team concept to its innovative scoring – in which the point value of matches increased each day – to the pitch-black court, it seemed tennis fans liked it. So, too, did television audiences – even if it meant for U.S. viewers having to wake as early as 3:30 a.m. on the west coast to watch it. (For those of us living on the east coast, tuning in to see the early matches was still very much a breakfast affair, starting from 6:30 a.m.) 

Just as important, I sensed the players enjoyed participating in the Laver Cup, named after the Australian Hall of Fame great Rod Laver. There was plenty of camaraderie to go around for both teams. To see Federer and Nadal cheering each other on was pure delight. And, in seeing Federer offer some very sound coaching advice to his young teammate, Alexander Zverev, suggested to me that he has a very bright future as a pro tennis coach if he wishes to pursue that avenue.

"It's trying to thread the needle between a fun, unsanctioned event, but not an exhibition," wrote Sports Illustrated executive editor and senior writer Jon Wertheim. "But by and large, it succeeded. The matches were entertaining. The format worked. The players were sufficiently invested. We saw – yet again – that best-of-five is an excess. The black court looked cool. Federer and Nadal playing alongside each other was tremendous."

On the last day of competition, in which each victory was worth three points, the final match of the first Laver Cup came down to Federer facing the mercurial Nick Kyrgios, who shed his bad-boy image and seemed to embrace the team concept. The Swiss provided a nice coda for his memorable season as he won in three sets after facing a match point at 8-9 in the decisive match tiebreaker. 

Final score: Team Europe 15, Team World 9.

"It was a feeling that was on the same level as the biggest moments I've had in my career," said Federer, following his 4-6, 7-6 (6) [11-9] victory over Kyrgios.

It prompted Christopher Clarey, tennis columnist for The New York Times, to write of Federer's reaction: "That is a major statement from a 36-year-old champion who has won a record 19 major singles titles, an Olympic gold medal and Switzerland's first Davis Cup."

Federer and Nadal / A magnetic doubles team.

While the Laver Cup was technically an exhibition – after all, it offered no ATP rankings points or official tour sanctioning – it hardly seemed like one. There were capacity crowds each day and the big arena atmosphere seemed reminiscent of the ATP Finals in London.

"People were questioning if this is going to be an exhibition," said Team Europe's Marin Cilic, after his team swept to an early lead in first day of competition, "but for none of us this is exhibition."

John McEnroe, the former World No. 1 and highly visible (and vocal) on the sidelines as coach for Team World – and never one for a loss of words – said of the Laver Cup: "You've got to be an idiot if you don't think this is something that could be great for tennis. I can't imagine there's a player that played – or didn't play, for that matter, and watched it – who wouldn't think this is something we should be supporting."

Imagine, what it must have felt like for the event's youngest competitors, the 20-year-old Zverev for Team Europe, and Frances Tiafoe, 19, and Denis Shapovalov, 18, for Team World, competing in the inaugural Laver Cup. Each got a taste for what it's like playing in front of a big, enthusiastic crowd on a big tennis stage. And, collectively, they represent the best of the #NextGenATP players.

All of that said, I have a simple suggestion for the future. Although the next Laver Cup will be held at the spacious United Center in Chicago (home of professional basketball's Chicago Bulls and pro ice hockey's Chicago Blackhawks) in September 2018, it is my hope that Team World will try to be more global in its selection of players. Granted this year, Kei Nishikori of Japan was injured, Juan Martin del Potro of Argentina withdrew because he was not sufficiently recovered from the U.S. Open, and Kevin Anderson of South Africa was not available. However, each would help make Team World a more well-rounded squad to go along with Americans such as John Isner, Sam Querrey and Jack Sock, and Kyrgios of Australia. Of course, if Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic are healthy, not to mention Stan Wawrinka, it's scary to imagine the potential depth of Team Europe. Perhaps, the organizers will have to rethink the current geographical concept in order to spread out the wealth of European talent that dominates the current tennis landscape.

Although the Laver Cup came just two weeks after the conclusion of the United States Open and a week following the Davis Cup semifinals, it's placement in an already crowded tennis calendar was welcome. For many of us who follow tennis in the U.S., the United States Open has always been a climatic peak of the season – especially in years when the U.S. has already been eliminated from the Davis Cup. So, witnessing the positive reception of the Laver Cup – whether in person or watching at home on TV – I can't help but think that added up, it gives us all a sense of the great emotion and wonderful team spirit that often is missing in our worldwide sport. Not to mention, thanks to Federer and Nadal, there were some pretty decent feel-good moments, too. 

Photos: Courtesy of Roger Federer's Twitter feed.

But Seriously ... John McEnroe is back and ready to talk

During this month's U.S. Open fortnight, I began reading But Seriously by John McEnroe. It's honest, it's funny, there's no bulls–t. What's not to like, right?

Well, it's been fifteen years since McEnroe's international No. 1 bestseller You Cannot Be Serious, and in reading his new memoir, it's clear that the elder statesman of tennis is ready to talk, again.

McEnroe has alway been seen as someone who is both controversial and beloved. In But Seriously, the tennis Hall of Famer and commentator for ESPN and other American and European networks "confronts his demons and reveals his struggle to reinvent himself from champion and tennis legend to father, broadcaster and author."

As The Guardian wrote in its review of But Seriously, the book reveals McEnroe's "difficulty of living a mature life in the shadow of youthful achievement."

As a tennis player, McEnroe made his mark as a champion during the final two decades of the 20th century. He was always outspoken with his views about tennis and its players during his playing career. Now, he's combined the world of 21st century sport and celebrity through both his commentary and in his writing, too.

In But Seriously, among the many questions and themes which McEnroe tackles are: "Who are the game's winners and losers? What's it like playing guitar onstage with the Rolling Stones, hitting balls with today's greats, confronting his former on-court nemeses, getting scammed by an international art dealer, and raising a big family while balancing McEnroe-sized expectations?"

But Seriously is richly personal and McEnroe is brutally honest in what he shares with us.

"In 2002, when I ended my first book, I was just beginning the process of working out what I was going to do with my life now that I could no longer compete at the highest level as an athlete," writes McEnroe. "Would it still be tennis – playing on the seniors tour, commentating, a bit of coaching – or something else, like art-dealing, or TV, or film? Or something totally different? I had no idea which way my life was heading, but I knew if I wanted to have new experiences that would fire me up the same way being on a tennis court had done, I was going to have to take some major risks.

"I've always needed to feel challenged, to push myself, and I've tried out a lot of different stuff in the intervening fifteen years. Some of it's worked and some of it hasn't, but in life as in sports, it's often the big defeats that teach you the most. If you're too scared of falling flat on your ass, you'll never get out of your chair. And I hope that what I've learned from some of the more laughable calamities I'm going to describe for you on the pages that follow has given me a new perspective on the successes that came before."

Here are some candid excerpts from But Seriously:

On art:
"I love art and as a result know a little more about it than the average person, but I'm no expert. What I would say is that when you look at some of the biggest artists in the world right now, people like Damien Hirst, Takashi Murakami, Richard Prince, Jeff Koons – what's keeping them a step ahead of the competition isn't only their art, it's the fact that each and every  one of them is a brilliant businessman who knows how to maximize the return from their talents." ...

"Collecting art has become a lot more complicated over the years. When I first started buying, I did it on the basis of acquiring things that I liked – that I would want to put on the walls in my house. I thought that was my biggest strength – that I didn't have some kind of dogma I'd learned from studying art history holding me back. With hindsight, that probably hurt me quite a bit, financially. If I had listened to people that knew, who told me to buy certain things at certain times, pieces that I wasn't sure about, I would have done even better. I started to do that after a while, so I wasn't a total moron, but I'd still get stubborn sometimes. And that would cost me."

On commentary:
"Even while I was pursing other career options and interests at the start of the 2000s, I had no intention of turning my back on my work as a commentator. For me, being in the commentary box is an opportunity to have a voice in the game. It won't surprise you that I've got a few things to say  – on doubles, on the lack of serve-volleyers in today's game, on wooden racquets, on let-cord serves, on gamesmanship, on ... Do you want me to go on? As self-appointed 'Commissioner of Tennis,' it is my duty to do that.

"At first I would get upset when people told me I was a better TV commentator than I was a player – it took me years to realize they were paying me a compliment. I started behind the microphone back in 1992, when the dominant style of commentary was incredibly dry and boring (or at least, I thought it was). My timing was good, because tennis on TV was crying out for a change of style." ...

"When it comes to my commentating style, I try to be honest, though I'm always respectful – I hope – of the players I'm watching. Whatever the level of tennis, I know it takes guts to be out there. I don't make it about me, either, so I won't speculate about what I would be going through if I was on court, or compare what's happening on court with what I might have gone through in a similar match. I won't reminisce what it was like for me, say, in my final of 1980 – whatever, because half of the viewers weren't even born then. And anyway, who cares? Viewers want some insight into what they're watching, not some old fart going on about what he might have gone through thirty years before with his wooden racket. Which isn't to say I don't think what I did with that Dunlop wasn't pretty cool at times. I just don't want to keep reminding people."

On music:
"As a teenager, I remember sitting up and taking notice when the girls started screaming for Björn Borg in his first year at Wimbledon. It was like something out of Beatlemania. I began to take the sport I was playing a bit more seriously.

"Once I started going to Europe to play Wimbledon every year I went from being the kid who played the sissy sport to someone who was cool enough to hang out with the British rock stars who'd been my heroes. That was one of my greatest perks when it came to success on the tennis court. I'd never imagined rock guys like Robert Plant being into Wimbledon – that was the opposite of what I would've expected. But the Stones, Zeppelin, all these bands I'd grown up loving – even Tony Iommi of Black Sabbath – were telling me, 'You're great,' or 'Wow, I really respect what you're doing.' I was still only a kid at the time, and I remember thinking, 'Holy sh–t! This is amazing!'"

On artists:
"I have a special appreciation for artists – and stand-up comedians – because, like tennis players, they're out there by themselves. That's part of the reason I love art, because I realize artists have to expose themselves to criticism, just like we do on a court. There's always the potential to embarrass ourselves, and we have to learn how to deal with that. For tennis players, it's not about who hits the tennis ball better, because a lot of people can do that. It's about getting over jet lag, getting over the nerves, getting over fear of failure – and actual failure – among other things, because very rarely do things go the way you want them to.

"For artists, there's this constant process of appraisal and rejection, especially with abstract or conceptual art – 'What the hell is that? It sucks. My kid could do better.' That sort of stuff. So I respect them for putting themselves through that, I admire them for having the guts to put themselves and their work on the line, and as a result I'm interested in them as characters."

On Roger Federer:
"In the summer of 2003, I'd been back in the commentary booth at Wimbledon. No one knew it at the time – least of all me – but as I watched Roger Federer win the first of his seven Wimbledon titles, I was watching the dawn of a new era. What's incredible – with hindsight, and given who he has become – is that back then no one was totally convinced about Federer. Sure, people had been talking about him for a while as the next big thing, especially after he'd beaten Pete Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001. But by this time he was almost twenty-two, and in the Slams he hadn't gotten further than the quarters, so there was a question mark over whether he was ever going to get it together to win one Grand Slam title, let alone eighteen (at the time of this writing!). No one was jumping up and down shouting, 'This guy is going to be the greatest player, just you watch!' Even so, I believe the expectation of what he might be capable of was getting to him. Yes, I know, Roger Federer."

On winning his first Grand Slam:
"Winning your first Slam is always a game-changer for a player – both in your own head and in the way other people see you. Suddenly you're on another level from the other pros, a potential title contender wherever you go. My own first Grand Slam title win was at the U.S. Open in 1979. I was twenty years old, and up against my fellow New Yorker Vitas Gerulaitis, who was four years older than me. This was the guy who had taken me under his wing and become my friend and mentor, and I was feeling uncomfortable about having to play him now in what was the biggest match of either of our careers. The crazy thing was, here we were, two guys from Queens, and we actually got booed by the New York crowd. Why? They'd wanted a Connors-Borg final and we'd gone and spoiled it for them. Too bad. I didn't care. I'd had a great run in the tournament, I'd beaten Connors easily to get to the final, so I felt like it was my year.

"On the day, I was able to put my relationship with Vitas aside and ended up beating him in straight sets. Now I had taken my place at the top along with Connors and Borg. Vitas could've held that against me, but he never did. In fact, he even took me out with him on the night I beat him. Straight after the final he asked me, 'What are you doing later?' I replied, 'What are you doing?' Because I knew whatever he was doing was going to be a hell of a lot better than what I might have planned! I guess there's more than one way to be a winner."

We didn't get Nadal-Federer, but we got Rafa at his best

Rafael Nadal / In celebration of his 16th Grand Slam title.

The U.S. Open fortnight ended Sunday with World No. 1 Rafael Nadal standing alone basking in the glory as the 2017 men's singles champion.

In front of a packed house inside Arthur Ashe Stadium with the roof open on a lovely and sunny late-summer afternoon, Nadal taught a master class in front of more than 22,000 fans with the 28th-seeded Kevin Anderson of South Africa as his chief pupil. That the Spaniard won convincingly, 6-3, 6-3, 6-4, to win his third U.S. Open title and the 16th Grand Slam singles crown in what continues to be a truly remarkable career, wasn't surprising to most of us. Surprising was Sloane Stephens winning the women's singles title a day earlier over Madison Keys in their highly anticipated all American final.

By winning the men's title, the top-seeded Nadal became one of only six players during the Open Era (since 1968) to win at least three U.S. Open men's singles championships. He joined the elite company of Roger Federer, Pete Sampras and Jimmy Connors, who have five each; John McEnroe, who has four; and Ivan Lendl, who has three.

Now, after securing Grand Slam No. 16, Nadal's first title in a hard court tournament since winning at Doha, Qatar, in January 2014 – which moved him to within three of Federer's 19 career Grand Slam titles – it's only natural to ask: How many more Grand Slams can Nadal win? I don't have an answer and I'm not sure Nadal does, either. Only time will tell, but it's certain that as long as he remains healthy and can compete, Nadal has the drive and the determination to keep fighting. And, it's only natural to reopen the GOAT (Greatest of All Time) debate that happens every time either Nadal or Federer adds another title to their respective Grand Slam portfolios.

Following a couple of forgettable years in 2015 and 2016, Nadal has rebounded extraordinarily well, winning five titles and achieving a 56-9 win-loss record – plus, he captured two Grand Slams out of four in 2017 (Roland Garros and the U.S. Open) with the others going to his 36-year-old rival Federer (Australian Open and Wimbledon). And, it should be recognized, Nadal continues to bring so many excellent qualities to tennis's biggest stages. He represents his sport so very well, both inside and outside the lines.

Looking back, while Nadal and Anderson, both 31, arrived at Sunday's U.S. Open final by taking different paths – you accept the way the draw plays itself out – each represented the spirit of true grit and determination. They played and won one match at a time. For Nadal, he expected to be there, chasing after his third U.S. Open men's singles title in his 23rd Grand Slam final. Although he lost a few sets along the way during the earlier rounds – all long since forgotten – he passed all of his tests. Meanwhile, Anderson, who is one of the nicest guys on the men's professional tour, was the lowest-seeded man at No. 28 ever to reach the U.S. Open final, and ranked No. 32, also the lowest-ranked man to make the final since the ATP began its system of computer rankings in 1973 – long before either finalist was born. Definitely, these statistical odds presented a tough challenge for the South African to overcome during his fifth career head-to-head meeting against Nadal.

As they readied to go on court, in their respective pre-match interviews, Nadal described Anderson as "a tough opponent I need to be ready for." Anderson countered by saying: "If you let him control the court, it's going to be very difficult."

As it happened, Anderson was correct in his assessment. Nadal did control the court throughout the duration of their two hour and 27 minute match that started under comfortable conditions with a 73ºF (22.8ºC) temperature and little wind. The first six games of the opening set were characterized by many long rallies that stretched into some very long games. Anderson played 13 deuces during his first four service games alone. However, the pressure continued mounting against him, and on the fifth break-point opportunity, Nadal broke the South African to push ahead 4-3. Then, after a quick hold, he broke again with a nifty drop volley to win the set in 58 minutes.

Although Anderson hit 10 more winners than Nadal did, he committed 15 more unforced errors than Rafa. As Sports Illustrated executive editor and Tennis Channel analyst Jon Wertheim tweeted, "Rafa at his Rafa-est, takes first set. ..." And, in doing so, it was widely noted that Nadal had won 23 straight Grand Slam matches when winning the first set – including 12-1 in major finals. This telling statistic proved to be a pretty good portend of things to come his way.

As Anderson sat down during the change over following the completion of the first set, he was observed re-griping his racquet. It was time for him to reset, too. The mental and physical pressure Nadal applied to him – stroke after stroke – had become painfully evident to everyone watching, both in Ashe and worldwide via television.

Early in the second set, Anderson held for 1-1, his first hold without being taken to deuce. Soon, though, Nadal owned a two-sets-to-zero lead as he won the second set by an identical 6-3 score in just 39 minutes this time. Though his first nine services games, Nadal had lost just seven points – seven! By then, it seemed a matter of time before the King of Clay would be anointed Hero of the Hard Courts. Time for ESPN to cue up Uncle Toni Nadal, Rafa's uncle and longtime coach, for one last Grand Slam interview from Rafa's box. "I'm feeling very good, very happy since it's my last time here," said a cheerful Uncle Toni.

Soon enough, the match would be over without any surprises at the end. When it was, in looking back at the final match statistics, there were some very telling results: Nadal never faced a break point; Anderson, who fired the most service aces during the U.S. Open, was held to just 10; Rafa won 84% (38 of 45) of his first-serve points. Additionally, he broke Anderson four times, hit 30 winners while committing just 11 unforced errors, and was a perfect 16-for-16 in net points won. He outpointed Anderson 102-78. It was a dominating performance.

During the trophy presentation in the on-court, post-match interview, Anderson handled his defeat very graciously. He said all the right things, and did so in a sincere tone of voice. There was nothing phony. "I congratulate Rafa," said Anderson. Turning to him, he said, "You are the greatest ambassador to our sport." He really meant what he said.

Before 2017, Anderson had never advanced beyond the third round in the U.S. Open. But, he rebounded nicely from a hip injury that caused him to miss the Australian Open and saw his world ranking tumble into the eighties. In other Grand Slams before the U.S. Open, he reached the Round of 16 at both Roland Garros and Wimbledon. With Anderson's confidence not to mention his ranking on the rise this summer, reaching the final at the U.S. Open represented his second hard court final to go along with one earlier this summer at the Citi Open in Washington, D.C. In the second week lead up to Sunday, he beat unseeded Paolo Lorenzi in the Round of 16, No. 17 seed Sam Querrey in the quarterfinals and No 12 seed Pablo Carreño Busta in the semifinals. All went four sets. He gained confidence with each new victory. Then, it all came crashing down against Nadal. Truth be told, however I'm not sure anyone could have beaten Nadal on Sunday.

Anderson told ESPN's Chris McKendry during the on-court interview that he looks forward to coming back next year, building upon this season's achievements. "I can take away a lot of positives. It was a tough match today against a pretty good opponent, but I'm pleased how everything turned out these two weeks," he said.

Rafael Nadal clutches his third U.S. Open
championship trophy on Sunday.

Then, it was Nadal's turn to step forward and receive both his winner's trophy and prize money, and to address the appreciative crowd celebrating his latest glory in this, the 20th anniversary of the opening of Arthur Ashe Stadium. He said, "It's very special to win. I say congrats to Kevin. You came back better than every from your injuries."

Nadal called 2017 an "unbelievable year." He said, "Winning here is one of the events that brings me high energy. It makes me very happy." Then, McKendry asked Nadal what lesson he would take away from being coached for so many years by his Uncle Toni. "I can't thank him enough for all the things he did for me. He pushed me all the time and motivated me. He's the most important person in my life," said Rafa.

Finally, Nadal was given the opportunity to address his fans in his native Spanish language. He kept it simple, but showed much sincerity. Smiling to the crowd, he said, "Gracias todo el mundo!" Translated, it means "Thank you world!" That kind of says it all, doesn't it?

Looking back, Wertheim summed up the feelings of many, including yours truly, when he tweeted, "We didn't get Federer-Nadal at the U.S. Open, but if Rafa at his best – healthy, awash in confidence – is the consolation prize, sign us up."

Photos: Courtesy of Google images.