Slammin' Sammy

Obviously, if a fortune-teller had told Sam Stosur before the French Open that she would play in the final but lose, she'd have taken that outcome happily. But as she fought for her composure during the presentation ceremony on Saturday night you could tell how shattered she was, not only to lose the French Open final but to lose the French Open final to the player she did. Usually the bolter in a tournament - in both the men's and women's game - has to take down one of the big beasts in the final. But as we now know, none of them were there on Saturday night because Sam had taken out three of the biggest on the way. This is certainly not meant to disrespect Schiavone, but to lose to a player ranked beneath her, after beating those she did, must gall Stosur - even though the outcome of her Paris fortnight must be a massive confidence boost. So, was the strategy for the final right? To get on to the forehand at all costs, to go for the booming off-forehand so hard that she was regularly standing outside the tram-tracks on the follow-through? If so, the shot has to be unreturnable - and if a minuscule tightening meant that it wasn't, it was easy meat for a feisty swinger like Schiavone simply to drive through the ball. And couldn't it have been varied a bit, to go up the line? But full marks must go to Schiavone, whose tactics were excellent. Her depth approaching Stosur's shaky backhand was impeccable: and once she sensed that the result of that depth was highly likely to be a chipped floater coming back up the centre, it was goodnight. In contrast, Sam wasn't getting any reward for her own depth, because of the Italian's manic half-volleying off the baseline. Another thing that struck me was that once the momentum turns in the women's game, it is far too difficult to get it back; whereas the men can spend a set or even two simply hanging in there, waiting for the storm of groundstrokes from the other end to blow itself out. So, do they deserve five?

Shaky ‘Roos

Was it the Ruimsig pitch - the Etihad Stadium of South Africa? Was it the fact that the squad was understandably upset for ‘keeper Brad Jones, who has left he squad to return to his family because of his son's serious illness? (A development which, of course, makes all these kinds of concerns meaningless.) I hope it was a combination of both, because I thought there were highly worrying signs from the friendly against the USA. I admit that I have been gunning for them ever since their former coach Bruce Arena made his famous comment before the 2006 World Cup that Australia (along with Trinidad & Tobago) would be the "easy games" of that tournament. It wasn't enough for me that the USA went home after the first round and Australia did not: we have not played them since then (actually, not since a 0-0 draw in 1998), and even though they are ranked No.14 to Australia's 20, I wanted the Socceroos to put them further back in their box. But the pace from the likes of Findley and Buddle stretched the Australians worryingly, as did some of the Yanks' intricate passing moves, and caused what looked like panic in the Australian defence several times. Vince Grella in particular will not enjoy watching the tape of himself being caught in possession in consecutive games. On the attacking front, Australia had plenty of chances to score, getting unmarked players into the box frequently, but the familiar last-touch frailty meant that these were not seized. Already there seems to be an unhealthy reliance on Cahill to score. It is not only worrying that Harry Kewell and Brett Emerton have not made it onto the pitch yet in South Africa: having now watched the ‘Roos closely against New Zealand, Denmark and the USA, my nagging doubt is that the team doesn't look to have gelled. They don't instinctively know where each other will be. However, under Verbeek, I certainly don't think that is through lack of work on this essential quality. We'll know soon enough.

Issy Capable?

It will be fascinating to watch Israel Folau in his attempt to learn to play Australian Rules football at the highest level. The consensus does not under-estimate his athleticism, co-ordination, power or his ability to adapt his fitness to the stamina required, but seems to balk at his ability to learn the things that can't be taught - the reading of the game as it unfolds, and the instinct that the best have for where the ball is going to be. One thing is for certain, after seeing him demolish Manly, there is no doubt that he sees what is happening in the game that he does play seconds before most others on the field. There is a lot made about the transition from a 180:180 game like the rugby codes to a 360-degree game like Australian Rules, but in the latter, you still have to move laterally and forward, and you need acute spatial awareness. Certainly Folau knows where the ball is in the air, he knows where an oval ball is going to bounce, he knows where the players around him are going and more importantly, he knows all this before it happens. I think he will surprise AFL followers.

Playing angry

It was always going to be difficult for the Melbourne Storm to head into the den of their most fervent, rabid enemies, Parramatta. Already we have seen this year that playing away from home is getting harder and harder for the Storm, but whipped up by the vitriol of the Daily Telegraph, the Parramatta fans (all 7000 of them: and they say the AFL is going to struggle to pull a crowd in western Sydney) were out in full (figurative) lynch-mob frenzy on Friday night. With the Jarryd Hayne-Billy Slater rivalry bringing some simmering, genuine niggle to on the park, the anti-Storm sentiment - which surely will be officially licensed as an NRL approved product - boiled over in the stands. While I do think, as I wrote last week in this column, the Storm is sticking relentlessly to its core principles in the way that it plays the game, and improving those, the fact is that it does not play in a vacuum, and opposing sides sense that their nothing-to-lose mentality can be turned against them. Certainly Cameron Smith's on-field comments to referee Tony Archer (see ‘Video of the Day" at right) can be read as a nihilistic statement: as in, "we know we can't win the game in the sense of gaining the two premiership points, so if they start the niggle, we don't care if all 13 of us are sent off one by one." The combination of away-crowd abuse and a knowledge that this is how the Storm thinks on the field virtually guarantees that opposition sides will ramp up the physical irritation through the remainder of the season - which, on other nights, may suit the Storm. A special mention should be made here of referee Archer, who did a good job in the kitchen on Friday night.

Who'd be a coach?

I wonder if there has ever been a game with 18 changes of lead, as Sydney and Essendon served up yesterday. You have to feel for the coaches when that happens: particularly when the game is up for grabs with a handful of minutes left, and any mistake is going to be crucial to the result. Twice the ball is kicked to contests, Sydney going forward: twice the Essendon players involved all get carried by their momentum past the contest, but that's not where the ball goes, and what's worse, your opponent has men where the ball ends up. Then, Michael Hurley closes on the ball carrier, Jude Bolton, but chooses to apply a bump to the upper body rather than smother the disposal - which I think too many players do these days. So a game is lost, a place in the eight is surrendered, and another sleepless night is given to the coach.