Day Four: Saturday, July 4, 2009
(Updates
throughout the day)
By Larry Hodges
|
Men's Semifinals and Final
(Thomas Keinath, Adrian Crisan, Andrei Filimon) Semifinal #1: Wang Zhen (CAN) vs. Thomas Keinath (SLK) Thomas Keinath may have the most interesting game in table tennis. His strokes are awkward looking, probably the most ragged you'll see in high-level table tennis. Yet they work beautifully. He's also one of the fastest players around, able to stand at the table and take full swings at balls most others would either block or back off the table. His game is often hit or miss, as he flips and rips ball after ball. Keinath may be ranked "only" #62 in the world, but when his shots hit, his opponents are in deep trouble. (Note that Keinath recently moved from Germany to Slovakia, and now represents them.) Facing Keinath was Wang Zhen, the smooth power looper and #1 player from Canada, the one who overpowered #1 seed and defending champion Chen Weixing the round before. From the start, Keinath was the main aggressor. When Wang attacked, Keinath would counter-attack, often by looping from both wings from over the table, other times with backhand kills or forehand counterloops from a few steps back. They were often hit or miss. Keinath's return of serve is also one of the most aggressive as he goes for more flip kills off serves than just about anybody. Throughout the match, Wang never looked comfortable, not like he did in his earlier matches. In game one, suffice to say that Keinath's shots did not hit. Game to Wang, 11-4. In game two, suffice to say that Keinath's shots did hit. Game to Keinath, 11-3. Down 1-2, Keinath only lost one more point. Game three was a bit closer: 3-3, 4-4, 5-5, 6-6, 8-6 for Keinath, 8-8. Then boom-boom-boom, Keinath has blistered another win, 11-8. The most interesting thing about game four was at 2-5, when Keinath served four let balls in a row. As to the scores, it was an 11-5 blitz by Keinath. Wang just doesn't seem to be in the match, spends most of the time watching Keinath's balls blast by him. In the fifth, Wang finally begins to establish his attack, and Keinath seems to slow down his blitzkrieg a bit. Down 6-9, Keinath scores three in a row to 9-all. In one of the points, he's forced off the table, fishes one back, stumbles to the floor, and manages to get up to return another ball that Wang misses. Wang now serves, and for once, Keinath doesn't attack the serve, instead pops the ball up with a weak push that any intermediate player would kill. Perhaps caught off guard by such an easy shot, Wang backhand kills it off! He says a few choice words - I didn't catch them - and is yellow carded. Then Keinath ends the match in true Keinath fashion: Wang rips a loop that perhaps ten people on the planet would consistently touch, and Keinath counterloops a winner, barely stepping back to do so. Match to Keinath, -4,3,8,5,9. Afterwards, I spoke to Keinath about playing Wang, who he had played many times before, including beating him 4-2 a week before at the Florida Open. "He is always coming back, he fights very hard," Keinath said. "This time I pulled a new tactic against him, but I can't tell you what it is. It's a secret." Semifinal #2: Andrei Filimon (ROM) vs. Adrian Crison (ROM) Both are righty shakehand loopers. Crison (world #32) is more a two-winged looper, with a powerful and spinny backhand loop as well as a great backhand block. He's extremely steady, rarely gives up a free point, and often doesn't seem to be doing much as he floats to each ball and spins it back. Filimon (world #98) is more a forehand looper. He'll run all over the court ripping forehands, a true acrobat. He forces the attack, and so makes more mistakes. Because he's often out of position trying to force the forehand, and so ends up playing a lot of topspin defense, often getting back on the attack with a counterloop, usually with the forehand but sometimes on the backhand as well. As seemed to happen in many of the feature matches here, whoever took the lead lost the game. In game one, Crison led 9-7, lost three in a row, and ended up losing 10-12. In game two, the plague on whoever leads got worse. A 10-5 lead for Filimon is insurmountable, right? How about 11-10? Game two to Crison - yes, Crison - 13-11. Wow! Crison's loops are noticeably stronger than before - he's power-looping, not just spinning like before. Crison continues his roll in game three, as does the plague on leaders. Okay, Filimon's 3-2 lead isn't much, but he'll only score two more as Crison wins 11-6. In game four, Filimon again leads 3-2, but Crison scores the next five (7-3) and wins 11-5. In game five, Filimon leads 3-1. Then it's 4-4, 10-4 for Crison, who wins again, 11-5. Match to Crison, -10,11,6,5,5. "We've been playing together for twenty years," said 29-year-old Crison after the match. "We know each other's game so well, we know all the tactics against each other. Sometimes we play great against each other. Today we made too many mistakes." Final: Thomas Keinath (SLK) vs. Andrei Filimon (ROM) Due to the length of the earlier feature matches, things are way behind, and the Men's Final - scheduled for 8:00 PM - starts over an hour late. Worse, there's a Fourth of July fireworks display going on outside. It's like playing table tennis in a war zone. And yet neither player minded. "They played fireworks during a match in China," Keinath said. "And the crowds at big tournaments are louder than fireworks." I'm glad it didn't bother them - the crashing sounds during points drove me nuts, and I was only taking notes. Once again, when Keinath goes on a roll, there's no stopping him. Until halfway through the fourth game, he was on a roll. In game on, he leads 10-5, win 11-8. In game two, from 4-4, it's 6-4, 6-5, 11-5 for Keinath. Unless Filimon can inject him with tranquilizers, Keinath is going to blitzkrieg this match.
Keinath goes up 6-2 in the fourth with another exhibition of shot-making. Then he became human. He began to miss, to play soft, and Filimon took advantage: 5-6, 7-7, 7-9, 9-all. Keinath serve and rips one, but Crison blocks back a winner to go up 10-9. Keinath serve and rips again, and this time Crison counterloops off, 10-all. Keinath spins a serve back (for once not a power loop), and Crison counterloops off. Keinath serve and loops two, and Crison counterloops off. And so game, match, U.S. Open Men's Singles title and $6000 to Keinath in straight games, 8,5,7,10. ($3000 to the runner-up, $1200 for the semifinals, $500 for the quarters, $200 to the eighths.) "My receive and serve were off today," Crison said afterwards. "I had no feel for the ball when I served and returned serve." I asked Keinath about his tactics. "I played mostly to his forehand, because his backhand is stronger than his forehand." I asked him how what type of training he did to allow himself to take full swings so quickly. He said, "Without glue, I have to swing harder at the ball. So I do even more physical training away from the table. Weight training, running. You need to develop strong torso muscles to rotate quickly." And so another U.S. Open comes to an end, the fireworks outside unable to drown out the cheering crowd inside. |
|
Women's Semifinals and Final
(Gao Jun, Elisabeth Samara, Tanja Hain-Hofmann, Daniela
Dodean) Semifinal #1: Gao Jun (USA) vs. Elisabeth Samara (ROM) Gao's dead block is deadly. The more you watch her play, the more you realize there's a lot going that's hard to see from the sidelines. If you watch closely, you begin to see the variety of touch blocks, chop blocks, sidespin blocks, jab blocks, and who knows how many others types she has. She keeps her opponents tied up in knots. Some players do deceptive shots; Gao is decisively deceptive on every shot. And yet, every now and then she faces an opponent who seems less affected by these blocks, and battles Gao (the defending U.S. Open Women's Singles Champion) to the end. That was Elisabeth Samara, the steady topspinning lefty from Romania, world #36 to Gao's #19 (and former #3). Samara played with no coach, while USA Women's Coach Doru Gheorghe was in Gao's corner. Serves made a big difference in this match. Samara had excellent serves, which gave Gao problems, especially early on. Gao's a master at mixing up her serves, but her fast & deep one was especially effective this match. Often she'd follow it with a dead block, followed by a forehand smash. Samara took a 5-2 lead in the first, and held it to the end, 11-7. She'd spin over and over until she'd get a ball to put away or Gao would miss. Often Gao would run her all over the court - both side to side and in and out - and she'd run everything down a loop it back. The two played even in the second until 6-6. Gao pulled ahead 8-6, 8-7, 11-7 to tie things up. Up 4-3 in the third, Samara tried the sidespin push shot I'd written about earlier. Gao smashed it, and I don't think she tried it again. Down 5-6, Samara scored four in a row to lead 9-6, then 10-7. Gao played two rare all-out attack points to pull to 10-9, then blocked off as Samara won 11-9 to go up 2-1 in games. In the fourth, Gao's fortunes began to dribble away early as Samara net dribbled the first ball back for a winner. Down 1-3, Gao scored seven in a row to get an insurmountable 8-3, then 9-4 lead. Seven points later, Samara had shocked Gao, the crowd, and the world by coming back to win 11-9 and take an insurmountable 3-1 lead in games. (Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Google it, and yes, I'm using "insurmountable" instead of "inconceivable.") Samara took a 4-1 lead in the fifth. Gao proved it was not insurmountable by scoring five in a row. Samara tied it at 6-6, but Gao pulled away, 11-7. In the sixth, Gao led all the way to an 11-7 win, her third 11-7 win this match, and the fourth 11-7 game overall. So we moved on to the seventh and final game. Samara quickly went up 2-0, then it was 4-4, 5-5, then 7-5 and 8-6 for Samara. Gao ties it at 8-all, then 9-all. Gao served and smashed Samara's push to get match point, 10-9. Samara deuces it with a net ball to the cries of disappointment from USA fans. But luck goes both ways, and after smashing three balls in a row, Gao smashes on the edge to get match point #2. When Samara pushes Gao's serve off the end, Gao has survived and advanced, -7,7,-9,-9,7,7,10. When I asked Gao about the match, all she said was, "I just got lucky." Semifinal #2: Tanja Hain-Hofmann (GER) vs. Daniela Dodean (ROM) Both of these players are rightly loopers, and much of the match was counterlooping. Tanja, who earlier won Under 2600, has a deadly inside-out forehand pendulum serve that gave everyone great difficulty. For much of the match, Daniela pushed or chop-blocked it back; later on, she began to backhand spin it back. Daniela, world #33, is only 19, but she's the favorite over Tanja, world #111. Due to the long Gao-Samara match, the main arena matches were falling behind, and the last thing needed was another long match. Which is exactly what we got. In the first, Tanja had two ads to Daniela's three. Tanja converted her second chance to win, 15-13. In the second, Daniela led 7-2. At 7-3, we entered a very strange sequence - call it a "push into net" sandwich, with net winners as the bun. Tanja gets a net winner (7-4); Daniela pushes the ball into net three times in a row (7-7, the last two pushes off Tanja's serve); then Tanja completes the sequence with another net winner and her sixth point in a row as she now leads 8-7. Soon it is 9-all. From there on, Daniela pushed the ball into the net twice, served into the net up game point, and still managed to get five ads (one via a net winner). Tanja had only two ads, didn't convert either, and down 15-16, served into the net as Tanja wins 17-15 to even the match. We've now played 60 points but only two games. These are games to 11, right? In the third, at 8-all, Daniela scores three in a row to win and go up 2-1 in games. In the fourth, again at 8-all, Daniela makes her move, but only scores two points to get two games points, 10-8. She also leads 12-11, but it's not enough as Tanja wins another long one, 14-12, to even things at 2-2. Tanja seems the aggressor in most points, but Daniela's topspin defense and blocking are excellent, and she's pretty strong on the attack as well. At 6-6 in the fifth, Tanja scores five in a row, so we finally have a rather quick game. But things return to "normal" in the sixth. Up 4-3, Tanja is lobbing, and Daniela whiffs a smash! She smartly calls a timeout. But it's to no avail as Tanja goes up 7-3, 9-6, 10-8. Daniela gets an edge, then Tanja misses, and (surprise!) we're at deuce again. Tanja has three ads (including the two at 10-8), Daniela has only one, but that's all she needs. Up 12-11, Daniela wins with a net ball, and we're into the seventh. In the seventh, at 3-3, Daniela gets a net to lead 4-3. From there on, it's all Tanja, who scores six in a row to lead 9-4 on her way to winning 11-6. So Tanja Hain-Hofmann moves on to the final, 13,-15,-8,12,6,-11,6. I asked Tanja about her serves. She said that for many years, she has practiced them every chance. She also said she likes to practice them against the top men to see how they return them. Final: Gao Jun (USA) vs. Tanja Hain-Hofmann (GER) Listen when Gao hits the ball with her slow racket and pips, and you'll hear a "clunk" sound, unlike anything you'll hear when other top players hit the ball with their highly tensored sponge surfaces. It's a sound that brings terror to many an opponent. Such as Tanja. And yet it was Tanja who, down 2-6 in the first (losing one on a service fault for not tossing ball up six inches), scored six in a row, led 10-8, and finally won 12-10 in the first. In the second, it was Tanja who led 6-2. At 8-all, Gao missed a push - she seemed to be missing a lot - then flipped the serve for a winner, 9-all. Gao wins a point blocking, and it's Tanja's serve, down 9-10. The price of tricky serves is they sometimes miss, and her served nicked the net and went off as Gao won, 11-9. Down 1-3 in the third, Tanja is again faulted, 1-4. She is not happy, but scores the next two points, 3-4. Then Gao scores six in a row, and wins 11-4. It's a streaky match. Gao leads 2-0 in the fourth, and Tanja scores eight in a row. At 2-2 and again at 2-7, Gao is faulted for serving with the ball over the table. She is not happy, and neither is Coach Doru, who calls for Referee Bill Walk. After a "consultation," play continues. Up 8-2, Tanja wins 11-6 to even the match 2-2. The streakiness continued in game six. Tanja leads 5-2, and loses seven in a row, including serving into the net twice in a row, as Gao wins 11-7. The streakiness continued in game seven, but to a lesser degree. Down 4-6, Gao scored four in a row to lead 8-6. At 8-all, Gao serve and smashed (9-8), blocked three balls from five feet back to win a point (10-8), and wins the final point when she opens and Tanja blocks off. So the match and title goes to Gao Jun, -10,9,4,-6,7,8. It's her third title here - she's also won Over 30 Women and Over 40 Women - and it's her third U.S. Open Women's Singles title, winning last year and way back in 1994. After the match, Tanja said, "I had leads, but couldn't hold them she's very tough to play because of her pips. She plays very smart." She said she had played Gao once before, and lost either 4-2 or 4-3. Gao said, "She's a very steady spinner, tough to play." When I asked her about the service faults, she was very animated in her annoyance. And there did seem to be an epidemic of service faults at this tournament, especially for serving with the ball apparently over the table. I mentioned in an earlier article that U.S. umpires seem to go by the letter of the law, while European and Asian umpires tend to be more lenient and not call faults unless it's rather blatant and gives one player a real advantage. Some have trouble understanding this attitude, and believe that if a serve is illegal, it should be faulted. There's nothing wrong with that thinking, yet one should understand the view from overseas. Think of the service rule as a speed limit on a highway. If the speed limit is 55, then if you drive 56, you are clearly over the limit, and should get a speeding ticket. Yet nobody really believes that, and few get tickets unless they go at least ten miles or so over the limit. That is how many overseas umpires see the service rules, and why they call fewer service faults. |
|
Over 30
(Thomas Keinath) After reaching the final without losing a game - winning by scores of 3,8,5,8,7,7,2,3,5 (yes, 2,3,5 in the semifinals), you'd think Slovakia's Thomas Keinath, #62 in the world, would have little trouble with Canada's Xavier Therien, #523 in the world. Now the world rankings aren't always accurate, and Therien is rated 2583, but Keinath has a lofty 2770 rating. And Therien barely made it past the quarterfinals, where he squeaked by Niraj Oak (TX, rated 2495), 8,6,-5,-4,9, in a match where he was outscored 45-42. All this buildup, of course, means that Keinath did not easily win in the final. Perhaps he even lost? Therien defeated second-seeded Gao YanJun (rated 2622) in the semifinals, -9,8,6,10. And so he met the heavy favorite, the two-winged rip-looping Keinath. Since I missed the match - played at the same time as the Women's Doubles final - we'll let the scores tell the tale. 7,-10,-8,5,11. And the winner by a fraction of a nose . . . from down 8-10 double match point . . . Thomas Keinath. At said 8-10 match point, I'm told Keinath pulled out a new serve that Therien pushed way, way off the table. Keinath told me later that he was feeling really confident after playing so well in the semifinals, but Keinath had very tricky serves. At 9-10, he said he looped the serve, but right into Keinath's backhand; if he'd placed it to the middle, he might have won. |
|
Hardbat Singles (Note - all hardbat games are to 21.)
(Trevor Runyan) Trevor Runyan (CA) continued his domination of this event, winning for the fourth straight time at the U.S. Open or Nationals. He didn't lose a game in his six matches. In the quarterfinals, he defeated Dean Norman (OH) at 8,13,8. In the semis, he had a tougher match with Freddie Gabriel (CA), but after a first-game struggle, won at 20,13,17. On the other half of the draw, Canada's Homayoun Kamkar-Parsi, the top seed with a 2602 rating (to Trevor's 2420 and Freddie's 2374), was struggling. In the quarters, he barely won against Walter Alomar of Puerto Rico (rated 2162), -20,17,-15,12,15. In the semis, he struggled with the chopping and pick-hitting of Chance Friend of Texas (2358), 16,-17,16,-20,17.
|
|
Men's Doubles Germany's Joerg Rosskopf and Austria's Chen Weixing, seeded #1, coasted to the final without a serious challenge, defeating Constantin Cioti (ROM) and Thomas Keinath (SVK) in the semifinals at 8,6,6,12. The other half of the draw was more tightly contested.
In the eighths, the unseeded Korean team of Kim Sang Soo (righty shakehand looper) and Lee Dong Hee (righty penhold looper) barely took out the Georgia - the state, not the country - team of Carlos Ko and Kim Bong Geun, winning at 8,-10,-11,7,9,6. In the quarterfinals, they upset the third-seeded team of Stefan Feth (USA, formerly of Germany) and Peter Franz (GER), 10,8,-4,9,-6,-9,9. Then they upset the second-seeded team of Adrian Crisan/Andrei Filimon (ROM) in straight games in the semifinals, 8,7,7,10.
And so the Koreans met the Europeans in the final. Many of the points were fascinating as Chen and Rosskopf would alternate backspin and topspin defense. Rosskopf's receive was also an education in deceptively angled flips, often with sidespin breaking away from the opponent.
The Koreans started the match wearing matching white 2009 U.S. Open t-shirts. After game four, the pink team shirts apparently arrived, and they changed into them. The backs said, "Hi Seoul! Soul of Asia."
The Europeans led the first 9-6 when Chen was faulted - as he'd been three times when he lost in the quarterfinals of singles. But the Europeans won the game 11-7, and led 9-0 in the second. At 9-1, Lee was faulted, to the seeming disgust of the Europeans. Rosskopf promptly swatted a ball into the net, apparently to give the point back, making it 10-2, then creamed a backhand loop to win, 11-2. In the third, Europe led 5-3, and won 11-3. With a 5-0 European lead in the fourth, the match was about to end. 9-5, 10-7 . . . and with help from an edge at 10-8, it was 10-all! At 11-all, the Europeans were on defense two points in a row, and the Koreans won both to force another games. Was it a blip or were we in for a real match? In the fifth, the Europeans led 3-0, 7-3, 11-4. Answer: blip. Match to the Europeans, 7,2,3,-11,4. "We've never played together before," Rosskopf said afterwards.
Then he spoke at length about how unhappy he was with the umpiring and all the faults called at the U.S. Open. Are the umpires right to call these faults? I don't know; someone with a video would have to check for this as I can't tell from the stands. A lot of the seemingly large number of faults called were about players starting the serve with the ball over the table. Rosskopf and Chen both said faults are very rare in European and Asian tournaments. My impression is U.S. umpires are strict adherents to the letter of the law, while European and Asian umpires rarely call faults unless a player gains a meaningful advantage from serving illegally. Which is the better approach? You decide.
|
|
Women's Doubles The New York team of Wang Yingyue/Jennifer Yue Wu were the giant killers in the event, at least until the final. In the quarterfinals, they upset the second-seeded German team of Amelie Solja/Tanja Hain-Hofman, 9,9,6,-8,-5,6. In the semifinals, they upset the third-seeded team of Stephanie Yuen/Sara Yuen (CAN), 9,-7,6,-4,6,4.
(Daniela Dodean, Elisabeth Samara, Wu Yue, Wang Yingyue, Judy Hoarfrost) The Romanian team of Elisabeth Samara/Daniela Dodean had little trouble reaching the final, winning their quarterfinal over Zheng Jiaqi/Mai Gei Jie (CA), 4,9,-9,11,2, and the semifinals over Jackie Lee/Dora Kurimay (CA), 6,4,8,-8,5. (The latter had upset the fourth-seeded team of Judy Hugh/Stephanie Shih -NY/NJ - in the eighths, -7,9,6,4,6.) So the final was between the top-seeded Romanian team and New York, with all four players inverted shakehand loopers. Wang Chen coached the New York team. "This is their first time playing together," she said. "Both are righties, so they have to move a lot more, so difficult for them to play well." The Romanians, with lefty Samara (world #36) and Dodean (world #33) were experienced together, and it showed, especially in the key points. But the New Yorkers - Wu (rated 2614) and Wang (rated 2527) were no slouches. I thought the play of Samara most interesting. Over and over she employed an angled sidespin push receive (her racket going from right to left, the push usually going to the New Yorker's wide backhand) that gave the New York team great difficulties. She also had tricky serves, which were popped up or missed over and over. She also threw in a number of fast & deep serves, catching the opponents off guard. The Romanian team won the first game of this best of
seven, leading 10-9 and winning 12-10. They won the close second game 11-9,
and mostly ran away with the third, leading 9-4, 9-7, 11-7. In the fourth,
Romania led 8-4, then it was 8-all. Romania again led 10-8 match point, with
Samara serving with her tricky serves. The Romanians seemed to win the first
point several times, but the New Yorkers held off their attack, and soon
counterattacked and won the point, and the next to reach 10-all. But Wang
missed a loop, and then Samara ended it with a spectacular backhand loop
kill. Match and title to the Romanians, 10,9,7,10.
(Post game interview) |
|
Junior Boys By the quarterfinals, there was only one USA player left - Marcus Jackson - and he wasn't long for the draw, losing to India's Sourav Saha, 4,3,9. Five of the quarterfinalists were from India. In the semifinals, two Indians met in one semifinal, with an Indian meeting a Canadian in the other.
(Sourav Saha) Saha won his all-India semifinal over teammate Ramesh
Venkatraman in a five-game battle, -5,3,9,-4,4. In the other semifinal, Nitin
Vasanthphillips took out the last non-India, defeating Canada's Andre Ho at
6,7,8. In the all-Indian final, it was Vasanthphillips over Saha, 8,7,3.
Forget China, Korea, Europe; India is on the rise!
(Nitin
Vasanthphillips, Ramesh Venkatraman) |
|
Worlds and Olympics Here at the U.S. Open are a huge gathering of players, coaches, officials, and spectators, many with long histories in our sport. So I began to wonder - how much Worlds and Olympic experience do we have here? So I went around and asked. Below is a highly unofficial and unscientific sampling of how many Worlds and Olympics these people have been to in any capacity. (Some of them could only give estimates after going through the years, trying to remember just how many.) Anyone else at the U.S. Open who's been to at least 6 Worlds or 4 Olympics? If so, email me at larry@larrytt.com, and we'll add you to the list. Who's the ultimate winner? For the Worlds, Houshang Bozorgazadeh romped. He has been to every Worlds since 1957, except for 1975, which (according to our quick count - anyone want to check?) would be an even 30. Originally he went as a player on the Iranian team, then as a coach, manager and/or official from the U.S. He's also been to four Olympics. Honorable mentions go to Doru Gheorghe and Tim Boggan (18 Worlds), Stellan Bengtsson (16 Worlds) and Azmy Ibrahim and Joerg Rosskopf (15 Worlds)
(Houshang Bozorgazadeh) The "Olympic Champion" is none other than 1992 Men's Doubles Silver Medalist and 1996 Men's Singles Bronze Medalist Joerg Rosskopf of Germany with five. Honorable mentions with four Olympics go to Houshang Bozorgazadeh, Gao Jun, and Doru Gheorghe. Name Worlds Olympics H. Bozorgzadeh 30 4 Doru Gheorghe 18 4 Tim Boggan 18 1 Stellan Bengtsson 16 1 Joerg Rosskopf 15 5 Azmy Ibrahim 15 2 Gao Jun 12 4 Bob Fox 10 4 Zhang Li 10 2 Mal Anderson 10 0 Li Zhenshi 9 2 Angie Bengtsson 9 0 Diego Schaaf 9 0 Nobuyuki Shirakawa 8 3 Cheng Yinghua 7 2 Lily Yip 7 2 Wendell Dillon 6 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
blitz continues in game three as Keinath goes up 7-2. Is there any ball he
can't loop or hit a winner off of? What can Filimon do when his best shots
come back as winners before he finishes his own follow through? Game three to
Keinath, 11-7. 
In
the final, it was all Trevor, 11,13,15. Lefty Homayoun has a strong backhand,
about the same as Trevor's, but Trevor has a much stronger forehand,
especially in following up his serve. Trevor's pendulum serve is almost the
same in hardbat as with sponge, and almost as effective. In general, he's
just more comfortable playing hardbat, while Homayoun never looked quite as
comfortable - though his crosscourt backhands to Trevor's forehand were often
vicious. "I played hardbat at a tournament in Ohio a few months
ago," Homayoun said, "and so decided to try it at the Open."
Both players played nearly all attack, though both could chop when forced
too, which was rare. 
